THE GOOD LIE ★★★

In Philippe Falarduea’s ‘The Good Lie’, Reese Witherspoon’s character takes four refugees from the Sudanese civil war under her wing. The trailer itself is a good lie. Witherspoon is limited to a supporting role and doesn’t even appear until about 40 minutes into the movie. The first act of the movie immerses viewers into the horrors of that still turmoil-filled land from the perspective of those who survived the war. This, to me, is the best part of ‘The Good Lie’. Admittedly, the second act has a lot of corny fish-out-of-water humor, but at that point, I had come to care so deeply about these four refugees that I was rooting for them to overcome every obstacle that came their way. ‘The Good Lie’ isn’t as strong as Laradeau’s previous film ‘Monsieur Lazhar’; I do have reservations with it, but it’s heart is in the right place and because I have a weakness for films about that are optimistic about humanity, I’m willing to give it a marginal recommendation.

WILD ★★★

With ‘Dallas Buyers Club’ last year and ‘Wild’ this year, it seems as if director Jean-Marc Vallée is choosing to work with movie stars who want to change their public image and experiment with more challenging roles. Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto lost a lot of weight for ‘Dallas Buyers Club’ and Reese Witherspoon was physically challenged for ‘Wild’. Witherspoon’s character confronts her inner demons by hiking 1,100 miles on the Pacific Crest Trail. There are highly symbolic mountains to climb and highly symbolic streams to cross. There is vivid imagery and painful flashbacks of drug use, promiscuous sex, and the disintegration of her marriage. I don’t know if it is because I saw ‘The Good Lie’ just before seeing ‘Wild’, but I had a hard time buying Witherspoon as this self-destructive character.  She is much more convincing as a committed figure battling one day after another on the trail. There is also great cinematography work involved in capturing the physical landscape in natural light. As for Oscar potential, Witherspoon is a lock for a Best Actress nomination (this is her best lead work in years), and Laura Dern will likely get a Best Supporting Actress nomination. Another marginal recommendation. I must be in a good mood.

THE IMITATION GAME ★★★

Morten Tyldum’s last film ‘Headhunters’ was on my list of the 10 Best Movies of 2012, so I was very much looking forward to his English-language debut ‘The Imitation Game’. Tyldum taps the right emotions in telling the story of Alan Turing, the brilliant mathematician whose cryptoanalytic work was crucial to Britain’s deciphering of the Nazi’s encrypted communications. ‘The Imitation Game’ already has a distributor – The Weinsten Company –, which means it will probably be a big Oscar contender (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Actor for Benedict Cumberbatch among them). Cumberbach is great – a reserved, understated performance; by holding so much back, it makes his rare full-on displays of his emotion all the more impactful. The film is lively, intelligent, and very well produced even though I feel as if a complicated subject matter has been given the Weinstein Treatment. Turing’s theories are over-simplified and the film focuses more on the social awkwardness of his interactions with his peers. The post-war scenes shift the focus on his persecution as a homosexual, and the disheartening way he was treated by the authorities. I was hoping for a more technical treatment of the subject matter, but the biopic that was made moves at a brisk pace, and is ultimately very affecting.

WHILE WE WERE YOUNG ★★★

‘While We Were Young’ is Noah Baumbach’s most easily accessible and commercial film to date. Think of it as a sort of highbrow ‘Neighbors’ exploring the generational rift between a couple in their 40s (Ben Stiller and Naomi Watts) and a couple in their mid-20s (Adam Driver and Amanda Seyfried). Much of the humor is centered on a critique of the hipster generation. The younger couple has a massive vinyl collection; he uses a typewriter, she makes her own ice cream. Baumbach isn’t just tackling the fear of getting older, but being “stuck” between multiple age groups. There were big laughs at the screening I attended. ‘While We’re Young’ might be the director’s first film to break out of limited release and find a wider audience. The only thing working against the movie is the fact that it follows ‘Frances Ha’, which I consider to be Baumbach’s masterpiece. Still, ‘While We’re Young’ is very funny, and keenly observant in its social judgment. 

OVER YOUR DEAD BODY ★★

Takashi Miike’s addition to the life-imitating-theater subgenre is even more disgusting that you would expect from the filmmaker in ‘Over Your Dead Body’. The actor in this play-within-a-movie setup portrays a feudal lord paying a hefty price for betraying his own wife. As the actors delve deeper into their performances, the line between fantasy and reality becomes blurred. And altogether invisible for me. I had trouble following this; I often had to ask myself if what I was watching was the play or “real” events as far as the characters were concerned. The build-up is rather tedious right up to the point that it becomes completely bat-shit crazy. But, even die-hard fans of Miike may find that they need a caffeinated beverage in hand until the bloodbath begins. ‘Over Your Dead Body’ has some striking set design, but mostly just sits there and marinates in its bloody mediocrity. 

ALLELUIA ★★

Director Fabrice Du Welz introduced ‘Alleluia’ by saying “Love makes us do crazy things. Hopefully, you don’t do anything as crazy as the characters in my movie.” This tale of star-crossed lovers and straight up carnage is yet another movie based on the true crime story of Lonely Hearts Killers Martha Beck and Raymond Fernandez. Their murderous exploits were previously brought to the screen in ‘The Honeymoon Killers’, and ‘Deep Crimson’. Du Welz doesn’t deviate much from the hard facts of story, which depletes the film of its suspense and horror. The film becomes wearying as it plays out variations of the same obsession-based scenarios with one grotesque murder after another. The claustrophobic close-ups (which indicate how far Du Welz pushes his performers for emotion) are occasionally effective. However, I couldn’t help but feel that this telescopic approach showed us a troubled character all too easily without allowing us to make up our own minds.

LEARNING TO DRIVE ★★★

Isabel Coixet’s ‘Learning to Drive’ follows a Manhattan writer (Patricia Clarkson) who takes solace in her driving lessons with a Sikh instructor (Ben Kingsley) after her husband leaves her. I saw ‘Learning to Drive’ at 12:30 p.m. at the Winter Garden; the majority of the audience appeared to be seniors. They broke into applause a number of times during the screening; there was also a standing ovation when the director and cast went onstage for the Q&A. The movie gets point because it works for it’s particular demographic. Being outside of that demographic, the film’s charms didn’t elude me. ‘Learning to Drive’ is utterly predictable; however, there is enough warmth and generosity between its flawed but likable characters to make it worthwhile. I doubt I’ll give ‘Learning to Drive’ a moment’s thought after this review, but I’m glad I saw it.

MAPS TO THE STARS ★★★

Director David Cronenberg has never been bound by the conventional modes of storytelling. There is nothing glamorous about his vision of Tinsletown; it looks like an insane asylum. The film’s great ensemble includes Julianne Moore (who won the Best Actress prize at Cannes), John Cusack, Mia Wasikowska, Robert Pattinson, Olivia Williams, and newcomer Evan Bird (in a star-making role). The movie circles back on the characters’ ideas of childhood – or the absence and corruption of it. ‘Maps to the Stars’ might be Cronenberg at his most cynical. The majority of shots isolate a person within the frame hinting at their self-absorbed enclosure; when a connection is made between multiple characters, it feels all the more startling. There are also a few connections to previous Cronenberg films (Robert Pattinson plays an ex-limo driver – a possible callback to ‘Cosmopolis’, and an awkward sex scene in a car had me thinking back to Cronenberg’s ‘Crash’).  ‘Maps to the Stars’ may be half the movie ‘Mulholland Drive’ is, but it still worth seeing.

GOODBYE TO LANGUAGE 3-D ★★★1⁄2

“In order to criticize a movie, you have to make another movie.” – Jean Luc Godard. My criticism of the 3-D format has been a long-standing one. Godard, who is now 83 years old, utilizes 3-D in ‘Goodbye to Language’ in the most imaginative way I have ever seen. One plane remains stationary whilst another pans atop it – the impact is effectively trippy, and I literally applauded the film’s formal wit whilst wondering just how in the hell this worked. ‘Goodbye to Language 3-D’, like most of Godard’s work is excitingly challenging. You’ll notice I haven’t provided a plot description as of yet. Those familiar with Godard’s filmography will understand my struggle here. Let’s settle on calling ‘Goodbye to Language 3-D’ a celebration of life, death, man, woman, dog, nakedness, and fecal matter. “A dog is never naked because it is always naked.” This is typical of the philosophical statements contained within the picture, but what comes across most vividly is Godard’s playfulness with the cinematic toys he has at his disposal. He must have really enjoyed himself at the sandbox.

FOXCATCHER ★★★1⁄2

Bennett Miller follows up on ‘Capote’ and ‘Moneyball’ with another biopic. Two brothers, both former Olympic wrestling champions (Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo) develop a fateful friendship with paranoid schizophrenic billionaire John duPont (Steve Carell. As Miller proved in ‘Capote’, and ‘Moneyball’, he is able to draw the best performances out of his cast.  I find myself liking ‘Foxcatcher’ more and more as I think back to it. It is a meticulously detailed piece of work; a slow boiling study of patriotism and winner obsessions that builds and devestates, dealing with the emotional uncertainty of its characters rather than the perverse extremities less gifted filmmaker would bring to the project. Expect Oscar nominations for all three actors (yes, including Channing Tatum), as well as for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, and best MakeUp and Hairstyling. I expect ‘Foxcatcher’ to be polarizing when it hits the masses; it’s arms-length approach will leave some viewers in the cold.

MOMMY ★★★★

Xavier Dolan’s ‘Mommy’ is by far my favorite movie of TIFF14 so far. Single mother (Anne Dorval) barely copes with her troubled teenage son (Antoine-Oliver Pilon). I was stunned to realize Dolan is only 25 years old; ‘Mommy’ feels like the world of a very accomplished and seasoned filmmaker. The 6X6 (or 1X1) framing aesthetic make the emotions pop out more. It isn’t a gimmicky practice; Dolan said he chose this ratio so we’re locked into the eyes of the characters. He gets the camera up close to his actors and lets them rip. Nothing about ‘Mommy’ is predictable; this was made clear when a character reaches out and pushes the film’s aspect ratio to fit the whole screen. Many positive adjectives can and will be used to describe ‘Mommy’, but for now, I’ll just settle on one: “beautiful”.

THE LOOK OF SILENCE ★★★

‘The Look of Silence’ is Joshua Oppenheimer’s follow-up to ‘The Act of Killing’ (one of the best documentaries of last year). This time we follow a family (who after viewing the first film) discovers and confronts the men who killed their son during Indonesia’s anti-communist purges of the 1960s. Oppenheimer is essentially telling the same story as he did last time but through a much more conventional focus. ‘The Act of Killing’ gave the executioners the freedom to boast of their accomplishments, having them re-enact horrifically violent events with no remorse. The results were shocking and harrowing. Less so in ‘The Look of Silence’, which shifts its focus to the suffering inflicted on the family members of the victims. The camera lingers on the fallen faces – the look, presumably to which the title refers, is raw, affecting, and unforgettable.

A SECOND CHANCE ★★★

This was a difficult watch. Susanne Bier’s ‘A Second Chance’ follows a police officer (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) with a wife and new baby, who is faced with his own personal tragedy, and makes a fateful decision involving a pair of junkie parents. He believes this decision to be its own form of justice. Superb work from Coster-Waldau; it’s from his shifting viewpoint that we watch the events of this film unfold. This is one of Bier’s better efforts; plot details, which may appear to be extreme on paper, are totally credible as the movie plays out. She also knows how to create a creeping sense of dread within this narrative.

GENTLEMEN ★★

What a disappointment. ‘Gentlemen’ was on my list of the 10 Most Anticipated Films of TIFF14. Mikael Marcimain’s film tells the story of a beaten up, bruised, and scared young writer who hides in a Stockholm apartment, writing the story of its disappeared inhabitants. I had to refer to my previous blog post for that plot description. I couldn’t provide a plot summary based on the movie I saw. Rarely have I been so disoriented. ‘Gentlemen’ gets points for ambition and scope, and while it is handsomely made, this sprawling decades-spanning political conspiracy tale is so overstuffed that my comprehension of this Swedish film would have been just about the same even without the English subtitles. It is difficult to get involved in a movie when the plot means so little. Even with its 141-minute runtime, ‘Gentlemen’ feels rushed and haphazard, transitioning awkwardly from one scene to the next. The big screen doesn’t appear to be the ideal medium for a tale of this complexity.

MEET ME IN MONTENEGRO ★★★

Art imitates life in Alex Holdridge and Linnea Saasen’s film about an independent filmmaker who has a chance encounter with an old flame while in Berlin. The directors of this picture are a real-life couple and they both star in their own movie with a story that seems modeled on their own relationship. It is romantic without possessing the mechanical elements contained within the genre. The destination may be familiar (even without the title), but the journey has some surprises in store. Though ‘Meet Me In Montenegro’ has a roadmap similar to Richard Linklater’s ‘Before’ trilogy (more so in the relationship between its central characters as opposed to the topics of conversation in dialogue), nothing about this film feels recycled. It has it’s own organic existence; it is autobiographical, but most importantly, it feels autobiographical. Holdridge and Saasen’s characters (i.e. themselves) appear cynical on the surface, but they would have to be wildly romantic to make this movie, even if they don’t admit to it. ‘Meet Me In Montenegro’ isn’t about forever. It’s about now. And it’s good.

NIGHTCRAWLER ★★★1⁄2

Dan Gilroy’s debut about the underground world of L.A. freelance crime journalism may very well be “great”. The film’s teaser, which I talked about in a previous blog post, allowed us to see how far Jake Gyllenhaal has come as an actor. Cinematographer Robert Elswit shoots Los Angeles in a way that makes it pulsating and Jake Gyllenhaal gives the performance of his career against that sensational background. Pluck this movie, and it vibrates. ‘Nightwatcher’ may be contemporary in setting, but it feels like a throwback to classics such as ‘Taxi Driver’, ‘Network’, and ‘Blow Out’. The film is as much a psychological thriller as an examination of a fractured economy and the extremes people are will to go to for success. Gyllenhaal’s character is our quintessential reporter – he gets the story first, and his footage is the most detailed and graphic. He is a terrifying sociopath and his quick rise to success is deeply unsettling. But, as consumers of this sort of information, we feel the need to be informed to such a degree. What does that say about us?

HEAVEN KNOWS WHAT ★★★1⁄2

Sibling directors Josh and Benny Safdie’s film follows a young heroin addict in the streets of New York City. At the end of the screening, I approached the director and said, “Hi, my name is Jerry, and I love your movie. I will get people to see this.” It isn’t a strong film because of its anti-drug message, but rather for its immediate human experience and the texture of that experience. I never felt like I was watching characters; the people occupying the screen felt real. I wasn’t surprised to discover during the Q&A session that the movie was based on the lead actress’ experiences (she was a homeless 19-year-old in a violent relationship during the time the filmmakers discovered her), and so, she is essentially playing a version of herself. Her performance is stunning (and completely natural).  Long tracking shots, intimate close-ups, and the grainy look of the picture also lend to the film’s naturalism (watching it, I was under the impression it was shot on 16mm film, but the filmmakers stated that they used a digital camera). ‘Heaven Knows What’ may at times be as messy as its main character but it is never predictable, lazy, or dull; rather, it confirms that independent cinema is alive, well, and totally flourishing.

KAHLIL GIBRAN’S THE PROPHET ★★★

Roger Allers and nine other animation directors from all over the world brought Kahlil Gibran’s classic text to life in this story about the friendship between a trouble-making young girl and an imprisoned poet. The opening scenes didn’t quite work for me; I have a short fuse for slapstick. However, once the young girl meets the political prisoner, the movie transforms into a beautiful and very moving tribute (musical montages capture the spirit and words of Gibran’s thoughts on love, work, children, freedom, life, and death). I’m glad that the filmmakers have presented this story in bright, colorful 2-D animation (without 3-D being an unnecessary distraction). “Work is love made visible.” – Kahlil Gibran. I can tell that a lot of love went into this project.

Two movies today plus an ‘In Conversation with Robert Duvall’. I was thrilled to hear that Duvall shares my thoughts on contemporary cinema – that independent films today are as good as they have ever been (and this is the guy who worked with Francis Ford Coppola on ‘The Godfather Parts I & II’, and ‘Apocalypse Now’).

WINTER SLEEP ★★★

I should have state upfront that I have always found Nuri Bilge Seylan’s work to be self-indulgent; his previous film ‘Once Upon a Time in Antaolia’ was 157 minutes long and tested both my patience and my bladder. ‘Winter Sleep’ is about 40+ minutes longer. The movie follows a retired actor who runs a small hotel in Anatolia with his wife and sister. His self-satisfaction, stubbornness, inability to compromise, and lack of respect for anyone’s dignity and pride fuels hostility between these characters over the course of an eventful winter. I admired the Chekhovian approach to class divisions, men and women, and moral despair.  I also marveled at the film’s stunning images of the Turkish landscape. There is a 4-star movie buried in this 200-minute picture. On balance, ‘Winter Sleep’ remains a mostly impressive achievement.

THE PRINCESS OF FRANCE ★★

Matias Pineiro’s ‘Princess of France’ opens without a static long shot of a nighttime (Euro) football match from a rooftop set to a Schumann symphony. Without any obvious signals, the players switch teams and the scene terrifically sets the mood by revealing it’s theme of deception. So far, so very good. Unfortunately, it goes downhill from here. Mr. Pineiro includes a number of lengthy radio set montages in which the characters recite lines of Shakespeare with all the monotony they can muster. In one scene, a character delivers the prologue of ‘Henry V’ but the theater company is supposedly mounting a radio version of ‘Love Labours Lost’. Not only are these two Shakespearean works unrelated; they are completely independent of the narrative involving the characters and their relationships with each other. In two words: exquisitely tedious.