TROUBLE WITH THE CURVE (2012)
Clint Eastwood explores the joys of senility in Trouble with the Curve, a ho-hum dramedy about Gus, an aging scout for the Atlanta Braves, and his estranged daughter Mickey (Amy Adams), a type A lawyer. The two haven’t seen each other in years, but when Gus starts having some medical issues that affect his work, Mickey takes it upon herself to put her job on hold to look after her father. The story is basically a father-daughter bonding session over baseball, with a side dish of sexy back Justin Timberlake as a smooth talking ex-baseball player turned scout for the Boston Red Sox. Seems like a pretty good story at first glance, and it actually does have some potential, only it is squandered by a really lousy script.
I don’t really know what possessed me to rent this film. Maybe it was my love of Amy Adams or the irresistible Timberlake. Whatever it was, it sure wasn’t because I have any particular interest in baseball. In fact, I really don’t enjoy baseball at all. I find it tedious and boring and I just don’t get it. But I figured, hey, I’ve seen Moneyball. I can probably sit through another baseball flick. Despite the ever-endearing Adams and the über charismatic Timberlake however, this film really isn’t very good. It’s chock full of eyeroll-worthy clichés, lazy writing and cheesiness out the wazoo. Even the rom-com lover in me couldn’t take the unimaginative and forced attempt at romance in this film.Some of the romantic scenes in the film were so painfully formulaic they became cringe-worthy. How many times am I going to have to watch a character go skinny dipping in an effort to show off how free-spirited they are?
The whole film was basically Clint Eastwood being old and Amy Adams trying her best to lend some depth to this otherwise kiddie pool-shallow story. I’m still trying desperately to forget the opening scene involving Clint Eastwood goading his penis to pee. After the nth old joke, I just about had it and was ready to quit. Were it not for the dashing Mr. Timberlake, I don’t know if I would have held on for as long as I did. Poor JT was doing everything right, but he was saddled with not a whole lot of character to work with and some seriously cheesy scenarios. He and Amy Adams had great chemistry, but their romance seemed too forced.
I wish that this film spent more time making a serious case for the disappearing art of talent scouting. Instead, the movie seemed too preoccupied making this about the drama between the estranged father and daughter, as well as pushing for the rom-com aspect of it. I was more interested in the differences between scouting players in-person and having the statistics do the work for you, and this is coming from someone who had zero interest in the sport. I found myself more interested in baseball than the relationships in the film because the relationships just felt so contrived. It was as if a rookie screenwriter decided to throw every single movie cliché into one story and figured that audiences would eat it up since Clint Eastwood starred in it. Trouble with the Curve isn’t really worth bothering with, unless you’re a fan of Adams or Timberlake, both of whom were the only interesting aspects of the film (although it was excruciating to see their talent go to waste). As for Clint Eastwood, the man is legendary, but I have no idea why he thought this film was worth emerging from behind the camera for. If I wanted to see a solid movie where Clint Eastwood is being old and awesome, I’d watch Gran Torino.
![STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS (2013)
Full disclosure: I’m more of a Star Wars fan than a Trekkie, so with that in mind, you know that this review is from someone who doesn’t know much about Starfleet, Klingons or phasers. I thought the 2009 film from sci-fi staple JJ Abrams was a fun watch, although it wasn’t anything I considered particularly groundbreaking or impressive. The 2013 sequel Into Darkness was pretty much a rehash of the same standard fare, albeit with much more explosions. The film follows Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and the crew of the USS Enterprise as they hunt down a terrorist named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) who wreaks havoc at Starfleet HQ. Their pursuit leads them to Klingon territory, where it gets dicy and interesting as they find out that things are not what they seem.
I enjoyed Into Darkness just fine like any other science fiction movie. It offered a few laughs and some cool visual effects, but (and to paraphrase a line from 10 Things I Hate About You) I was neither underwhelmed nor overwhelmed. I was sort of just…whelmed. I didn’t feel like it offered anything really new or exciting that the first film didn’t deliver. It certainly didn’t capitalize on the limitless, original storylines that the first film allowed. I don’t really have much else to say about it save that it was entertaining enough and featured some solid performances from Pine and Cumberbatch (and Simon Pegg was quite the scene-stealer, too). I also liked that Karl Urban’s Bones was central to a lot of the comedy in the film. I have a few gripes with the film, but one that stuck out to me was the portrayal of Alice Eve’s character. I felt that the way her character was written, it seemed like she was just there to flash the gratuitous hot bod in the movie and for nothing else. While she demonstrated some prowess as a science officer on board the ship, the writers didn’t seem too concerned with showing her character’s substance despite her obvious skills.
While I enjoyed Kirk and Spock’s character arcs, I didn’t feel like they were well-developed enough. Their arcs seemed sort of clumsily told and felt more like afterthoughts. There was a lot of cheesiness in the way their relationship was also developed, and I thought there were a lot of missed opportunities to really say something new and different about this unlikely friendship. I also felt like the pacing in this film seemed off. It had a strange, rushed ending that didn’t seem to bother with any sort of climactic build-up. Because of this, I felt it lacked the emotional punch that the film was going for. There were moments in the film that were supposed to be tension-filled, and yet I didn’t feel like the characters earned any sort of climax. The first half of the film is well done in that there’s a real sense of storytelling there, whereas the second half seemed too preoccupied with making sure there were blatant references for fans of the franchise to latch onto.
(Spoilers under the cut)
[[MORE]]
I mentioned in the opening paragraph that I am not a big Star Trek fan, however the little I do know about the series and its characters includes the infamous villain Khan, who just so happens to have one of the big revelations in the new film. In the original series and the 1982 film, Khan was portrayed by Ricardo Montalbán. His back story entailed not only being of Indian descent, but also being a member of a genetically engineered race that considers themselves superior to everyone else. In the 2013 film, everything about the character save for his original ethnic descent is maintained, something that bothers me despite Cumberbatch’s excellent performance. Cumberbatch certainly fits the role of a cold-blooded killer with a superiority complex, and man does he play a great villain, however we have yet again an issue of whitewashing. There are so very few major characters in Star Trek universe (let alone the whole science fiction universe) who aren’t white, and it’s a shame that one of the best villains (or characters) in science fiction history couldn’t have been given to a minority actor who fits Khan. I love Benedict Cumberbatch, but for me it would have been much more interesting had a minority actor played the role of a cunning, “genetically perfect” race supremacist.
I’ve read a few reviews about the film that mention plot holes in the story, and although I saw plenty of flaws, I wouldn’t consider plot holes one of them. It was more of an issue of an uninteresting second half that didn’t really capitalize on the momentum of the first film (or first half of the second film for that matter). One alleged plot hole that people keep mentioning is why Khan needed to be taken in alive so that Kirk could be revived using Khan’s special regenerative blood. Some keep pointing out that Khan’s other crew members were available to draw blood from so they didn’t really need Khan, but if I’m not mistaken, you can’t really conduct a blood transfusion on a body that has been cryogenically frozen. Since the majority of Kirk’s cells were apparently too irradiated to repair, they need a blood transfusion, hence the necessity of keeping Khan alive. But there were certainly other things in the film that didn’t make sense, such as Khan threatening the Enterprise by attacking their life support systems when he wouldn’t have been able to do so with their shields up. There was also the weird phenomenon of Starfleet being completely incapacitated by Khan crashing his ship in their HQ. One would think that there are other ships besides the Enterprise that would be there to defend Earth in the advent of a falling object, let alone a hostile ship (unless of course there was no response due to the assumption that Admiral Marcus was commandeering the ship instead of Khan).
Anyway, I won’t really get into more of the inconsistencies in the film, but I thought that they would have been easy to overlook had the movie’s second half been better written and not rushed. It was an enjoyable film, but it didn’t quite transcend the promise of the 2009 movie. There was an opportunity to tell an original story while still referencing things that fans of the franchise could appreciate, but instead there seemed to be more concern adhering to stories that have already been told before. There was enough comedy and action in the film for it to be entertaining, but overall it wasn’t something I’d write home about.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/250b822c0dce79a6e691d50feb4c7054/tumblr_mn0yo5COwU1qg4blro1_1280.jpg)
![IRON MAN 3 (2013)
Three Iron Man movies in and we’re still intrigued by the same question: does the suit make the man, or the man make the suit?
Iron Man 3, arguably the most different of the Marvel movies and perhaps the most complex, follows our favorite billionaire playboy philanthropist as he tries to not only recover from his near death experience in The Avengers, but also struggle with a bit of an existential crisis. Never mind the harrowing experience of being at ground zero during the devastating attack of the Chitauri; Tony Stark, having found himself suddenly in the presence of gods, aliens and fellow superheroes, is unsure of what to believe anymore. He’s also completely uncertain of his place in the increasingly dangerous universe. Stark, whose life has been all about pushing the boundaries of technology through science and research, has found himself at a loss when it comes to explaining how he managed to evade death. Now, he can’t sleep. So he tinkers.
Stark’s insomnia fosters a growing attachment to the multitude of Iron Man suits he now has in his collection. He’s up to Mark 42 now, yet he can’t stop making new suits because there’s a comfort in dwelling in the familiar. He feels safe and in control when he’s working on the quantifiable and the tangible. He’s forced to come out of his sanctuary, however, when a fearsome terrorist called The Mandarin emerges as a new threat. However, Stark’s unstable frame of mind leads him to recklessly endanger himself and everyone around him. What follows is a 2 hour and 20 minute odyssey into the age-old question that plagues Tony: does the suit make the man, or the man make the suit?
Co-writer/director Shane Black’s answer to that query was in showcasing Tony Stark without his precious suits, a reminder to the audience that behind that armor is a brilliant brain and a heart that, despite the surrounding shrapnel always threatening to pierce it, has an unwavering passion for kicking ass and taking names. In that regard, Iron Man 3 fits in just fine in the Marvel universe. The reason it feels like the most different film in the series is thanks to Black, who has his fingerprints all over it. From the Christmas setting to the fascination with method acting, from the obsession with the spy genre to the endlessly witty banter, it’s a Shane Black movie through and through. Halfway through the film, it almost feels like Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and Marvel made a baby and it became Iron Man 3. Thanks to Black’s touch, this was probably the funniest Marvel movie, and also the most contemplative. Not only did the story bring everything full circle for the character, but it also approached certain elements of the original material in a much more modern, relevant light.
Before I delve deeper into the analysis of the film, I just wanted to give a quick summary on what I loved most about Iron Man 3. First, it’s hands down one of the funniest and most entertaining Marvel movies out there. Black’s humor is clearly present in the film, and there’s an obvious level of comfort and synergy between him and Robert Downey Jr, understandably because the two worked together previously in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. It was also an extremely ambitious undertaking on a visual effects level. The amount of detail that went into this film when it came to special effects was astounding. One scene that involved Stark’s Malibu mansion exploding and collapsing into the ocean was simply breathtaking to watch. There was also the awesome visual effects involving the Mark 42 suit, which had the unique feature of being summoned in bits and pieces via sensors that were implanted into Tony’s arms. I also loved how involved Pepper was on the action side of things for once. Granted, it isn’t really a character trait that needs to be fleshed out at all, but it was nice to see a totally different side of her. I found the film wildly entertaining and such a treat because it felt so different from all the other superhero movies, yet at the same time also strangely familiar. I thought there were twists and turns in the film that were really clever and well-executed (which I will get to under the cut, so beware of spoilers!) and I admire the audacity at which Black and co-writer Drew Pearce attacked the material. It’s probably my favorite of the Iron Man series, maybe just a hair above the first installment.
[[MORE]]
Black and company were wise not to completely disregard the much less impressive Iron Man 2. Instead of ignoring what transpired in that more disappointing installment, they chose to use it as a launching pad for the third film. The three Iron Man films, so far, go really well together because of this. The first makes a great origin story and also ends on a bit of uncertainty as to what Tony Stark will do with the power he now has. The second film, though admittedly a bit of a hot mess, still explores Tony’s arc and shows him straying from his path. The third film is the completion of that arc, where he realizes that science should be used for the greater good. He also realizes that he’s been using the arc reactor as a crutch, an excuse to use Iron Man to solve the problems of others instead of focusing on the ones piling up in his personal life. It’s a cool arc and one that I think is well-executed.[[MORE]]
What I also found really interesting was the secondary theme to Iron Man 3, which was how science, in its purest form, starts out as an idea. It’s free of ego, politics and all the other stuff that muddies the waters and hinders progress. In Iron Man 3, we see two opposite sides of the spectrum in the field of science. On the one hand we have Stark Industries, a beacon of reform and innovation. It started out by funding military projects and war profiteering and was overhauled by Stark himself, as soon as he realized that his company wasn’t using science for good. On the other hand, we have AIM, Aldrich Killian and Maya Hansen, who all probably started out with the best intentions in mind but who all strayed from their paths and evolved to reach selfish goals. All throughout the Iron Man comics, the villains that Tony fights are people who start off with pure science and end up abusing their power along the way. Either they are manipulated by fame or money, as with Iron Man’s Jebadiah; consumed by vengeance like Ivan Vanko in Iron Man 2; and finally, in the third installment, blinded by desperation and hunger for power as represented by both Guy Pearce’s Killian and Rebecca Hall’s Maya. What keeps Tony grounded (and separate from all these villains) is Pepper, whose moral compass has always pointed true north. Tony realizes that instead of putting all his energy into his pet projects, it’s Pepper he needs more time with because she’s his guiding light, always intent on making sure science isn’t used for things like weaponization and corruption.
One of the elements of Iron Man 3 that has gotten a lot of attention is its reinterpretation of the character of The Mandarin (played flawlessly and fabulously by Ben Kingsley). Instead of doing a literal depiction of a character that was problematic from the start, Black and company chose to reinvent the character by deconstructing him, which was something new and never been done before. I found the tactic delightful and clever, and it also gets bonus points for taking me completely by surprise. While I understand the frustrations that hardcore comic book Purists may have with regards to The Mandarin not necessarily meeting expectations, I can’t say that I sympathize with all the hooplah. There are three reasons why I thought the twist was necessary, brilliant and worked perfectly for the story. The first is that The Mandarin, unaltered, would have simply been another Fu Manchu-type character who would not be relevant in this day and age. In my opinion, there was simply no right way to stay true to this character’s origins and not be offensive. Had the producers gone with a literal depiction of The Mandarin, it would have been so stereotypically inappropriate. I also don’t know how, to those people who were disappointed about the Mandarin twist, they would have justified Ben Kingsley playing the role that was written as a Chinese man. If these defenders of the original Mandarin think that he’s such an amazing character whose back story needs to be preserved 100%, then as soon as the public learned of Ben Kingsley’s casting, they should have been indignant at what would have been whitewashing. Yet there was none of that kind of uproar. So if fans of The Mandarin weren’t that hung up on his ethnic descent to begin with, then what would they be so infuriated about? Which brings me to those magic rings.
The second reason that The Mandarin simply would not have worked in his original form in Iron Man 3 was that what made him a powerful villain was a set of magic rings he discovered from an alien ship that crashed on Earth. Why is this significantly undesirable? Because this characterization simply does not make sense when we take into account the pattern we’ve observed in the Iron Man films so far. This is because, as you all may have undoubtedly noticed, unlike other Marvel movies, Tony Stark battles real people, not gods or aliens or otherworldly beings. If we look at all three Iron Man films, Tony battles enemies who are sort of fallen scientists. They create cutting edge technology that they use to destroy. The Mandarin, while a fallen scientist indeed, relies on magic rings for his strength, and that just doesn’t make sense when we look at the other enemies Tony has come up against. The very source of his power is what makes him unfit for this continuous storyline involving villains who create only to destroy. Tony Stark is the champion of using science for good. Fighting a man with ten magic rings simply doesn’t do anything for this storyline. I support Black’s and Feige’s decision wholeheartedly because to me this was a story that made more sense, and it was a story that I found a lot more substantial and thought-provoking than the idea of a villain whose source of power is an inexplicable set of magic rings.
The third reason I enjoyed the Mandarin twist was that I found the character’s motivations intact in the film in the form of Aldrich Killian, and I found the character’s physical caricatures present in Ben Kingsley’s campy portrayal. Killian may not have been Chinese or dressed in the ridiculous ethnic outfit that was meant to signify the character’s otherness, but he embodied everything the Mandarin was, save for his super powers. Like The Mandarin, Killian was after world domination, was hell bent on turning the weapons of nations against each other (with his hijacking of the Iron Patriot and then his end game of controlling war supply and demand by having the world’s biggest terrorist in his pocket and the world’s biggest superhero, Iron Man, in another). So The Mandarin was very much present. He just didn’t have those magic rings, and he wasn’t another Chinese man playing a villain in a blockbuster movie.
The fact that Shane Black and company decided to not only deconstruct his character but also make The Mandarin a statement of projected “ethnic” stereotypes from the Western world was rather brilliant and socially conscious. By taking the motivations of the character and giving it to someone like Killian, Black and company are not only able to make this character fit into Tony Stark’s world, but they are able to give audiences someone relevant, whose construction is thought-provoking and inventive. There was commentary there about what people consider the stereotypical terrorist. Ben Kingsley was supposed to be the embodiment of everything America is basically afraid of: a non-Caucasian in random ethnic adornments threatening freedom and liberty and all that is holy. Kingsley even parodied the hyperpatriotism of the Bush era by mentioning “AMURRICA!” a few times, as a nod to the meme. The message here, at the end of the day, was that once the public puts a face to the threat, they fixate on it, and there’s never really any consideration that maybe the threat is homegrown and not some random Middle-Eastern dude with a funny beard and baggy fashion sense. I was impressed at the way they decided to go about this, and forgive me, comic book fanboys, but I simply don’t understand the furor about how the Mandarin was bastardized, because I felt as though he was given a pretty substantial facelift for the better.
Also, another one of the reasons why I loved the twist in the Mandarin character was that no one could have possibly seen it coming. Those who say they saw it coming are clearly full of shit. When you have a plethora of comic book lore at your disposal, it’s hard to make anything a surprise for the audience anymore. How do you put a twist on something that audiences are already psyching themselves out to see? Sure, it’s cool to be able to see a character you’ve grown up with or have followed in its literary iteration, but what’s even cooler is to be able to see a reinterpretation of it in the modern age. I thought it was a clever twist on a character that was deeply problematic. I’m also glad that it ended up the way it did because it completely does away with questions on whitewashing and adhering to racial stereotypes. Instead of satisfying a small group of people who are hung up on literal translations of a text, Black and company instead chose to reinvent the character into something that audiences of today would be able to make sense of while at the same time taking an opportunity to enhance the Iron Man character, and even throw in a few political statements.
My overall enjoyment of the film aside, it still had its flaws, although they were few and far between. I would have liked a bit more dramatic tension and thrilling suspense, although if asked what comic relief I would have sacrificed, I honestly couldn’t tell you. I thought that there may have been a tad too many jokes, although again, I appreciated all the jokes immensely, as a fan of Black’s humor. I also thought that there could have been a much better job making Pepper’s “comeback” a little bit less predictable. I also didn’t care much for James Badge Dale’s performance. I understand that his character was a bit of a campy henchman, but I don’t know what was listed in his script: chew gum vigorously or simply just act like you’re a major douchenozzle. Either way, as much as a fan I was of the actor, I thought he could have been better (or better written). I also thought there was a bit of a lack of emotional turmoil in the film. Yes, Iron Man isn’t really a movie where shit gets so real that it makes you depressed, but I would have liked there to have been a feeling of real danger in the film. I never felt as though Tony didn’t have anything handled. Finally, I didn’t really care for Brian Tyler’s score. It seemed like he recycled a lot of themes from other superhero films. His theme was a mix of The Avengers and Batman all in one, not really something that sounded original. It also did not enhance the film like scores normally would.
As a whole, I loved Iron Man 3 and thought it was funny, action-packed and visually impressive, had a unique vibe and was also really progressive in terms of reinventing characters and pushing storylines forward. The whole sequence with Harley, the Tennessean kid whom Tony Stark befriends, shouldn’t have worked, but it did, and I enjoyed it immensely. The buddy comedy vibe between Don Cheadle and Robert Downey Jr. was a lot of fun, and last but not least, the fantastic Ben Kingsley just made this film so enjoyable. It was awesome to see Tony outside of the suit for most of the movie; it reminded audiences of who the brains behind the brawn is. I also loved how “Fuck yeah science!” the whole movie was. We see Tony showing off his technology with his suits, but he’s also shown shopping in what looks like a Home Depot to make homemade gadgets and weapons. What’s great about this is that it inspires kids who may look up to these superheroes and gives them something legitimate and tangible to aspire to. Tony Stark isn’t an unattainable god, alien or a caped crusader with limitless powers. He’s just a regular guy who is great at science, and who happens to don a suit of armor he made himself so he can fight bad guys. If that’s not the very definition of a superhero, I don’t know what is.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/f1efe6b6d830cd23dd7304a61b4b98e8/tumblr_mmo80fUrY81qg4blro1_1280.jpg)
![MUD (2013)
Jeff Nichols’ third feature film, Mud, is like a breath of fresh air amid all the high velocity blockbusters that have started to trickle in for the summer. The Arkansas-set coming-of-age tale features the magnetic talents of Matthew McConaughey in the titular role, Tye Sheridan, Sam Shepard, Reese Witherspoon, American Horror Story’s Sarah Paulson, Sons of Anarchy’s Ray McKinnon, Jacob Lofland, Boardwalk Empire’s Paul Sparks and Nichols muse Michael Shannon (whom the writer/director has worked with in all three films). Mud is a wanted man whose refuge on an island is stumbled upon by a pair of wide-eyed, inquisitive teenage boys, Ellis (Sheridan) and Neckbone (Lofland). What starts out as curiosity towards this uninhibited, man vs wild-type character evolves into sort of a mentorship for the boys. They help Mud evade the authorities and a couple of Texan bounty hunters in an attempt to reunite him with the love of his life, the enigmatic Juniper (Witherspoon). It’s a story that in some ways is big in scale, yet Nichols and his characters always seem to have their two feet on the ground. Mud ushers in the trending return of the great American drama. It’s a unique, well-written story with some brilliant performances and an excellent soundtrack.
This was perhaps my favorite Matthew McConaughey role. The actor was subtle yet fascinating to watch, and his Mud was an endlessly exciting man with a kind of authentic simplicity about him that didn’t feel fake for someone who is played by a Hollywood megastar. This seems to be the zenith of Matthew McConaughey. His choice of roles has been very interesting of late and it looks like he’s exploring more complex characters and much less bombastic stories. The scene stealer of Mud, however, was Tye Sheridan, who gave a performance that was confident, nuanced, but also earnest and charming. He reminded me a lot of a young Brad Renfro during his days in The Cure and The Client, or even a young River Phoenix, as in Stand by Me. This is certainly a young actor to watch, and I was amazed at the complex mixture of maturity and naïvete that his character embodied. Ray McKinnon, as per usual, was brilliant in the film as Ellis’ stubborn father. He has the rare ability to sink deep into each of his roles to a point where it no longer feels like we’re watching a character performance, but a real person. Michael Shannon had a small but entertaining part in the film, and normally I would complain that he was criminally underused, but considering everything else in the movie, it seemed like the perfect decision to have him play the role of Neckbone’s quirky but caring uncle.
Perhaps what I loved most about the film was the way it depicted teenagers. It wasn’t patronizing or condescending, but it treated teenagers the way they ought to be treated: with respect and acknowledgment at their ability to demonstrate real prowess when they set their minds to something. Often we see coming-of-age films that entail teenagers struggling with their bouts of hubris. It’s always the same tired tale of learning life lessons based on having done something awful. These films have sort of an I-told-you-so vibe which, depending on how it’s executed, may come off preachy. In Mud’s case, the young Ellis is the moral compass of the story. A hopeless romantic, he believes in absolutes - unconditional and everlasting love, always saying what you mean and giving people benefits of the doubt, no matter now naïve this may seem to others. In a way he represents the idealism that youth possesses, the innocence of being at a stage of life where the world is at your feet yet everyone around you seems to act in ways that make possibilities seem limited.
[[MORE]]
In many ways, Mud is an appropriate title for the film and name for the character. It represents people’s crutches, and the tendency for some to be drawn to the same situations over and over again, regardless of how much it is holding them back. Mud’s character keeps going back to the same old flame, despite the fact that he has been burned by her so many times. Ellis’ parents are torn between moving forward (by moving into town) or staying put (living in a houseboat in the more rural part of Arkansas). There were some biblical undertones in the film that were really interesting as well, such as the idea that women, having descended from Eve, were nothing more than silver-tongued master manipulators of men. Whether this was a nod to how some people use religion as a crutch, we’ll never really know, but I thought it was one of the more thought-provoking parts of the film that married really well with the rest of the story.
This is a really well-written film in that the dialogue sounded really authentic, the themes were readily apparent while avoiding being heavy-handed, and the acting was simple but strong. There was also an authenticity in its depiction of the rural America we’ve all seen in the movies but have never quite experienced in the same way. The film reminded me of Stand by Me and Beasts of the Southern Wild. The former because of the way the coming-of-age tale is told, and the latter because of the Southern marshes setting and the theme of people being set in their ways, afraid of change. I found the subculture of the South tremendously interesting to watch, and despite all the craziness that eventually goes down in the film, Nichols certainly paints a pretty picture of the Arkansas landscape. It’s almost like Nichols’ love letter to the small Southern town where he grew up.
There were few weak points in the film, but they weren’t enough to really bother me. The last quarter of the film didn’t seem to jive well with the rest of the story. There was not only a startlingly different vibe, but it also seemed a bit rushed. While the trajectory of the story certainly pointed towards the direction it ultimately reached, the way it was executed felt a little jarring. Maybe that was the point. I also would have preferred that the ending had left a little bit more to the imagination. Sometimes I like closure but I felt that in this case, I would have liked a little mystery at the end of the film to complement the theme of never extinguishing hope regardless of how much you’ve been burned in the past. Ellis has formed a bitterness towards women because of his experiences and yet the last nugget of wisdom Mud leaves him is that he shouldn’t give up hope at finding the love that he deserves. It was that note of uncertain hope that I would have liked the film to have ended on, although it still ended rather beautifully. Mud is currently in theaters and I would highly recommend seeing it if you can. Jeff Nichols is quickly becoming one of my favorite young directors along with Blue Valentine filmmaker Derek Cianfrance. Both tell stories that feel very authentic, with fully-formed characters, sparse but very deliberate dialogue, and they both share a body of work that seems to be building in complexity and scale, but never losing its groundedness. Apparently Nichols has once again teamed up with Michael Shannon for a fourth film, this time a science fiction flick, which has me really excited. I cannot wait to see more from this collaboration.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/d4f7e5de78ba89d1864d822656a29e6a/tumblr_mmliedLr4H1qg4blro1_1280.jpg)
![THE EAST (2013)
People have a love/hate relationship with vigilantism. It has always been a gray area, and rightly so. On the one hand, the public loves a self-righteous superhero - the Batmans and Captain Americas of the world who dole out justice by adhering to a certain moral code. On the other hand there’s a bit of unease about groups like Anonymous, who skirt outside the legal guidelines in the name of equality. While people may agree with some of their motivations, others may not exactly be sympatico with their methods of retaliation. Audiences can expect to explore the same complexities about vigilante justice in the upcoming thriller The East, co-written by and starring Brit Marling. Marling plays Jane, a former FBI agent employed by a private intelligence firm, who goes undercover in an anarchist collective called The East. Jane’s reconnaissance mission reveals some unexpected things about the collective, giving her insight into the people who carry out dangerous, retaliatory acts against various corporate entities. The East’s motivations may be justified, but their methods are extreme. Jane becomes torn between fulfilling her duties as an intelligence officer looking out for the interests of her clients, or aiding the anarchist group in their “culture jams” or missions to dismantle the corporate stranglehold on American society. The result is a riveting, thought-provoking thriller that challenges the audience’s moral compass. The East is smart, well-written and endlessly enthralling, with twists and turns that are as unpredictable as its female protagonist. Not only is Marling’s character now one of my favorite female movie characters, but I was really impressed at how much thought and care went into the crafting of the story. The East also stars Alexander Skarsgård, Ellen Page and Patricia Clarkson, and hits US theaters in May 31, 2013.
Although the trailer makes it seem as though the film broaches controversial topics in an extreme manner, director and co-writer Zal Batmanglij’s film conveys a surprisingly pragmatic message that will resonate with most audiences. During the Q&A that followed my screening, Batmanglij recommended that you see The East with someone you’re sleeping with, because when you wake up the next morning you’ll feel compelled to talk about it. He’s right, because the film does spark discussion in its approach to vigilantism and societal issues like hunger, tort reform, corporate welfare and corruption. However, the film’s pragmatic approach to these issues is what binds the story and the audience together, regardless of which side you lean towards. I was surprised at how thoughtful and conscious both Batmanglij and Marling were in their portrayal of these issues. It seemed as though both writers were acutely aware that there was a danger in promoting only one side of an issue, so their solution was to instead present the complexities of certain situations while leaving the choice to the audience.
My favorite aspect of The East was Brit Marling’s character, who is complex and certainly not without conviction. This is a female character who is smart, savvy and multidimensional, quite the rarity in a cinematic landscape that I wouldn’t say is particularly accommodating to these types of fiery female roles. Marling’s Jane is multifaceted, which makes her infinitely interesting. One scene will show her strength and composure, another will show her uncertainty and self-doubt. It’s difficult to find this kind of complexity in young, female characters in film, and I admire the fact that this was accomplished in a genre that I would consider tough for actresses to flourish in. Spy thrillers are generally geared towards a particular demographic, and tend to star brooding male actors who go on various journeys of self-discovery, often with damsels in distress or femme fatales hanging on their arms like pretty accessories. The East turns this genre on its head by starring a lead female character who, shockingly, doesn’t compromise her own values for the promise of romance. Marling’s character, instead, shows that not only can women be just as effective as men in the area of espionage, but women are entirely capable of not letting emotions cloud their judgment (the opposite of which is a carelessly cliché trope found in many thrillers). When I asked Marling and Batmanglij during the screening Q&A whether they had set out to write a character who is as strong-willed and full of conviction as Jane was, I was delighted to find that they felt that this was simply the best possible decision in the interest of the story. I loved this because it is proof that such strong, female characters can exist without someone necessarily setting out to be champions of feminism.
[[MORE]]
Marling makes writing and performing fearless females seem so effortless, and this is why The East succeeds, despite its heavy subject matter and portrayal of relevant issues. It doesn’t come off as merely a fanciful, self-righteous activist project. Instead, it’s a thought-provoking, emotionally-driven film that presents complex issues like the moral quandaries they are instead of the black and white pictures they are often portrayed as in media. The focused, well-written script can be commended for this. Nothing is said that doesn’t foreshadow an upcoming event or character development. Basically, everything that went into the script contributed to the careful construction of a world of anti-consumerist eco-extremism. Frankly, I was amazed at how much content this film was able to tackle, especially when I think about how it was shot on a ridiculously tight schedule (I remember Batmanglij mentioning at the film’s advance screening that it took them about 22 or so days!) and limited budget.
The film also managed to make commentary about both broad and specific subjects. For instance, there’s the broader criticism of a broken system or society fostered by consumerism, greed and a growing lack of community and collectivism. At the same time, there’s also the more specific commentary on the dominance of pharmaceutical companies and their stranglehold on the government, as well as private companies being able to get away with pretty much anything, with a lack of accountability and a complete disregard for neighborly welfare. What intrigued me in particular was the statement that the film made about a deteriorating society, a statement made without really making much hoopla about it at all. In one scene, Brit Marling’s character talks about how Facebook gives people the illusion that they know someone even though they haven’t seen them in years, a reference to Catfish and Manti Te’o perhaps or simply an observation of the loose connections people make in today’s social media-obsessed society.
There are so many things to think about in this film, but the brilliance of it is that it doesn’t come off that way. In fact, these bitter pills are administered to audiences in the form of this captivating espionage thriller slash coming-of-age tale, a description actually provided by Brit Marling herself. I found this really interesting because although the film may be focused on the story of this anarchist group, it also tells the tale of a career-driven woman who discovers a different side of herself that she hasn’t seen before. She learns to stick to her guns even when her emotions are telling her to do something drastic and out of character. It’s a surprisingly pragmatic message to impart to a young woman who is perhaps a little cynical in the beginning of the film but who emerges, not completely changed, but evolved. Overall, it’s clear that a lot of thought went into this film and its characters, and it shows.
Performances were fascinating to watch and Ellen Page, once again, proves that she excels in darker, edgier roles. It was also a pleasure to see Alexander Skarsgård assume the role of Benji, the enigmatic leader of the close-knit group, something that’s a little bit reminiscent of his charming vampire viking Eric Northman from True Blood, but also a bit of a departure from his other work because of the more cerebral subject matter. It’s easy to see how one can be drawn in by a radical group spearheaded by Skarsgård. His character’s back story, although a bit predictable, gave insight into the messiah complex Benji has and why The East is such a passion project for him. It also must be noted that aach time Alexander Skarsgård shows some skin, all is right in the world, and I certainly didn’t mind the bit of nudity from the Swedish actor. Marling carried the film really well and showed her character’s many layers. I really loved the way this character developed and every scene is a revelation of her state of mind. The audience is right there with Jane/Sarah (Sarah is Jane’s alias while undercover in the collective), and like the character we’re not quite sure what the right decision is. I also liked the way the story balanced the sexual tension between Benji and Sarah with the taut suspense of the larger plot. The espionage aspect of the film was sexy and well done, and it almost felt like a Bourne film in certain parts, which was pretty cool. One particularly poignant scene involves Marling’s Jane talking to her boyfriend (played by Jason Ritter) about her experience in The East, describing it as both foreign and familiar. It really resonated with me because many experiences can be described this way, and in Jane’s instance, it’s a statement that holds a lot of meaning.
The ending of the film is really where it soars. It’s unexpected, captivating and a real gamechanger in terms of the way the female protagonist is portrayed. I was very impressed at the ending, which took me completely by surprise in a good way. If I had to nitpick, I would say that perhaps the film is a tad too plot-driven, with little room for other characters to really make an impression. However, I understand that for pacing purposes it may have been beneficial to keep audiences on the edge of their seats. Overall, The East is an excellent film that I would highly recommend checking out. The filmmakers mentioned that it was made with the intention to spark a generational discussion about issues that should matter to everyone, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum. I think it’s a film that is conscious of how influential media can be as a platform, so it tackles complex issues in ways that don’t preach, but provoke. I will also say that Brit Marling’s character is perhaps one of my favorite female characters in a recent film because of how well-developed and fully-formed she is. I look forward to Marling’s and Batmanglij’s future collaborations. I expect it will be as riveting as this one.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/4717f7ea3dbc345981a23336d9990835/tumblr_mlzsdw7EGY1qg4blro1_1280.jpg)
