Hi Ho, Silver Lining (of the David O. Russell variety, not Jeff Beck)

Romantic comedies are easily one of the most difficult movies to execute in a manner that does not feel cloying or lacking in authenticity.  In all honesty a lot of the issue with these films is in the characters, and in particular the couple that is inevitably expected to make the pairing of the film.  Do the two individuals within the romance both possess a charm while still having enough complexity to not become dull?  Will it seem like a complete lapse in logic that these two would ever find love in one another?  And most of all, will it be meaningful to me as a viewer and most of all will I CARE if the two lead performers end up together before the credits roll?

David O. Russell's follow-up to "The Fighter", the oddly dubbed "Silver Linings Playbook" is a terrific romantic comedy.  More impressive is the fact that it feels like a wholly original one as well, as romantic comedies are often the most derivative of all the genre films.  Perhaps the most prominent detail of this film is that the two romantic leads in the film (Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence) both play flawed individuals who both are struggling to navigate deep-seated emotional issues within themselves.  The entire time I was watching this film every interaction these two had with one another made me yearn to see them in an embrace by the conclusion of the film.  The fact that they were both lacking in emotional maturity in some capacity didn't alienate me as a viewer at all;  in fact it made both of them seem far more identifiable and made the entire relationship feel far more tangible and realistic than what is often found in films of this type.

The film itself is driven by Bradley Cooper's character, Pat, a man plagued by emotional pain after having beaten almost to death the man whom he caught his wife Nikki having an affair with.  Pat moves in with his parents (Robert DeNiro and Jacki Weaver) and finds himself struggling to cope with his demons and finding little success.  That is until he encounters Tiffany, a recovering sex addicted widow who has sass to spare.  As Tiffany expresses a plan to Pat that he believes would win him back Nikki's affections, a romance begins to blossom between the two, as long as family, confusion, and their own neuroses does not doom the relationship before it begins.

I gotta hand it to Bradley Cooper;  I have been waiting to see what all the fuss is about regarding to his acting and with this role he has proven himself capable to the task.  Prior to this I felt the best performance I had seen him in was in the immensely dumb but highly entertaining "The A-Team", but Cooper here is able to play a man lacking the maturity he needs to make healthy decisions while still coming across as relatable.  He doesn't play Pat's psychotic episodes as over-the-top or cartoonish, but in a manner that makes them seem eerily true-to-life.  For a very funny picture, Cooper is able to nail the serious moments skillfully.  While some of the other actors are getting larger praise than Cooper he should not be dismissed as his performance is the glue that holds the film together.

The two other actors worth singling out before I get to the one that everyone is deservedly raving about is Robert DeNiro and surprisingly Chris Tucker.  Now some will argue the idea that DeNiro would be terrific is almost laughable to bring up;  not so.  DeNiro, as legendary and talented as he is, has not picked the best roles over the last 20 years of his career, and it was such a relief to see the DeNiro I know and love baring his soul in this film.  The scene where he is brought to tears by his confession that he could have been a better , more understanding father to Pat almost made me well up, as it felt real and without a single false step.  DeNiro shows more sensitivity in this role than he has had an opportunity to in a long time.  It is truly a return to form for him and I hope it leads to similar roles for him once again.  As for Tucker, who knew Tucker could ditch the high-falsetto comedy shtick and execute a serious role so convincingly?  He is great as a friend of Cooper's from his hospital stay, and he manages to be funny without pulling from the usual gimmicks associated with his "act".

And that brings us to Jennifer Lawrence;  I love this woman after seeing her in this film.  Granted, I climbed aboard the Jennifer Lawrence Fan Club train a few years ago after she blew every other actress her age out of the water with her performance in "Winter's Bone", and continued my admiration for her diverse talent after impressive turns in "X-Men: First Class" and "The Hunger Games".  But none of her admittedly strong past performances hold a candle to her bravura work here as Tiffany, the emotionally wrecked young woman whom Pat slowly realizes he is beginning to fall for.  Tiffany is a volatile, quick-tempered young woman with baggage to spare as a result of her husband's death for whom she feels somewhat responsible for.  On paper, she should not be the type of woman your typical viewer would immediately fall for in viewing this picture.  However, that is the key to Lawrence's brilliance in the role;  I loved Tiffany in this film from the moment she graced the screen, not just because Lawrence is very easy on the eyes (for the record: she most certainly is), but her ability to display a ferocity in the role while making it naturally apparent it is masking a truly wounded soul makes her very alluring.  And the age difference between actress and role cannot be dismissed when discussing this performance.  Bradley Cooper was 37 when filming this and Lawrence was 21, and as a result one would suspect the relationship in this film would be doomed to a creepy "trophy wife" vibe on behalf of Cooper's age.  But where Lawrence steps up her game is in her ability to come off so convincingly as a strong young woman several years beyond her actual age, and most impressively, her relationship with Bradley Cooper's Pat is not only accepted by the viewer but fully desired and embraced.  The chemistry between the two should not make sense in theory because of the age gap but I actually felt they displayed the type of connection onscreen several of the classic romantic pairings did, albeit with a script depicting far more broken and lost people.

In approaching the direction and structure of the film, I must admit I am doing so with a bit of embarrassment.  When I heard David O. Russell was helming a new picture, I rolled my eyes and had an attitude of "oh geez, THAT guy again".  Yet as I was watching "Silver Linings Playbook" and loving both the presentation and depth of it, I tried to remember why I was not particularly a fan of Russell's work, and in that moment I realized that I actually have enjoyed every film Russell has released thus far.  I loved "The Fighter".  I felt "Three Kings" was a movie that didn't get nearly as much acclaim as it deserved and I am very pleased to hear that it has attained higher stature in the passing years.  I even thought the odd "I Heart Huckabees" was immensely entertaining.  The only thing I can think may have deterred my opinion of his talent is the fact that several actors, especially George Clooney and Lily Tomlin, have expressed publicly that he is a nightmare to work with.  With this film I have learned the error of my ways in subconsciously judging Russell's direction based on his quirks outside of the work, as the direction was very smart in this picture.  I particularly liked the use of zoom in the picture to emphasize emotional intensity;  it reminded me to some degree how Scorsese used jump cuts to emphasize emotional anguish in "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore".  Russell actually is utilizing the film medium to express emotional elements, which should be a primary objective for most directors but is utilized by very few. I also appreciate that Russell's color palette and film stock style has become very unique to Russell;  you can't watch his films and not recognize the same author birthed each one.  The script is fantastic, probably my favorite dialogue and story construction of the year behind "Django", and if I had to select my personal favorite for winner at the Oscars in the Adapted Screenplay category, this would be my peerless favorite.

Did I have any objections to the film?  Precious few, but yes.  As much praise as every actor has received for their contributions to this film (and make no mistake, there's not a weak actor in the bunch), I felt Jacki Weaver's role was pretty basic and not necessarily worthy of acclaim in the way the three lead actors have been praised.  She is ridiculously talented as any lucky film nerd who saw her performance in "Animal Kingdom" can attest, but I feel it was more a role that was servicing the story and moving the other characters along rather than actually enhancing the film.  And my biggest issue with the film (SPOILER ALERT) lies in the scene where Robert DeNiro asks his son to accompany his brother to a Philadelphia Eagles game rather than attend a crucial dance practice with Tiffany.  I was slightly annoyed with the fact that such a major plot point in the film was predicated on a father wanting to change his emotionally fragile son's plans simply because he felt it would be "good luck" for the team he was betting on.  Granted, there have been several movies where I have allowed similar leaps in logic to pass me by without incident, but that one for some reason just crawled under my skin for a moment and annoyed me.  Thankfully the overwhelming quality of the rest of the script and my adoration for almost every character in the picture muted this minor objection.

There is a scene near the end of the movie where Pat in conversation with Tiffany states "The only way to beat my crazy was by doing something even crazier".  "Silver Linings Playbook" is ultimately a film about two "crazy" people finding emotional peace and a love they were desperately searching for unexpectedly in one another.  While the film seems like a somewhat quirky romance on the surface, the truth is most of us are either freaking nuts are at least feel as if we are at several moments in our lives.  "Silver Linings" reveals that even the emotionally scarred are not only deserving of love, but that the process of watching that love unfold can be so satisfying.

Rating: 9/10

"Detention": "Perks of Being a Wallflower", Minus All Quality and Charm

I went out of my way to check out the 2012 independent film "Detention" despite several warning signs alerting me this was to be a poor lapse in judgement and rationale.  True, it maintained an atrocious 37% on Rotten Tomatoes, and true, I hadn't heard many positive reviews to the few critics I have read who had the misfortune of viewing it.  However, I was still compelled to view it;  the concept of the film, which initially appeared on the surface to be a comedy that blended John Hughes with "Halloween", sounded highly enticing to me.  Plus it had that Josh Hutcherson fellow who played "Peeta" in "The Hunger Games", and he actually is a decent actor in that, so why not roll the dice and take a chance on a fresh concept?  Also adding to my desire to view it was the discovery it debuted at the increasingly famous and cool SXSW Festival and won several other film festival awards over the last few years.  I figured maybe the critics who had panned it just didn't "get" a film that clearly was not constructed for their generation.

Well, I learned my lesson.  Painfully.  There is nothing wrong with taking a chance on a fresh concept;  and if there was a single fresh concept in the entire running time of this film, that might be enough of a reason to give it a slightly better review.  In fact the only moments that feel even remotely original in this film are the myriad of scenes that make no sense in the narrative and try to insert yet another genre cliche under the guise of being "hip".  I have seen several films try too hard to be "hip" and "too cool for the room" in different capacities, but teenage youth films easily are the most guilty of such pandering and desperation.  And I have seen even movies I enjoyed (the somewhat now dated "Scream 2") that I felt were obsessing over the need to be savvy and pop culturally aware.  But I have NEVER seen a movie so OBNOXIOUSLY and RELENTLESSLY devoted to trying to look as if its trendy and witty that has crumbled more tragically under the ruins left by its own narcissism.

So what is this miserable excuse for a motion picture about?  Even a summary of the plot is wrought with a multitude of issues.  The plot supposedly details the story of a group of a group of teens who apparently are incapable of speaking a lick of dialogue that isn't peppered with idiotic slang who are picked off one by one by a serial killer.  The serial killer, Cinderhella, wears a mangled mask and a tiara, and is the anti-hero of a famous horror series popular among the teens.  The idea proposed in the film is that someone has dressed like the popular film murderer and is now executing students in reality.

Or, at least that's the plot the film SEEMS to be following.  For the first 20 minutes or so this seems to be the story the film is trying to push, albeit in a more comedic fashion.  But as the film progresses?  It then decides to include various other elements that make no sense within this central plot and in NO WAY work with the primary story.  Time travel is explored.  A jock is able to turn into a half-man, half-fly hybrid. An alien spaceship appears in one sequence.  Even an Iron Man bear suit is included.  There's even the apocalypse.  Yep, the apocalypse.  This movie is so awful had it been released in December I would have believed that the Mayans were right. If you're asking how can all of these details fit logically into one film.............they do not.

Before I rip this film, is there anything redeeming about the film?  Very, very little, but yes.  The film's initial premise, unfettered by all of its other vain attempts to satirize every other teen-friendly genre known to man, is not a bad one.  In fact the idea of having a "Breakfast Club" slasher movie is such a good one, that I doubt it will be long before someone legitimately explores that plot concept and pulls a strong movie out of it.  Which I know will ultimately be frustrating on some level, because there will be a rabid loyalist to this dumb movie who will insist that the superior picture "just ripped off detention".  No, sometimes a movie is not ripping off another, but is merely taking a good concept that was done poorly and actually makes a capable piece of entertainment with it.

Now, to what is wrong with the film.  First and foremost, this is not an actual movie.  This movie is a pathetic attempt for a director to show off all of his pop culture obsessions every 15 seconds in hopes that people compliment him on his good tastes.  This is nothing more than a film hipster's masturbatory fantasy brought to life.  Here is exactly how desperate this filmmakers' neediness to be respected for his choices in film goes:
-There is a character named Billy Nolan, the same name of Carrie's prom date in Carrie.
-There's an obvious Joss Whedon wannabe element throughout.  Its ironic, since the film seemingly wants to comment on the whole teen movie genre and fails on an epic scale, and Whedon's own "Cabin in the Woods" did the same thing brilliantly with the horror genre.  There's even a central character named "Xander" and obvious namesake derived from the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" character.
-There's another character named Ione, an obvious name check of Ione Skye from "Say Anything".
-During a fight scene a girl yells to Josh Hutcherson's character "Clapton you're my Ralph Macchio, do the crane thing!"
-Josh Hutcherson's name is Clapton.  CLAPTON.
-In one scene, a teacher is discussing the flux capacitor and has written 1.21 gigawatts on the chalkboard.
-Josh Hutcherson's character has an unhealthy obsession with the camp classic "Roadhouse" and it is mentioned and referenced repeatedly in the film.
-"Freejack", "My So-Called Life", "Volcano", "Torque", and "Hotel for Dogs" are all name-checked ironically.
If you think one or two of these bullet points sound clever, ok, I will forgive that.  But these are just a few examples encapsulating a relentless onslaught of 80's and 90's references with no real rhyme or reason to it.  The film should be titled "LOOK!!!! LOOK!!!!! I KNOW ABOUT FRINGE POP CULTURE FROM THE 80'S!  AND THE 90'S TOO!  PLOT?  WHAT ON EARTH IS A PLOT?????  PLEASE LOVE ME!!!!!  PLEASE THINK I'M SO COOL!".

As for the direction of the film, it is also a menagerie of bad habits.  Characters constantly talk to the camera in that classic "Ferris Bueller" style of self-awareness, with "trendy, self-aware" text often accompanying their comments.  Halfway through the film, the director apparently saw "Super 8" or some other JJ Abrams-inspired work because there is lens flare after lens flare, both poorly executed and horribly misplaced.  To the director's credit, he clearly does know how to shoot certain elements, how to center a shot, how to transition several shots, and I would even go so far to say that he is competent behind the camera.  I'll even admit in the first 5-10 minutes being somewhat impressed by some of the style of the direction.  But ultimately this film isn't just an example of style over substance, it is an example of style.......and then substance left the building very early and it's seat was filled with a lot more unauthentic style.  To be fair while the script and the characters are either largely weak or painfully contrived, I don't feel like I can fault any one performance in the film as awful, as it does seem like everyone involved tried the best they could with weaker material.  And yes naysayers, I know Dane Cook is in the film, but I am defending him as well.  Cook is not great in the film, but I think he does decently with source material that is lackluster from the start.

Don't watch "Detention".  Avoid it like the plague, unless you enjoy the warmth and flush of emotion that comes along with the ire one experiences when watching a truly terrible movie.  If you are wanting to watch a horror comedy, go see "Cabin in the Woods", which was not only one of the best films of the year but one of the best horror comedies ever in my estimation.  There are brief moments where this movie shows the director may have a future, but if he continues to make irritating self-congratulatory work such as this that talent will never be utilized to produce anything substantial.

Rating: 2/10

Les Miserables: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying About Overrated Directors and Love a Solid Motion Picture

If we are to accept the modern "auteur" theory of film criticism, then it is an understood concept that the director of a motion picture is considered by most to be the author of a film.  And make no mistake, I am a devotee to this theory:  I am much more prone to heaping praise on Martin Scorsese for directing "Raging Bull" or "Taxi Driver" for its excellence, despite the fact that both films were actually written by Paul Schrader.  I do believe that because of the manner in which a director has to multi-task so many different aspects of a film a filmmaker typically deserves the credit when a film succeeds in achieving what it had hoped for.

With that said, I do not feel that way AT ALL about the recent 2012 film musical "Les Miserables", a long-awaited screen adaptation of a play that has been beloved for two decades.  This does not mean that "Les Mis" is a bad film;  quite the opposite in fact.  No, a large wealth of the review I will be heaping praise on what works in the film, and far more works than does not.  But among the many flaws that abound with this film, most of the them can all be rooted to the man at the helm of this picture, Tom Hooper.  I have expressed my objection to Hooper before for winning Best Director for "The King's Speech", upsetting the clearly far more technically proficient David Fincher for "The Social Network".  I thought "Speech" was a great film, but nothing in the execution or direction was impressive about the film, it was all in the performance and script.  "Les Mis" takes this to the 1000th degree.  The script, music, and performances are terrific, and its a good thing too because if the movie was being carried purely on its direction it would have crumbled to the ground. It's not that "Les Mis" isn't great;  its just frustrating because I think under the direction of someone else it could have been better.

For those unfamiliar with the story of "Les Mis" in any of its current or previous incarnations, it chronicles the tale fo Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), a man newly emancipated from imprisonment for 19 years as a result of stealing a piece of bread who breaks parole to start his life anew.  After making a promise to care for a dying factory worker's (Anne Hathaway) daugher once she has passed, Valjean finds a new purpose that drives his life in the care of the beautiful young Cosette.  But Valjean tries to keep his adopted daughter and himself in hiding from the dutiful and obsessive eye of Javert (Russell Crowe), the law enforcement official obsessed with bringing him to justice for breaking his parole.

So before I get to some of my admitted qualms with this film, it is probably best at first to detail what I did love about the film.  First and foremost, the single best quality of the film can be summed up in two words:  Anne Hathaway.  Hathaway's part really is a supporting role in every way;  in all honesty her total screen time ends up being under 20 minutes.  But the visceral energy she brings into every scene is performing within is palpable.  Her performance as Fantine is remarkable in that at no point does any element of what she is doing onscreen feel as if it is a performance.  Hathaway sells the anguish, desperation, and even the anger of a broken and beaten woman having to sell her body for the well-being of her beloved child.  the unbroken close-up shot of her during her show-stopping rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" was spellbinding.  Of all the high praise I can give Hathaway the one that chimes in my mind loudest is this:  even above the legendary Daniel Day-Lewis, I feel Hathaway is the strongest lock for an Oscar victory at the Academy Awards this year, and every inch of the praise she has garnered is warranted.

Also capturing my attention in a way I did not expect is Hugh Jackman.and Russell Crowe.  I am mentioning them together not to debase Jackman's lead performance in this film, as it is a strong one, but to emphasize how much better the film is when playing off the dynamic of the two of these actors together.  Jackman has already proven himself to be a capable actor in musical films, but Crowe really established himself as an actor who is comfortable in this genre as well.  It shouldn't have been that much of a surprise, considering Crowe has his own Australian rock band, but I was overly impressed because in many ways he has the more difficult part than Jackman.  Jackman is playing a man who we respect because he was once a criminal and is trying to rise above his own sins to be remembered as a great man.  Crowe, on the other hand, is to some degree playing the "villain" but still has to strive to maintain a sense of respect among the audience because at his core, he is simply doing his duty to its fullest.  Outside of Hathaway's big moment these are the most fulfilling moments in the picture.

The rest of the cast with minor exceptions (I am getting to that) are also competent and service the material well;  even Amanda Seyfried, who I am not a traditionally a fan of, has an angelic voice as Cosette.  I also applaud the filmmakers' decision to sing everything live rather than having them lip-sync precorded music;  the ambience of the sound at first took some getting used to in the opening scenes because of this, but once your ear adapted to it, its actually preferable.  Not only does it ultimately have a more authentic sound, but it allows the performances to open up, and I would argue that this film's actors emote far better than even the actors in great musicals like "Chicago" as a result of not having to over-think the syncing of the scene.  And the script itself, blending sadness, tragedy, religion, crime, and French revolution, is also highly commendable........

So what is my issue with the film?  Well there are a few, but it comes down to one central element:  Tom Hooper.  Tom Hooper is a director that I have very little love or admiration for, and the fanfare that he receives is still puzzling to me.  I will begin my critique of this overhyped filmmaker by pointing out what I DO enjoy about him.  First of all, he does have the propensity to pick some really terrific scripts.  And secondly, his sense of casting a picture continuously produces actor/role pairings that feel very spot-on.  And no I am not minimizing the importance of either of these elements, as character and story I feel are the driving forces of any great picture.

But how much say does Hooper really have in these elements?  It has been widely raved in describing Hathaway's performance that she literally brought the audience to tears in her AUDITION.  That tells me that Hooper did not have much of a hand in her stellar performance;  it was an energy and passion she brought to the project coming in.  Even in talks of "The King's Speech" many of the actors described their process with nary a mention of any prominent contribution that Hooper had to the actual quality of the performance.  And these details would not be enraging if the way in which "Les Mis" is shot was not often awkward and aggravating.  This film had as many tilted angle shots (known in the film business as "canted angle" or "Dutch angle") as "Battlefield Earth" it seems.  And when your shooting style is being compared to "Battlefield Earth" it is typically cause for alarm.  Another Steadicam shot where Jean Valjean is renouncing his life as a thief and the camera is spinning around him is so frenetic it borders on disorienting.  It was also apparent at moments that Hooper had to create an epic feeling with very isolated sets in a few moments that were clearly suffering from budget constraints.  Granted that is not his fault, and I'll even agree he pulls off the scale in several moments effectively, but in the uprising scene in the middle of the city in particular it was difficult for me not to notice I was being subjected to too many close-ups and camera tricks to try to distract me from the obvious.  The movie is a very, very good film.........but based on the strength of the film and the script, all of which seemed to be firing on all cylinders, it frustrates me because I feel like it could have been even better if a more assured filmmaker had been behind the camera.  My only other major complaint about the film lies in the performance of Samantha Barks as Eponine, the young woman whose unrequited love leads her to a path of tragedy.  For me, and I am conceding it is likely just me voicing this opinion, she did not express the torment and anguish of having a love that is not readily returned the way it had been executed in other recordings and performances I have seen of this musical.  I have heard she recently performed this role in the 25th Anniversary DVD of the stage performance, and I am interested to see how she approached the role in that capacity.  "On My Own" is my favorite song in "Les Mis" and sadly it was my least favorite performance in the film.

I know the loyal devotees of "Les Mis" will likely call for my demise as a result of my comments.  There is something so pure about the sadness and desire emanating from this story that it is impossible not to be seduced to its charms if you are truly someone who appreciates a compelling story.  And yes I fell for it too; I even have the soundtrack saved on my phone as there are several performances I continue re-listening to.  But I also cannot avoid the fact that there are very straightforward details that prevent the film from entering "masterpiece" territory.

Rating: 8/10

"Dark Horse": Immaturity's Futile Attempt at Romance

Todd Solondz is a challenging director for me to articulate to the uninitiated to his work.  When asked if I have every considered writing or making my own film, Solondz is the director I always point to as the filmmaker I feel I would most want to emulate or mirror if I were to pick up a camera and attempt it.  He is not necessarily the best director.  And while he typically manages to pull some great performances out of his actors, typically there are some that miss their mark in each of his films.  And because of the content in his films, which often rotates through teenage bullying, child molestation, abortion, and interracial relationships, all of which are often mined for darkly comedic purposes, Solondz is a director whose films I cannot recommend to many people.  Yet one fact persists throughout all of Solondz' work:  it is all very daring and always highly personal, two traits I feel far too few directors possess in this day and age.

It is precisely for these reasons I approached the latest entry to his filmography, "Dark Horse", with a sense of morbid fascination and curiousity.  First of all, because all of Solondz works I anticipate with a fanboy sense of excitement.  Secondly, because this is Solondz' first attempt at what can be considered a more "mainstream" affair. The music, film stock, and overall tone and even the opening credits are reflective of a less independent vibe than Solondz' previous films.   And while pedigreed actors like John Goodman and a pre-Oscar Philip Seymour Hoffman had appeared in some of his previous films, this film includes Christopher Walken among its cast and therefore has a more high-profile actor associated with it than any of his past films.  

Now, while I feel this film is much tamer than its predecessors and that admittedly provided an initial disappointment in my viewing of the film, I ultimately found it reasonably enjoyable because it still maintains that Solondz spirit.  The film reflects the story of a cynical misanthropic man-child named Abe (Jordan Gelber) whose life has hit a glass ceiling as a result of his own inability to mature and develop adult behaviors.  He still lives with his parents, works for his disapproving father (Christopher Walken), and spends his income primarily on his action figure collection.  He is also prone to outbursts and an intense persecution complex, much to the chagrin of those close to him.

Abe begins to feel his only salvation will be to prove he is an adult by entering into a relationship that has the illusion of "substance" to it.  Driven by his clearly impulsive behavior, he proposes marriage to Miranda (Selma Blair), a dysthymic depressive woman who has moved back home after a failed writing career.  Though Miranda makes it clear she does not share any of the feelings that Abe possesses, she agrees to marry Abe, feeling it might be the direction her life needs that she has sorely needed since pursuing her dreams and coming up short.  This decision leads to a series of situations where Abe is faced with various obstacles, with nothing less than disease, death, and his own immaturity being among the challenges he is left to encounter.

While this might be Solondz' most accessible work (and admittedly my least favorite of his films), that does not mean that the film doesn't maintain the transgressive spirit Solondz fans have come to know and love.  Abe's character is a selfish, juvenile, and in a manner that alternates between chilling and darkly funny, is highly delusional.  Some of Abe's mental hallucinations are woven into the film in a way that seem so natural at some moments you don't realize its an illusion initially.  What is even more penetrating is that Abe feels like an individual we have all met and the delusions themselves seem somehow frighteningly real.  It is a testament to Solondz' style that the moments in this film that feel the most honest and realistic are the ones that are the most surrealistic in tone.  I do feel that Abe's angry young man act begins to lose any trace of empathy by the end of the film, but as a character study its undoubtedly fascinating.  As for Selma Blair, Blair plays these beaten, emotionally drained characters quite well, and with this being her second time working with Solondz she seems like a natural when paired with his distinct storytelling voice.

The film is weighed down by the fact that it feels as if this character study of a film cannot find a clear narrative and is more just showing a progression of events in the life of a disturbed man.  The device of having people in his life providing him guidance regarding his transgressions in a dream-like quality, while interesting at first, starts to wear thin after a while.  The other central issue in the film is the fact that the inciting action of the film, the relationship between Miranda and Abe, ultimately takes a backseat to set pieces involving Abe's outbursts for a multitude of reasons not related to Miranda.  Even though the film is largely touted as being about their relationship, Selma Blair's character feels like more of a moderate supporting role than one of the lead performances.  It feels like a film that is constantly searching for an idea that it wishes to emphasize (and admittedly proposes many interesting concepts), and can't decide on which one to ultimately focus upon.

And yet I enjoyed the film, despite these missteps.  I still laughed out loud at several moments.  The brutally honest way in which Miranda describes her severe lack of attraction to Abe was equal parts hurtful and hilarious.  Many of Abe's explosive episodes have a comedic quality to them as well, especially his verbal battles with an annoyingly perky Toys R' Us employee.  Solondz has always been masterful at mining the comedy in schadenfreude moments, and he maintains that talent here.

Solondz continues to make a name for himself with a small but memorable body of uncompromising independent features.  While his films show a much darker slice of life than casual filmgoers may be accustomed to,  his pictures are never boring, and always provoke some potentially uncomfortable thoughts.  While "Dark Horse" may be a softer, more restrained effort than his previous works, it is still a uniquely personal picture that is worthy of the quality of his previous efforts.

Rating: 7/10

Django Unchained: A Racist's Worst Nightmare Come to Life

The anti-racial parable has been so prevalent a staple of American cinema that at this point I feel as if it is much a genre of film as something like science fiction, or Westerns.  On more than one occasion, I have seized upon the opportunity to express my disdain and offense at the trends in several of these critically and commercially popular films;  some of which I have enjoyed ("The Help"), others which I have loathed ("The Blindside").  While I feel all of these films were probably made with the most altruistic of intentions, there was one consistent element that permeated from all of them that made me look to them with a rather jaundiced eye:  in every single one of them, the "evils" of racism are always defeated by a white person.  A young white girl uses journalism to defeat racism.  A sassy Southern woman takes in a young black man and challenges the evil of racism.  I fervently maintained a hope one day to see a movie of this type where, for a change, the disenfranchised black individual in the film could rise up against his antagonists and challenge the prejudice with his own hands.

Enter "Django Unchained", Quentin Tarantino's symphonic Epic Western (or as Tarantino has come to refer to it, his "Southern").  To be fair, Tarantino is no stranger to this kind of wish-fulfilling catharsis where a classically antagonized group of individuals rises against their enemies; Tarantino explored the same conceit in "Inglorious Basterds", with a group of ragtag Jews exacting revenge against the Nazis.  With "Unchained" though, Tarantino pushes his filmmaking talents and the content of the film to extremities even he had yet to explore, and which weren't explored nearly as much as previous anti-racial pictures.  Slave owners brutally whip and degrade human beings at moment in this picture, to the point that it is at several moments emotionally gripping.  Black characters are casually and openly demeaned by deplorable racists.  And in one of the most controversial aspects of the film, the "N-word" is likely used in this film more pervasively than any other movie before it.  But to any of the masses criticizing Tarantino for choosing to include the word so excessively, they are clearly missing the context in which it was used.  All of these elements are not only meant to show how despicable the villains in this picture really are (which also means their comeuppance is that much more satisfying), but if you read any commentary from that era, it is actually accurately representing just how reprehensible the treatment of black individuals in pre-Civil War America truly was in that era.  Tarantino does not have excessive racial slurs and violence towards slaves to revel in vile racist actions; it is portrayed IN ORDER to horrify and repulse his audience, so that the cruelty of Django's enemies is never lightened or softened.  I believe the more racist action to take is to handle racism with child gloves and making it seem somehow less vulgar than it truly was.  For all its swagger, operatic grandiosity, and sense of absurdist satire, "Django" in many ways feels far more honest and respectful to the genuine struggles that black America faced in the past.                                                                         

"Django" tells the story of a horribly mistreated slave (Jamie Foxx) who is purchased by a decidedly anti-slavery German dentist-turned-bounty hunter (Christoph Waltz) as a business move to track down a trio of slave owners, with the promise of giving Django his freedom after and assisting him in saving his wife (Kerry Washington) from a tyrannical plantation owner (Leonardo DiCaprio).  The film is an almost 3-hour movie, and yet it breezes through that time frame and maintains its epic scope through the entire running time.  Tarantino's direction is impeccable throughout;  the color in this film is sweeping and beautiful, and especially the shots on the plantation with the hanging moss from the trees and the immaculately managed grounds looks gorgeous.  Starting with "Kill Bill" Tarantino made the very wise decision to use Martin Scorsese's recent cinematographer  Robert Richardson, and as a result it has made his films since look increasingly more magnificent in scope, and for as large as it felt in "Inglorious Basterds" it reaches a fever pitch in this film.  With its own twisted view on morality and scarred view of decency, the plantations of the South actually make a perfect fit for a Western, so much so it is surprising it has not been exploited for such reasons til now.  As usual the music is also spot-on and deliriously off-the-wall;  who knew Jim Croce and James Brown would work so well in a film set in the 1800's?  And that Tarantino dialogue......oh how I fetishize it as a movie snob.  Any actor who has any real love of the craft should be giving their right arm to have one of the monologues crafted in the best of Tarantino's work.

And speaking of the actors, I would be remiss if I did not mention the bravura performances throughout the picture.  Nearly every performer is at the top of their game in this picture uniformly, but there are several performances that deserve special praise.  First and foremost, Christoph Waltz and Leonardo DiCaprio both deserve the highest praise of the picture for playing conversely the most decent and heroic figure in the film and the most disgusting piece of filth in the movie.  Waltz's performance would initially seem surprising, as he is no doubt one of the heroes of the film and he played such a chilling and original villain in "Inglorious Basterds", but Waltz proves he is an actor so versatile his undeniable charisma radiates no matter what side of the moral line he is on.  Waltz is funny, clever, and cool, and is also the character who appears to be the most emotionally troubled and pained by the horrors afflicted on the black masses as a result of slavery.  While Django fights to free himself and others from a way of life he despises but accepts initially as a part of society, Waltz's Dr. Schultz is the one that cannot fathom or resist the urge to challenge the injustice that slavery represents.  The movie's pre-eminent abolitonist comes in the form of a slightly silly yet undeniably smart dentist-turned government killer.

As for DiCaprio's plantation owner Calvin Candie, it is shocking how much you will loathe him for the filth that he is in this picture.  DiCaprio has never truly played a villainous figure, and for his first foray down that road, DiCaprio gives a performance that I feel is worthy of the highest of acting accolades.  DiCaprio is an unapologetic racist who shows a complete lack of concern or value for the worth of African-American lives.  The only black face that he greets with any measure of respect is the horrible house servant Stephen (an unrecognizable and equally impressive Samuel L. Jackson as the ultimate traitorous Uncle Tom figure).  If you watch him closely, DiCaprio actively avoids any real moment to even so much as touch any non-white individual, and never misses an opportunity to discuss them as if they are mere property.  The now-infamous dinner table scene, in which DiCaprio accidentally sliced his hand open during an intense moment and yet continued to finish the entire scene never once breaking character, is one of the most frightening moments in the film.  Any question of DiCaprio's talent after his performance here should be met with laughter at the absurdity of such a notion.

And last but not least, there is Jamie Foxx.  It is almost unfortunate that the deserved praise of Waltz and DiCaprio seems to be eclipsing Foxx's performance to some degree, because what Foxx brings to this film is indispensable to making the film work as well as it does.  Django is not a one-dimensional character;  he begins as a frightened, resigned, emotionally and physically wounded slave who with training from Dr. Schultz finds the courage to be a heroic figure who can stand against his foes.  While he may begin the film as more submissive and frightened, by the end of the film he is a cocky, confident, swaggering cowboy hero who won't stand for any disrespect towards him on account of his heritage.  In essence, the story of Django ends up being Tarantino's story of how the first blacksploitation hero was born.  Foxx carries the strut of that beloved 70's staple with aplomb, and it is very obvious his character is meant to echo that.  Even when his name is shown on a series of documents it is revealed his last name is "von Shaft", an obvious reference to the iconic blacksploitation hero.

Django is no doubt a film that lives for excess.  Genitals are shot off more than once, entire people are exploded, chunks of meat fly off when people are shot, and everything is done in an overtly stylized manner.  But wow is it beautifully shot, intelligently written, beautifully acted, hilarious, expertly paced, and WOW, is it a hell of a lot of fun.  

Rating: 10/10