Rated PG by the MPAA – contains some mature themes

Howards End is a lush period piece, based on an E.M. Forster novel, that is at once enjoyable for its beauty and performances, and frustrating in its inability to coherently bring its characters and their baggage to a satisfactory conclusion.

The story juggles the lives of three social classes in early 20th century England. The primary character is Margaret Schlegel (Emma Thompson) and her sister Helen (a fresh-faced Helena Bonham Carter). They are of German descent, and therefore must consistently defend their place in middle-class British society. They are both strong-willed and anti-establishment, much in the tradition of great Jane Austen and Bronte sisters’ heroines.

They soon begin a relationship with the Wilcox family, particularly Ruth (Vanessa Redgrave), the matriarch of the upper class clan. Margaret and Ruth hit it off extremely well, and by the time Ruth passes on she has decided to leave their property, Howards End, to Margaret. But Henry Wilcox (Anthony Hopkins) dismisses his wife’s final wishes as symptoms of her dementia, and destroys any evidence with the encouragement of their children, Charlies (James Wilby) and Evie (Jemma Redgrave).

At the same time Helen has a chance encounter with Leonard Bast (Samuel West), whose prostitute-girlfriend Jacky (Nicola Duffett) is just one indicator of his lower-class status. Soon Leonard becomes friends with the Schlegel sisters, on an equal footing (exactly as their modern sensibilities would dictate), though he has his reservations.

These dealings continue as the film progresses, until Margaret and Henry are inexplicably drawn together. There are other goings-on, and a great deal of plot. Unfortunately, the film doesn’t do a grand job of trimming the novel, and includes too many snippets of side stories to do many of them justice. In an effort to wrap the film up neatly, there are large jumps in the story toward the end, often confusingly and suddenly. Motivations are left unexplained, particularly Henry’s, and Margaret’s reasons for falling in love are rarely mentioned.

The most interesting aspects of Howards End have to do with the social struggles. The grand British dialogue does a tremendous job detailing the rifts between the classes, and the circumlocutious manner of conversation is quite enjoyable. Margaret, naturally, does her best to be straightforward, freaking out the establishment in the process. The dialogue is generally enjoyable, and the dual overlapping conversations are fun. Impressive, too, is the cinematography, with gorgeous landscapes and interiors.

It’s just a shame that the story and characters aren’t better delineated. Perhaps the source material would have been better served by a four or five hour miniseries, though it is doubtful such a standard of production could have been maintained. Nevertheless, Howards End will please fans of British period pieces and social dramas. More casual viewers will be put off by the subject matter, and in this case it is hard to blame them.

Rated R by the MPAA – contains strong violence/gore, strong language

Intruder is kind of a terrible movie, but some elements of it are done so well that it’s not quite the disappointment it ought to be. I say disappointment because there is some real talent, or at least big names, behind and in front of the camera. Director Scott Spiegel might not be that famous, but he at least co-wrote The Evil Dead. Here he also co-writes, alongside Lawrence Bender. This was Bender’s first producing credit, shortly before he worked on Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction [review here]. Add to that both Ted Raimi and Sam Raimi in front of the camera, though Sam doesn’t have quite as much experience as Ted, and Ted’s accomplishments aren’t anything to write home about. And, there is a brief cameo by Bruce Campbell himself right at the end. It is easy to see how such a group of filmmakers collaborating on something they presumably thought would be fun could lead to high expectations.

So it’s kind of a shame that the story is so terrible. It is certain that they wanted to see how many ways they could kill people inside a supermarket, and this seed of an idea was the only thing they filmed. The story, such as it is, kind of revolves around Jennifer (Elizabeth Cox), a cashier at a local supermarket. The store is closing for the evening, and she is helping check out the last patron. She chats with fellow cashier Linda (Renée Estevez, of the Sheen family) about boys and whatnot. They are interrupted by an old boyfriend, Craig (David Byrnes), who is unnecessarily violent with Jennifer. He has spent some time in jail for manslaughter and seems a bit unstable; the perfect character to slash a bunch of people in a supermarket.

After an initial encounter the owners get involved, and long-time manager Bill (Dan Hicks) announces, when the situation is calm, that the store will be liquidating. It has been his life for many years, but it’s time to move on. So the gang, including Produce Joe (Ted Raimi) and Randy (Sam Raimi), restock and re-price everything in the store, while Bill and the other owner go over contracts upstairs. After this pedantic setup, there are a series of moments in which Craig ominously appears behind glass doors and in the reflections of random objects. Police are called and arrive, but are incompetent, and the initial threat appears to be over. Shortly thereafter, just about every worker in the store is murdered in an increasingly grisly fashion.

It is clear that everyone involved was having way more fun experimenting with the camera and seeing what they could capture through reflections, than in worrying about the story, characters, or atmosphere. And there are some interesting camera angles, and some odd shots such as one where the owner carefully positions a bottle of booze directly in front of the camera, just so the distortion makes his murder look a little strange. For the first half of the film, the overall effect is miserable. The first deaths are rather nondescript, and there is no scary mood, and certainly no tension. Rather, a knife protrudes from somewhere and someone dies.

The last third or so becomes somewhat more interesting, if only because supermarket implements become clever instruments of murder. A meat slicer and meat hooks are obvious choices; an hydraulic trash compactor less obvious. A meat saw will clearly be used to murder someone, but the effects involved are perhaps the most impressive part of the entire film. The last few deaths are quite graphic, though not realistic, and the special effects and makeup will be enjoyable for most horror fans. However, most of the deaths seem to be marked by random blood spurts on nearby items; almost as though the filmmakers were having more fun with the spurts than with the actual deaths. Leading up to the finale there are some truly oddball tactics, including one man being beaten severely with another man’s head.

But for all of the quirks and interesting horror elements, the filmmakers have neglected everything else that could have made the film interesting. Even the revelation of the true killer is mundane and a bit silly; they just didn’t care about certain aspects of the film. They certainly didn’t care about the acting, for even in the first five minutes it becomes clear that this film belongs near the bottom of the tiers of 1980′s slasher films, despite its pedigree. Some of it is enjoyably laughable, but not quite to the extent that it would make for a fun midnight movie with friends. Nevertheless, some horror fans will find elements to enjoy in Intruder, even if it doesn’t live up to the mild expectations that its credit list might invoke.

Rated PG-13 by the MPAA – contains action and violence, and some language

The Avengers is perhaps one of the most fun films to come out in quite some time. It is everything that blockbuster fun should be. And it might come as a bit of a surprise to see that Joss Whedon is behind both the screenplay and the direction, as he’s often been better known for smaller, quirky fare that has garnered a rabid fan following. Now, with The Avengers being released shortly after The Cabin in the Woods [review here], Whedon has given us the two best films of 2012 so far (though The Cabin in the Woods was shot at least a couple years back).

After five films featuring four superheroes, it would seem that the task of composing a film with all of them sharing screen time would be next to impossible. Miraculously, The Avengers is superior to all of the previous entries, though I must admit I haven’t seen The Incredible Hulk yet. In many ways The Avengers is a nerd orgy, but since many of the characters have been drawn out in their own films there is a much broader appeal here. We already know Tony Stark from Iron Man and Iron Man 2 [review here]; we are familiar with Captain Rogers from Captain America: The First Avenger; we saw the seeds of this conflict and got to know both Thor and Loki in Thor [review here]. Each of those movies was able to stand on its own, and be solidly enjoyable, but The Avengers manages to become at least as good as the sum of its parts, and probably better.

Earth is under a serious threat; the Tesseract, a cube that contains and issues forth untold amounts of energy, is being studied by the scientists at SHIELD, but there are serious doubts about its stability. Soon enough the Tesseract has opened a wormhole and allowed Loki (Tom Hiddleston) to enter our mortal realm. He brings with him a deadly scepter, and immediately takes control of the Tesseract and manages to turn both Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner) and Dr. Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård) to his cause. He hopes to open a giant portal and allow some monstrous species of alien to infiltrate our planet and ultimately seat him on the throne of Earth. This, naturally, is not a good thing for everyone currently living on the planet.

Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) begins to gather his best and brightest (and freakiest) agents, with the help of Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg). One by one, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), and Thor (Chris Hemsworth, also starring in The Cabin in the Woods) assemble. Joined by Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson), the crew attempts to understand the threats facing them.

But the greater threat is internal, as superhero-sized egos will surely tear them apart before any alien has the chance to annihilate Manhattan. In fact, most of the movie’s brightest moments come as a result of strong writing and strong characters, as each of the main stars inevitably clashes with one or two of the others. Tony Stark and Thor, in particular, each need their own universe to rule in order to satiate them, and here they are forced to work together. Dr. Banner, much of the time, is sedate and working on tracking down Loki and the Tesseract, but when the Hulk shows up the movie shines. Ruffalo brings an amount of depth to Banner, which is welcome but not overly dwelt upon.

This film isn’t intended to be a brooding superhero story. It is instead an epic tale of planets under threat, only to be saved by a motley crew of self-destructive heroes. Captain Rogers plays the role of loyal soldier, mostly, but even he can be swayed by the likes of Stark and Banner. Black Widow is somewhat interesting, and played better than I expected by Johansson. Hawkeye is the least interesting, and given the least time, but does have some “cool” moments.

In fact, the film is filled with cool moments. The middle act takes place on a giant aircraft/aircraft carrier, and is filled with impressive set-pieces and grand designs and special effects. The finale is perhaps not quite as astounding, but still utterly enjoyable. Thanks to the script by Zak Penn and Joss Whedon, the film has its fair share of humorous moments. Most of them come directly from the characters themselves, which gives an unforced and natural air to the proceedings. There is a general lightness to the film, in spite of the imminent destruction of the planet.

The entire production is top-notch, as it should be for somewhere north of $200 million dollars. But without the script and direction of Whedon it could have failed any number of ways. As it is, there is not a great to deal to dissect in terms of story, or themes, or grand messages about humankind. Instead, The Avengers is a rocking, rollicking good time. I laughed a great deal, I was thrilled a great deal, and I thoroughly enjoyed the entire film. Is it great cinema, in an artsy way? Perhaps not. But it is great entertainment, and every once in a while that’s just fine for a film.

Not rated by the MPAA – contains some sword fighting, rudeness

It’s interesting to think of a time when there were no action-adventure cliches in film. The Mark of Zorro, by some measures, is this film, the one that established how the genre would develop over the next nine decades. Watching it now, much of it appears silly at first. The hero is not suave, but rather a jokester and fool, but still a hero. The final act is remarkable, with incredible stunts almost rivaling Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd, and an exciting climax; it almost makes the entire film enjoyable for modern audiences. But overall, an historic appreciation of the film is a much more likely avenue for enjoyment.

The situation is presented in early title cards; California in the 1820′s is under Spanish rule, and it is an oppressive regime. The local natives and the poor are constantly under attack, and there is only one hope; a masked crusader with a swift rapier who deals justice to the various soldiers who carry out these evil deeds. Douglas Fairbanks stars as Señor Zorro, and also as his alter-ego Don Diego Vega. Don Diego is a wealthy effete who lives in a mansion and is pressured by his father to marry, and marry soon. But Don Diego is weak, old, awkward, and given to “impressing” with magic tricks.

The lovely Lolita Pulido (Marguerite De La Motte) lives nearby with her parents, who are under pressure by the evil Governor. Don Diego’s advances towards her are ineffectual, and indeed, hardly intentional. Instead, Zorro has stolen Lolita’s heart; he is brave and sure, witty, a great lover, and a hero for the cause of justice. Several scenes set up the film, one showing the evil soldiers at the local cantina, harassing natives until Zorro shows up and gives them their comeuppance. He’s a playful hero, a foreshadowing of the likes of Westley in The Princess Bride. Then Lolita’s household is introduced, and Don Diego’s father, and each of the two or three primary sides of the conflict. The governor (George Periolat) is pure evil, his right hand man Captain Ramon (Robert McKim) is pure evil, and Sergeant Pedro Gonzales (Noah Beery) is a boorish, evil man. The locals are innocent and in need of protection, and that’s the role of Zorro.

The story is simple and basic, and takes quite a while to unfold. But it is a cohesive narrative, with a very traditional structure, as it ought to for a 1920 film, a mere five years after D.W. Griffith managed the first narrative film of a substantial length. The filmmaking is basic, obviously, with static cameras, static sets, and an abundance of overt acting styles. Fairbanks has a certain charisma, and his antics are generally amusing. At times his talents seem to be a portent of the likes of Jackie Chan, with equal parts impressive swordplay, parkour-style antics, and sly humor. Margeurite is round-faced and perhaps pretty for the era, but not particularly endearing in any way at this point in time. In fact, it is hard to dissect much about the film as it relates to modern cinema because everything about the production is so simplistic and primal, occurring so closely to the beginning of cinema.

The first three fourths of the film drags at times, with so many expositional scenes that it becomes a tad tiresome. But the last twenty minutes, in which Zorro eludes an entire company of men in, around, through and over a whole village, is quite marvelous. A final sword fight is likewise quite enjoyable, as Don Diego finally reveals himself. More interesting than the film itself, however, is its place in cinematic history. As an early harbinger of almost all sword fighting stories, romances, and adventure films, it is worth examining. At times it seems more like the spoof films that are created in Singin’ in the Rain, but that is precisely why it is interesting. This film was a hit before its contents became cliches and tropes. It would be improper to call the film unoriginal or cliched at this point, because audiences at the time had far less of a history of film to draw on, and therefore had far less to be critical about as they enjoyed their pictures. For today’s audiences, The Mark of Zorro might be a bit arcane, although still enjoyable in parts. As a piece of history, honor must be given where it is due.

Rated R by the MPAA – contains language, violence, gore, some sexuality, brief nudity, drug use, disturbing content

Note: It is hard to talk about The Cabin in the Woods without mentioning some of the narrative’s details that one might be better off not knowing prior to viewing the film, if they are so inclined.

In one of the best American horror films of the year, and perhaps the past several years, Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon have compiled an amalgam of horror tropes into something almost original, smartly produced, and wonderfully entertaining. Equal parts The Texas Chain Saw Massacre [review here], The Evil Dead, and The Truman Show, The Cabin in the Woods seems to have fun turning many of the cliches of slasher films upside down, or at least sideways. Sharp writing, semi-interesting characters, and a strong production all work together to make the film a success.

The film starts a bit off-kilter, with two office drones, Hadley (Bradley Whitford) and Sitterson (Richard Jenkins), in a lab talking about the grueling weekend before them. Mundanity rules their initial conversation, before the title card drops on the screen like an anvil. Then we are introduced to young Dana (Kristen Connolly), dancing around in her underwear and packing for a trip. She’s smart, has a crush on one of her professors, and is soon beset by her best friend, Jules (Anna Hutchison). Jules’ boyfriend, hulking Curt (Chris Hemsworth), is also a bookworm, and a capable athlete. Their friend Holden (Jesse Williams) accompanies them, and Jules and Curt try to set him up with Dana. The pattern of characters so similarly follows The Texas Chain Saw Massacre that I entirely expected the fifth character to be in a wheelchair. Instead, his brain is confused with marijuana courtesy of a giant bong. Marty (Fran Kranz) is a bit of a pothead, but generally genial and good-natured.

The five head off into the woods, to find the titular cabin. They even stop at a decrepit gas station, where a scary old-timer warns them about bad things on the road ahead. Needless to say, they press on. A number of events happen along the way to indicate that this isn’t simply a story about five young persons dying in a cabin. Instead, it seems that the lab in which Hadley and Sitterson work seems to have an inordinate amount of control over the situation in which the gang finds themselves. The cabin is carefully monitored and adjusted as the situation warrants; even the trees and the woods, and perhaps special creatures, are at the beck and call of Hadley, Sitterson and their vast team of technicians. Their ultimate motive is, at first, difficult to ascertain, but the story doesn’t falter at all once the truth is known; instead the scope becomes almost epic.

It seems that this little “game” must follow certain paths. Jules, the slutty one, needs to be sexy briefly, and then be dispatched. Curt must act in a masculine fashion, and Holden, Dana and Marty each must follow the stereotype prepared for them. If they sin, they die, and Hadley and Sitterson seem to be in on the little joke. But the stakes soon become quite high, and then are raised exponentially when the full truth of the scenario is finally revealed. Along the way, there is an increasing amount of violence and gore as the necessary consequences of both the “game” and the character’s actions are played out. But there is often a lightness to the proceedings, and it never becomes truly dark or disturbing beyond the gore. The jokes are naturally entwined with the narrative, and organic from the characters and the situation. As a result, the film as a whole becomes an odd mix of lightness and destruction.

It helps that the writing talents of Whedon and Goddard are on full display. The dialogue is enjoyable; not necessarily sharp and witty, or erudite, not snappy. Just natural, and enjoyable, and delightfully different from just about every other slasher film. The Cabin in the Woods is sharply shot, craft-fully edited, and well paced. It’s easy to tell what happens in the action scenes, which is refreshing, and the actors are all more than competent in their roles. More importantly, they all seem at ease, and to be genuinely enjoying themselves. But this isn’t a pretentious, self-indulgent trip into horror film lore. Whedon and Goddard know what horror and comedy fans want, which, in essence, is something new and a little bit original. They successfully deliver on all fronts.

Another level of enjoyment comes courtesy of lots of in-jokes to the genre. References are made to Swedish and Japanese versions of this same “game,” and they are barely disguised references to the successful horror films that Scandinavian countries and the Japanese have made recently. In many ways, if this American “game” succeeds in the film, it is an indicator of the Americans retaking control of the horror genre. This may be the case; along with The Pact, which I caught at Sundance this year, The Cabin in the Woods represents the best American horror films in many years, and perhaps worthy of rivaling the output of some of the recent foreign horror films that have been so successful.

Not rated by the MPAA – contains some mild mature themes

Director John Sturges is perhaps better known for his exciting adventure films, such as The Great Escape [review here] and The Magnificent Seven. Here he opts for a quiet, subtle tone, and tells a small but interesting story. Bad Day at Black Rock takes place in one brief 24 hour period, telling the simple story of a man hunting down the truth. Nice performances and an uncomplicated script help tell the story without distraction.

Even though it is 1945, this is the West. A small outpost, a tiny speck on both the landscape and the map, has train tracks running through it. But the train never stops, and when it does one dusty day, the town starts buzzing. A solitary man steps off, John J. Macreedy (Spencer Tracy). His first priority is lodging for a single night, but he runs into animosity at every turn. The hotel clerk kid doesn’t want him to stay there, and all the regular loiterers needle him constantly.

It is soon clear that he’s there for a single reason, and the town has a secret it wants to keep. Led by Reno Smith (Robert Ryan), each person shuts up quickly. Reno’s posse includes a lean, mean Hector David (a young Lee Marvin) and brawler Coley Trimble (Ernest Borgnine). Only Liz (Anne Frances, the shapely female from Forbidden Planet [review here]) is courteous enough to rent Macreedy her Jeep for the day. He manages to drive acceptably, even if he only has one arm. He won’t back down, but isn’t a superhero either. He’s not a sheriff, or the law, just a simple veteran of the war attempting to right some wrongs.

And the wrongs of the town are severe, both the direct actions of the guilty parties and the complicit abetting afforded by the rest of the scared citizens. Eventually Macreedy finds that Doc Velie (Walter Brennan) is willing to talk a bit, as he’s old enough to not worry about dying. And young Pete (John Ericson), Liz’s sister, is less hardline than the rest of the gang.

The story is simple, and unfolds gently over the course of the short film. The landscapes are vast and gorgeous, and originally shot in Cinemascope for maximum wide screen effect. The town is dusty and appropriately dirty. The townspeople are hardened cowboys, wary and suspicious. Only Liz seems out of place, as she’s too pretty and clean, even if her demeanor generally matches the others.

There are some strong old-school performances, with Tracy doing an admirable job as the truth-seeking central character. Ryan and his gang are appropriately hard and mean. There are some interesting themes explored, and not just the idea that those cognizant of a crime are complicit in its continued secretiveness. Macgreedy is nuanced, never too powerful or weak, though his sudden fighting skills are at once enjoyable and slightly contrived. Interesting, too, is the topic of racial discrimination. Made even before the bulk of the civil rights movement, the film focuses on a much more recent tragedy for the time; the treatment of Japanese-Americans during the years of the war.

With a quiet, gentle pace that keeps the narrative flowing smoothly and steadily, strong performances and great landscapes, Bad Day at Black Rock works quite effectively as an intriguing thriller/mystery/western with a message. While some of its elements, including the pre-method acting, might seem dated today, patient and appreciative viewers will enjoy the film for what it is.

Rated PG-13 by the MPAA – contains language, some violence, some sexual content, mature themes, nudity

Titanic is a giant, frustrating mess of a film, laughable at times, engrossing at times, and almost never-ending. There are parts that are very good, maybe even bordering on great, but these moments are ruined, without fail, as soon as someone opens his or her mouth. On a broad level, the film has been so carefully crafted that every scene is meticulously planned to manipulate the audience; at times this approach is effective, but it also leaves the film without a soul. James Cameron tried the same approach with Avatar [review here], with somewhat better results. It is unfortunate, then, that he walks alongside George Lucas in the pantheon of directors unable to write dialogue or direct actual people.

Case in point are the two talented leads of Titanic. Kate Winslet was only three years clear of Heavenly Creatures [review here], in which she showed her true worth as an actress. Here she fairs better than much of the cast, but her forced American English accent is uneven, and no one could endure the manner of dialogue she is forced to utter. Leonardo DiCaprio, was only four years away from What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, a film in which he is quite good. Here he seems to be the slightly older brother of Anakin Skywalker from The Phanton Menace; his “yippee’s” and wide-eyed excitement appear only a few years older than Jake Lloyd.

The film begins on the right foot, as deep sea footage shows the wreck of the RMS Titanic emerging through clouds of dust on the ocean floor. This effect is ruined shortly thereafter, as Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) opens his mouth. This may be a personal bias, but Paxton’s persona and voice are an ill fit for this film, and indeed every time his inane narration interrupts the story there is a jarring discordance. In any case, Brock is searching the wreckage of the Titanic for an invaluable diamond necklace. This wraparound story, itself nearly eternal, soon introduces Rose (Gloria Stuart), a rather old lady who claims to have been on the ship on its maiden voyage. She soon starts weaving her version of events in an old, tired, painful voice. Her narration, even more so than Paxton’s, is deleterious to the film; each abrupt jump between the past and the present filled me with spite at the sound of her voice and the miserable dialogue she was forced to utter.

So she begins her story, itself eternal. She was a young maiden (Winslet), rich and betrothed to stuff Cal Hockley (Billy Zane, one of the few solid actors in the film). She is embarking on the ship with her mother, Ruth (Frances Fisher). The couple is to be wed upon their arrival in Philadelphia. This is a good match for the two of them, but Rose is more preoccupied with the paintings of Picasso, and eager to be her own woman, than she is enamored with Cal. His old way of thinking, of controlling his woman, is not what Rose desires in any way.

Thankfully, a young rogue named Jack Dawson (DiCaprio) is near the ship, winning two tickets in a game of poker. Soon he and his friend, a random Italian named Fabrizio (Danny Nucci), are boarding the cruise liner. Fabrizio’s role initially is to be someone for Jack to exposit at, letting the audience know Jack’s nature and character. Fabrizio disappears for vast amounts of the narrative, then resurfaces to shout “Bastardo” at many people as the ship sinks.

Naturally, these two dynamic young people find each other, and Rose is taken with Jack’s carefree spirit and his utter lack of chains. He is taken with her beauty, and her desire to escape the bonds of wealth that will bind her as soon as her nuptials are complete. They fall in love, quickly and passionately , and are soon causing problems on the ship. Cal is angry, and seeks to control the situation, but young love cannot be stopped. Until the boat hits an iceberg, sinks for a couple hours, and Jack dies.

Intermittently, this narrative of the elder Rose is interrupted to remind us that the film has a wraparound story that explains stuff. These moments are painful, as they remind us both that Stuart should not have been cast in this role (or was awfully misdirected by Cameron) and that Bill Paxton is still in the film. This side story lacks any of the positive qualities of the primary narrative, and while potentially romantic to young girls (old Rose has kept the love of her life aflame in her heart for 85 years), is also rife with narrative aberrations. For 85 years she has kept a valuable necklace with her, so that she can let go of it on her deathbed. Was this a part of her plan all along? To not die until she was 102, someone had discovered the wreck of Titanic, and she could invite herself along and throw the necklace into the water?

All of this is a great shame, because long stretches of the film are engaging and vastly impressive. The boat sinks for approximately an hour and a half, and much of this time, apart from when Jack or Rose are speaking, is thrilling. The special effects here have aged well (unfortunately, the opening shots of the liner docked in Ireland have aged horribly, and look like terribly blocky CG), and Cameron’s skill at crafting exciting moments is evident. The young couple must run constantly forward and backward, and up and down, to escape Cal, the water, and attempt to survive the ship splitting in two and sinking. The music and mise en scène are effective at creating a doomed atmosphere, but the mood is consistently ruined as soon as Jack must save Rose, or Rose must save Jack, and they must once again be reunited and speak to each other.

It is clear that Cameron crafted both the characters and the story in such a way that they will eternally appeal to young girls. Rose is spirited, tied down and dying to be freed, much like a Jane Austen heroine. Jack is exactly what she needs; someone spontaneous, full of life, and rebellious. They are allowed a brief and passionate affair. After sex in a car he is nervous and shaking, and she is in control. She presses his head to her bosom, assuring him that everything is all right. And there are no consequences for any of their actions. She is freed of the eventual bonds that would entangle both of them if he lived to marry her (positive as those bonds may be) because of his death. As an added bonus, she is able to carry a deep, dark, romantic secret with her the rest of her life, always cherishing the person she met only long enough to ensure that he would always remain the most perfect man she ever knew.

I apologize that this review has occasionally turned into a more personal rant than I normally allow. Titanic, which we watched in 3D on the big screen (the 3D neither adds to nor detracts from the film, though the large screen makes the engrossing moments more effective), is a terrible film. But it is infuriating, too, because some of it is so good. I wanted to like it, I started to like parts of it, I started to even care about the characters and what would happen to them (granted, I had seen it before). But each time I was on the verge of actually caring, someone spoke and the spell was ruined. Disastrous dialogue spilled out of Jack or Rose’s mouth like a torrent of water, and nothing could undo what they said. This happened so incessantly that the entire film is ruined; a disastrous, albeit unfortunate, mess. I had much preferred it the first time I saw it, when its flaws were evidently much more carefully hidden. Needless to say, I hope to not have to dedicate three and a quarter hours of my life to this mess again.

Rated PG-13 by the MPAA – contains mature themes

A Separation is about as far as a standard narrative film can be from anything resembling an American film. This is an Iranian film, through and through, though there are strong similarities between the culture, so convincingly displayed here, and other cultures in South Asia and the Middle East. The story is complicated, sometimes confused, and always fascinating. Supported by incredible acting and strong writing, A Separation becomes an impressive cinematic endeavor.

The opening shot is the point of view of a judge at a hearing. Staring directly into the camera are Simin (Leila Hatami) and Nader (Peyman Moadi). Simin wants a divorce, but Nader won’t grant it. She wants to leave the country, with their daughter Termeh (Sarina Farhadi), but the fact that Nader won’t grant a divorce is preventing her. Only officially separated can she leave. But he will not allow it; they need to stay where they are and care for his father (Ali-Asghar Shahbazi), who suffers from Alzheimer’s and needs constant care.

Despite the earnest pleas of Simin, and Nader’s calm refusal to give in, the judge decrees that there can be no divorce. Back in their apartment, Simin prepares to leave, while Nader finds a new caretaker for his father. Razieh (Sareh Bayat) is a devout Muslim, and able to take care of the house while Simin is no longer there. Between Razieh and Termeh, Nader’s father can be given constant care. There are issues, however, and soon Nader is accused of an awful crime, and must fight for his honor, dignity, and life in the courts.

The film is calm but never slow, and the story unfolds continuously for two full hours. There are plenty of twists and turns along the way; never suspenseful, but always meaningful. The things that happen will undermine or maintain the honor of Nader, and, therefore, his wife and daughter. Conversely, the actions of Termeh and Simin will reflect on Nader, and he is very careful to protect his dignity.

The issue of truth is an important one in the film. Some of the most fascinating scenes are those in the courtroom, where Razieh’s husband Hodjat (Shahab Hosseini) lets loose his fiery temper on Nader for the harm he has allegedly caused their family. The judge sits at a desk, not at a courtroom bench as they might in America, and Nader, Hodjat and Razieh all face him mere feet apart. The judge quietly listens to the disparate points of view regarding the incident, and chides and prods as he his able. The judge is familiar with the game that’s played: everyone tells a part of the truth, but no one ever tells the whole truth. And this isn’t a problem, necessarily, it just makes the judge’s decision all the more difficult. As a result, neither is the audience fully able to understand the entire situation. Only a part of the puzzle is revealed at any one time, and each part is subject to change depending on a future revelation. Again, rarely is anyone trying to be dishonest or outright “lie” in the American sense of the word. Instead, each is trying to tell the story accurately but in a way that reflects well on the family honor. This is far more important than letting the entire truth be exposed, whatever it may be. And each involved party has its own honor to defend, and therefore reveals only the parts of the truth that they might deem immediately relevant and honorable.

The backdrop against which this is played out is pitch perfect. The mise-en-scène is about the only element of the film which is entirely accurate and truthful. The streets are dusty, and full of people and vehicles. This Iran might not fit the stereotypes many Americans might place on the country; there are nice cars, and dishwashers. The family arguments consistently take place in the kitchen, or living room, as dishes are being put away or other chores are accomplished. The court is crowded, with people jostling every which way. It is amazing that anyone can tell where to go or how to get there, and it appears a miracle that the judge can keep any semblance of order. But it all works and functions, in its own unique way that might perplex Westerners unfamiliar with that part of the world. Westerners who have traveled to Iran, or anywhere nearby, will be able to immediately identify with the setting and its idiosyncrasies.

Such a complex, well established backdrop makes the story of A Separation all the more identifiable and engrossing. Its human element is undeniable, and strong, subtle performances from each of the leads lends great credence to the humanity on display.  Everyone is flawed, in a different way, but each also acts in accordance with his or her own personal motivations.  Each one is understandable, sympathetic, and infuriating because of their actions. Multiple viewings may even be required to pick up all the nuances and subtleties that the characters and filmmakers employ to paint such a picture.

Rated PG-13 by the MPAA – contains violence, mature themes

It wouldn’t be hard to complain about The Hunger Games, if one were so inclined. The story contains many elements we have seen in a variety of media over the past several decades, some of the story telling is overly didactic, some of the dialogue is cheesy, some of the plot points absurd.  Personally, it was easy to overlook these mild to moderate transgressions against cinema, for the story is pleasant and engaging, the characters somewhat interesting, and the subject matter, while not particularly original, at least competently presented.  Most of the time, I really quite enjoyed The Hunger Games.

Borrowing bits of the Half Life 2 atmosphere, the story from Battle Royale and countless films and books before, it’s clear that there’s not anything particularly new about the film.  But it does such a pleasant job of creating an amalgam of these elements that the journey is enjoyable.  It isn’t as brutal or harsh as the subject matter might seem to dictate, though perhaps this is more fully addressed in the next two entries of the series.

The film quickly and succinctly lays out the universe of Panem.  There are a number of districts, each of them slightly farther removed from the previous one.  District 12, the farthest outlier, is home to Katniss Eberdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and her sister Prim (Willow Shields).  They are poor, in a coal mining district, and Katniss is forced to hunt for food to sell or eat.  Katniss loves the wooded areas nearby, both for hunting and for a sense of peace and calm.  They are her escape, and as long as she has her bow, she is at home.

Each year the twelve districts are each forced to send one boy and one girl to compete in a gladiatorial arena of sorts.  They are tributes, paid to the central government, in penance for a rebellion that occurred 70-odd years prior.  The 24 youths are forced to fight to the death, until only one remains to be crowned with glory and riches.  The entire world watches as the bloodbath unfolds, and somehow this keeps the various districts subdued and orderly.

There wouldn’t be much of a film unless Katniss were chosen to fight in the Hunger Games.  She joins a young lad from her district, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), and together they are whisked away to the Capitol, a land of narcissistic, colorful, filthy rich people.  These people are constantly happy with their immense wealth, and terribly enjoy watching the games.  They are led by a President (Donald Sutherland), and the games themselves are produced by a Game Master (Wes Bentley).  Talk show host Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci) narrates the games, interviews all the contestants, and is generally loved by everyone.  On Katniss and Peeta’s side are Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks) and Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), a past winner of the games now more involved in his drink than anything else.  Nevertheless, he helps train Katniss and Peeta, in the hopes that they won’t die immediately.

The story moves quickly, and interestingly, until the games actually begin.  Here it slows down slightly and becomes a bit more banal.  Katniss must fight, and win, or else these wouldn’t be best selling books.  At times the narration of Caesar, just as a new game element is introduced, becomes overly didactic and distracting.  Worst of all, as the relationship between Katniss and Peeta finally becomes more serious, lines of terrible dialogue are allowed to slip in, slightly ruining the mood.  Some silliness towards the end doesn’t help, but by the time the end rolls around I wasn’t entirely turned off; the remainder of the story and characters were more than interesting enough to keep my attention and ensure I was engaged.

The film does a nice job of outlining, at the beginning, the horror of the games, and how awful such a concept is.  The enjoyment of the people in the Capitol adds to how despicable the entire set up is, so until the games begin the audience is fairly set against such an atrocity.  But then the games start, and while the violence isn’t glorified, the audience is engaged in the destruction to a deeper, more disturbing degree.  A saving grace would have been forcing Katniss, our beloved hero, to kill those close to her, as such a game ought to demand.  But the film can’t execute on this point, because it would immediately turn off the audience.  I have heard that the next two books deal more delicately with the horrors of the games, but in this initial film the horror is never driven home.

There are many interesting themes, too, in the beginning parts of the film.  Themes of class issues and the poverty gap are plainly evident.  Katniss comes from much the same community as Ree in Winter’s Bone [review here], Lawrence’s breakout role.  But these themes are all but entirely tossed aside as the games take hold.  It is unfortunate because the film is rather good, but could have perhaps been something better.  Nevertheless, The Hunger Games is a more than adequate adaptation of the young adult novel.  The actors are fine, particularly Lawrence and Harrelson, and the special effects are generally standard (except for the final encounter during the games).  The camera work, while a bit jerky, gives the necessary impressions of the action that is occurring, and was perhaps vital in certain scenes portraying teen-on-teen violence.  Overall, I quite enjoyed the film.  There are still several elements to complain about, but I’m far from sorry that I saw it.

Rated R by the MPAA – contains violence, strong language, disturbing content

[Rec] ² starts off the minute the first film ended. After a claustrophobic first movie set in an infested apartment building in Barcelona, the second continues to deliver an intense, consistently suspenseful and occasionally terrifying cinematic experience. There is perhaps a little more story this time around, but the emphasis is centered on creating a nerve-wracking, moody atmosphere.

At the start of the film Dr. Owen (Jonathan Mellor) leads a small SWAT team into the building that has been quarantined for a full movie. Pretty soon the creatures, former inhabitants of the building now possessed or infected with something deadly, attack, leaving Dr. Owen pretty much on his own. A cameraman accompanies the SWAT team, and the first chunk of the film is only footage from this camera.

A group of teenagers on the outside is curious and mischievous. Mire (Andrea Ros), Ori (Àlex Batllori), and Tito (Pau Poch) follow a team around and find a side entrance to the building. With their own camera this ragtag group soon meets up with Dr. Owen, who confesses that he has a secret purpose. He’s been sent by the Vatican to procure a blood sample from the original infected person, with the hope of saving mankind from the evil that has been unleashed.

Sure, it’s understandable if the explanation is a little on the silly side. Watching the film is another matter, as the simple idea of only seeing what’s been captured on the character’s cameras proves rather effective. Like Cloverfield or Diary of the Dead, the ploy of using only in-film footage is only occasionally distracting. For the most part it works, thanks to the atmosphere, and [Rec] ² succeeds with a stronger setting than The Blair Witch Project.

There is still a fair amount of blood and violence, though it’s generally captured like news footage. The scares come primarily from nicely set-up jump scenes; even when it’s clear that a creature is about to enter, the speed and ferocity of its attack is frightening. It also helps that the cameras generally grab only a fraction of the action, leaving the viewer’s mind to fill in the gaps. A few of the night vision shots are a little cheesy, but the evocative sets and makeup balance out the green-ness.

[Rec] ² works better than most concept films, where the gimmick lies in how it was made. It succeeds because it also works as a horror film. The plot heavily relies on supernatural tropes this time around, though the creatures still bear strong resemblances to zombies. But it doesn’t really matter, just as the acting doesn’t really matter. The setting and the mood are given primary importance, and the benefit of shooting in low light (or night vision) is that one doesn’t need the most expensive sets or makeup. In a way, [Rec] ² is akin to some of the classic horror films, those whose path was paved with innovation necessitated by limited funding. For this, and the success it breeds, the film is worth its weight as a horror film.