Trouble with the Curve

Logline: An ailing baseball scout in his twilight years takes his daughter along for one last recruiting trip.

Cast: Clint Eastwood, Amy Adams, Justin Timberlake, John Goodman, Matthew Lillard

Directed by: Robert Lorenz

I just got done saying the other day that I wouldn't have as much time on my hands with school starting and screenplay reading... and then I go ahead and do a double-header last night for both Trouble with the Curve and Dredd 3D. I was interested in this primarily because the trailer had Oscar-bait written all over it.

Review

Oscar-bait?

I really don't think so.

The first thing I have to say about this movie is the fact that I know the screenplay for it was written 15 years ago and originally had Dustin Hoffman attached. 3 years ago after Gran Torino, a friend of writer Randy Brown read this old screenplay and sent it to Eastwood's people thinking he'd be perfect for the role. Lo and behold, here we are in 2012 with a movie on our hands. You may be thinking cool story man, but why is this relevant? Well, to be honest, they didn't really change much of that stuff that was written, meaning most of the movie is filled with clichés that have been done a million times since the movie was written. Diving into a pond as a romantic "first kiss" .... Really? The only things they added were a Dr. Phil joke and a Kardashian one - both in which aren't really funny to the average person. Maybe I'm bitter. But hey, Gus Lobel the main character is so why can't I be?

The film is actually powerfully acted though. Amy Adams takes the reins and rides this baseball flick to the finish line, making every scene look EASY. Clint is pretty good too, but I expected him to be more gritty than he was. Justin is in rom-com mode like he was in Friends with Benefits, and I liked that movie, so - Yeah. All in all the acting carries the emotional scenes and makes them kind of touching. What falters is the fact that this story becomes severely predictable. Actually, I read an early draft of the screenplay for this movie and the peanut boy DOES NOT become the pitcher to make Bo Gentry strike out numerous times, and even though it didn't happen in the screenplay - it was soooo obvious it was going to happen in the movie. That's not the only thing that's predictable.

I've been pretty harsh on this so far. It's not actually THAT bad. It's not Oscar-worthy, although Adams may get a nomination (at least for a Golden Globe anyways), but it's still worth a watch because although boring and cliché at times, the movie does have a pretty solid father/daughter story full of conflict and becomes the main focus of the story's baseball centric plot.

Topic of the Day

A big pet peeve of mine is when a story turns its "darkest hour" moment and follows it up with something that's completely unbelievable, but convenient for the plot. It's like the writers got sloppy. For instance, in Curve, Mickey (Gus' daughter) walks out of the hotel after losing touch with her father and the boy she was falling for & hears this sound of a kid pitching booming fastballs and curves outside of her room. She takes this kid to Atlanta and has him pitch and he shows the scouts that Bo Gentry isn't that good to begin with & that the club should have listened to Gus all along. I mean, talk about catching lightening in a jar. Convenience is something that kills a good story for me.

Consensus

Trouble With the Curve is touted by many critics as "solid". If you're going by regular definition of solid which is probably something like: well acted, well paced, good story, good characters, all tightly packed into a movie with little error - well, I have to disagree. Trouble With the Curve is flawed with clichés, predictable storytelling, and a weak turning point that leads into its third act. However, Adams is something special and she alone made me enjoy this movie. I didn't mind it, definitely not Oscar-worthy, but worth the watch.   

6/10

Moonrise Kingdom

Logline: A pair of young lovers flee their New England town, which causes a local search party to fan out and find them.

Cast: Jared Gilman, Kara Hayward, Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Bill Murray, Harvey Keitel, Francis McDormand, Tilda Swinton, Jason Schwartzman

Directed by: Wes Anderson

Moonrise Kingdom has generated a ton of buzz since its release. With a director like Wes Anderson (Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Royal Tenenbaums, Rushmore, The Life Aquatic, The Darjeeling Limited) expectations were through the roof & critics have praised it for exceeding them. I actually couldn't wait for this movie.

Review

One thing that Wes Anderson understands completely is the ability to keep an audience interested through both storytelling and visuals. I would go as far as saying he's one of the most unique directors out there & considering many people, including myself, have him in their top list of directors, that's quite an achievement. I will expand on this in my Topic of the Day, but I found it necessary to bring it up in this section because it really makes this movie great, in my opinion.

Instead of using the many variations of the word brilliant, I'll just list everything in this movie that falls under that category: characters & the uniqueness of each one, humor, plot development & unpredictability, setting & visuals, goals, time stamp of when the story will end (with the biggest announced storm in the history of the setting's existence), and the overall tone of the movie - smart, quick, and paced.

I can't really dive into these too much without spoiling, but it's definitely more than well done. I think the only negative thing that I could really say about this movie without getting too critical is that it doesn't really have that umph that makes you think after it's over. It's a pretty cool story, but since the main character is a young child overcoming his outcast social standing & we never really see him in that state, it's hard to really triumph in his victory as much as we could have. The whole time our hero is funny, clever, and waaaaay too smart for his own good and we cheer for him because of that - but we never really see him as an outcast in the beginning. We just see the other boys vaguely talking about him being a weirdo. Still good though.

Topic of the Day

STYLE.

What makes Wes Anderson so memorable is the fact that he flaunts his own personal style from the director's chair. Numerous times in the movie you see two people have stand offs. They're both funny and intense + they make the scene interesting. He actually has this way about his direction that I'm having trouble describing, lol. And the soundtrack is quirky and awesome. Just watch a few of his movies and you'll get what I'm talking about. Style is a tricky subject. Think of great directors - what makes them great? They all have their own style. Think of movies that aren't made by these directors and most will come up bland. The thing with style is though, if it's not a good style, it could ruin a completely good movie. Plus, it's just another thing people can judge your movie by... I guess this is what separates the artists from the posers in the industry. This movie is a great example of a film with style.

Consensus

Moonrise Kingdom is a beautiful, unique, and interesting story about a young rebel boy scout in search of love and acceptance. The dysfunctional relationships and the witty humor combine for an interesting chase movie like one I haven't seen before. Wes Anderson impresses yet again with his great camera work and distinct directing style. This is a must watch; definitely worth a classic rating - especially for those who are fans of Anderson's style.

9/10

End of Watch

Logline: Two young officers are marked for death after confiscating a small cache of money and firearms from the members of a notorious cartel, during a routine traffic stop.

Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Pena, Anna Kendrick, Natalie Martinez, America Ferrera

Directed by: David Ayer

So, fortunately I was able to get into classes for Fall/Winter 2012-13 which means I'll be able to graduate after this year. Unfortunately for this blog, that means I won't have as much time on my hands; hence my lack of bloging this past week. My movie watching hasn't suffered though, so I do have a lot of stuff to post up. I think instead of having a schedule I'll probably end up posting casually - which means the elimination of Throwback Thursday. I'll have mostly all the new movies coming out in theatres and some on DVD. It all depends. Stay tuned.

End of Watch is directed by David Ayer. For those who don't know him, he's a highly touted writer/director for penning movies such as Training Day, Harsh Times, The Fast and the Furious, and now this. Training Day is probably one of my favourite undercover cop movies, so I was expecting quite a bit entering the theatre tonight (it has been in my "Upcoming Movies of Interest" for awhile now). I felt Ayer owed me after Street Kings.

Review

In my honest opinion, David Ayer's third effort from the director's chair is easily forgettable. It has scored high ratings on RT (85%) and IMDb (7.7/10), but I can't help but disagree. It's not a BAD movie. I'd probably say it's a bit above mediocre, but definitely not well done. Here's why...

The story has absolutely no direction for the majority of the film. It's basically like watching an episode of COPS on TV, with a bit more heart and action. Police Officers Brian Taylor and Mike Zavala are bangers. They aren't afraid to be in the line of fire, in the heat of a car chase, in the fire of a burning house - they embrace the fear and don't think twice about doing their job. This leads them into 4-5 different crime scenes which are all unique and somewhat moving, but there's no direction other than setting up the fact that policemen go through the ringer on the regular - that's something that anyone who reads the newspaper or watches COPS already knows. So, it's an ode to policemen, I guess - but where's the story that keeps me interested? I couldn't find it until the third act. COPS, COPS , Mini story. That doesn't cut it.

There are some positives about the movie though... It's actually well directed; even though the story lacks, the movie still moves along due to rapid pacing by Ayer. He films in a really intense way - kind of in your face, but not jumpy like Cloverfield. Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Pena are both really really good in it and they share some funny scenes (probably improved) that fall nicely as comedic relief amongst their hectic lifestyle. These two aspects kept me awake while watching. They kind of carry this movie through its cringe worthy narrative that's full of cop clichés.

Topic of the Day

Every scene should have some kind of a meaning to it. If there are a clump of scenes proving the same thing, the story gets dull and boring even if the content is realistic and moving. For example, Brian and Mike go to many different police calls to investigate the situation. Each call has a distinct issue, but all they really amount to are a bunch of scenes showing how fearless these two cops are, or how much a policeman needs to put up with. WE GET IT. 1-2 calls and it's in our heads. Sometimes as filmmakers you have to learn to cut scenes you love to add scenes you need to create. I have a feeling Ayer had his heart set on these 4-5 scenes and resisted in deleting any. It was detrimental to the story in the sense that the logline only occurs in the latter half of the second act and only really launches in the third.

Consensus

End of Watch suffers from a lazy script which takes the majority of its time floating around scenes that prove the same thing over and over again. If you're a cop, or someone who is really into what policemen do, you'll probably enjoy this movie a lot. It's basically like watching COPS on TV with more action, funny characters, and some heartfelt scenes. It wasn't bad, definitely worth the watch, but I wouldn't go as far as giving it a well done - even though the film's third act is quite touching.

6.6/10

Snowtown

Logline: Based on true events, 16 year-old Jamie falls in with his mother's new boyfriend and his crowd of self-appointed neighborhood watchmen, a relationship that leads to a spree of torture and murder.

Cast: Lucas Pittaway, Daniel Henshall, John Bunting, Louise Harris

Directed by: Justin Kurzel

So, I'm going to try something new with today's review. I'm going to skip the summary to make it a quicker read. Summaries also made the logline postings pointless; the logline should tell you mostly what you need to know.

I picked Snowtown because it's pretty new and it's another one of those movies that's generated buzz coming from Australia. It's based on true events of real murderers and is not for the faint hearted. Believe me.

Review

So, like yesterday's movie review, Wish You Were Here, this movie is one of those artsy film festival movies. It relies on capturing the emotions of characters by focusing on their face for large periods of time, it captures the setting with beautiful camera work, and basically screams "hey, I can direct! HIRE ME!" - you know?

Except, Snowtown is a bit different from Wish You Were Here. Not only does it capture emotions with focused camera work - the film pertains some gruesome scenes. For example, there is a scene where the main character gets raped on screen - man on man. There is also a scene where a dog is killed. Honestly, it's one of the most upfront and controversial movies I've seen in awhile.

The film takes a deep approach into the mind of a victimized teenager as his mentor wants to seek vengeance on "homosexuals", "addicts" and "predators". He doesn't just want to beat them up - he wants to torture them and make them pay before he kills them. He's really manipulative and it's a pretty hard story to watch because the whole while I was mesmerized by the completely gruesome images I'd been watching. It was rather captivating.

Topic of the Day

It is very rare that I watch a movie that contains scenes with blood and gore that really stick in my head. Snowtown nails this aspect through the technique of what I guess you can call "The Slow Burn Effect". Things are happening rather slow in the plot, the characters are all whacked in the head in some kind of a way (teenager raped, mentor a psychopath killer, the mother distressed). The setting is gloomy as all hell. All of these are great ingredients to set up these types of memorable scenes. But what did it for me was how slow these scenes were. They weren't quick seconds that went by before skipping to the next scene. The process of the murders dragged out. The moral questioning before killing the dog dragged out and made me cringe more than I wanted to. "The Slow Burn Effect" was used really well in this movie and although I didn't like how slowly paced the plot was, I will forever remember this movie for its slow burn mesmerizing scenes.

Consensus

Snowtown is a nice little gem that not many people know about. Ahem, actually I take that back. It's not nice. Not nice at all. It's actually brutally offensive and controversial. It captures the themes of victimization and manipulation perfectly and the two main actors nail their roles. If only this movie was a bit quicker to get to each plot point it would have scored really high. Keep an eye on Australian film, it's making its surge now. This movie is well done, but not worth the watch if you can't take the heat. 

7/10

Wish You Were Here

Logline: Four friends lose themselves in a carefree South-East Asian holiday. Only three come back.

Cast: Joel Edgerton, Felicity Price, Teresa Palmer, Antony Starr

Directed by: Kieran Darcy-Smith

This was intended to be my Monday review, but I decided to switch it up with my Friday because it is more fresh in my mind. If you tuned into the 2011 Academy Awards you might remember the Australian made movie Animal Kingdom that was nominated for Best Motion Picture. You may also be asking, what the hell does this have to do with anything? Well, the director of this movie had a role in Animal Kingdom and lately there have been a few movies generating some buzz that were made in Australia; this is one of them.

Summary

Couples Dave and Alice & Steph and Jeremy travel to Cambodia to get away from their normal everyday life. While they're there they wake up one morning and Jeremy is GONE. Literally no one has any idea where he could be and they actually end up having to return home to Australia without finding him. Kind of like The Hangover, right? Well, not really. This isn't a comedy and it's really dark. Secrets keep rising up about that night he went missing and conflict begins confusing the stories of all three people that returned.

Review

I was originally distasted by this movie due to the fact that not much happened. I still hold true to that thought, but I've since lightened up a bit.

I can spoil the first secret of the movie because it happens really early and it's crucial to my critique. Dave and Steph (yes, not Alice) slept with one another on the night of Jeremy's disappearance. To make things even more complicated, Steph is Alice's sister. AND if that wasn't bad enough, Dave and Alice have kids. Are you following? This is one hell of a dysfunctional situation. Much of the movie after that deals with that situation instead of the main problem at hand, Jeremy's disappearance. Subplots will be my TOTD, so more on that later. It doesn't help that these characters are hardly introduced before this secret. We get a scene of Alice and Dave conversing with their children at the dinner table, but that's it. So watching them deal with their situation is mainly carried by the powerhouse performances of Joel Edgerton and Felicity Price. They're both realllllllly good in this movie. 

One thing about Wish You Were Here was that it tried really hard to be a film festival movie. By this I mean that it tried really hard to be like those movies that come out of Sundance with artsy direction, capturing every emotion and making the audience visually understand what the characters are thinking. Some people love this type of filmmaking, others can't stand it. Me, I'm somewhere in the middle. If a story is fast-paced enough to keep me watching through the slow camera work I really don't mind. But if the story is slow along with the camera work, man, it's really hard to keep my attention. Wish You Were Here takes a loooonnnnggg time to develop through different plot/turning points. The premise is fantastic and I really wish they would have executed it better. One guy gone missing, 3 people holding deep and different secrets, the potential is extraordinary. Instead, Wish You Were Here plays it relatively safe and the secrets aren't that outstanding/surprising. It's actually kind of a let down.

Topic of the Day

Every movie needs subplots. If a movie doesn't have them, the audience doesn't have a chance to connect with the characters on an emotional level. In Wish You Were Here, the subplots are actually the main plot - as it regularly occurs in indie films. The first turning point of this movie is the discovery that Dave slept with Steph. I'm not so sure this was the right choice. With such a big problem at hand (Jeremy missing), much of the story is about the relationship between Dave and Alice going downhill instead of dealing with it. I'm not saying that the film didn't explore this aspect really well, it's just, with a premise like this that has sooooo much potential, the movie spent soooooo much time dealing with the first secret that it didn't have time to introduce new ones. Subplots are tricky and they need to be worked around perfectly if they're going to be the main turning points of the movie. Not often does the subplot become the most important (not saying that the main plot ever becomes unimportant), but when it does there better not be something the audience is more interested in than what is being portrayed.

Consensus

Wish You Were Here lacks good character introductions and relies on powerhouse acting and direction to make up for the lack of things happening. The subplot of Dave and Alice's relationship becomes the focal point of the movie, but there isn't much to care for them from in the start. It becomes frustrating that such a broad premise becomes overlapped by the problems pertaining to the first turning point for such a long time. In return, the ending feels rushed and empty. It's filmed well and the acting is amazing, but the story wasn't for me - the premise wasn't satisfied in my eyes. They could have done so much more with it.

5.5/10

Throwback Thursday- The Football Factory

Logline: The Football Factory is more than just a study of the English obsession with football violence, it's about men looking for armies to join, wars to fight and places to belong.

Cast: Danny Dyer, Frank Harper, Roland Manookian, Tamer Hassan

Directed by: Nick Love

Sorry for the late reviews - busy weekend with school enrolment and I really haven't had time to post my blogs. The Football Factory was suggested to me by a friend and it's basically about football hooligans. Not American "football", actual football.

Summary

The Football Factory begins with Tom Johnson (Danny Dyer), a football hooligan, being beaten half to death by people whose identities are not quite known yet. The movie explores the culture behind the world's biggest sport and the crazy things fans do in Europe. In specific it follows a group of Chelsea supporters that travel around picking fights with other club's fans and crews of hooligans. The whole movie is revolving around the question that Tom asks when he believes he's about to die in a scrum: was it all really worth it?

Review

This movie is soooooooooo slow.

I can't begin to tell you how slow it progresses. It's slower than The Bourne Legacy. The actual story itself wasn't really a story to begin with. The movie follows hooligans around that joke and play games with one another. The odd time they run into fans of other teams and start fights, but, what's the narrative? About 30 minutes into the movie Tom wakes up with a knife in his face. His friend bashes the guy over the head and that guy turned out to be the brother of a lead football firm based in Millwall. Then they gradually start looking for him because he left his wallet behind. I think there's one intense scene where they're right on him, but nothing else. You don't even feel the sense that Tom is scared.Maybe this movie wasn't meant to be taken seriously, but I can't for the life of me, begin to explain how slow the "story" progresses. 

The one thing I will give credit for in this movie is the fact that it does capture the culture very well. I've never been to England, I've never seen hooligans in action, and I've never experienced the culture, but I have a feeling that this movie was pretty darn good at nailing the typical stereotypes of it. I'm not saying all fans are like this, but there are stories out there and they're similar.

It also took a scene right out of Goodfellas, pretty much just like-but-without the whole "do you think I'm a clown" line . It was pretty much an exact rip off with changed dialogue.

Topic of the Day

Irrelevant characters.

There is an old man in this movie that is shown throughout the duration. His name is Bill (not to be confused with Billy) and he really isn't involved with the plot at all except for the fact that he knows Tommy. At the end he asks Tom if England is the right place for him. That's it... And he's shown so many times in scenes by himself with no other characters present. You kind of get a glimpse at his whole life through the month or so that this movie takes place, but why? I still have no idea. Devoting time to irrelevant characters can killllll a movie's pace. More time dealing with plot and urgency would have been more beneficial than showing this character's life. I could have went without it.

Consensus

The Football Factory attempts to capture the cultural experience of football hooligans in England, but in doing so forgets the basic components that make a story worth watching. I'd go as far as to say this is one of the weakest stories I've ever watched. A lot of it deals with a bunch of guys joking around with each other, but what does that really accomplish? The answer is: not a whole lot. Not worth the watch, not worth the mediocre, but credit is given for capturing the main stereotypes of the culture.

4/10

TIFF Review- To the Wonder

Logline: A romantic drama centered on a man who reconnects with a woman from his hometown after his marriage to a European woman falls apart.

Cast: Ben Affleck, Olga Kurylenko, Rachel McAdams, Javier Bardem

Directed by: Terrence Malick

 

I was soooooooooo disappointed that I was late getting Toronto International Film Festival tickets this year. I heard that Terry Malick's new film To the Wonder was making its North American debut and I was angry with myself when I went online to buy tickets and every showing was sold out completely. I quickly hopped on Kijiji looking to see if anyone was trying to sell their tickets, but to my dismay the cheapest tickets were $150 each and they had to be sold in a package of four. Can you believe that price? I'm not kidding. I guess it was raised because it included a pass to the red carpet to meet the stars of the film. Still though, I just wanted to see this movie, badly.

I was standing in line with my friend waiting for The Iceman theatre to start letting people in and there were two guys in front of us that pulled a TIFF employee aside asking if there was any way to refund tickets or get a re-showing. She looked at the tickets and turned them away saying not for that movie, we don't do that. He then turned to us and asked if we were interested in buying tickets for To the Wonder... Like, are you serious? That actually happened. Call it fate. I said heck yeah! It happened to be showing just 1 hour after The Iceman finished too, so the timing was perfect! I couldn't believe it. I bought two tickets for $25 - for both of 'em!

Summary

Terrence Malick is one of a kind. I'm not too sure what he did in all those years he went AWOL, but he must have done some serious soul searching because this movie explores a very broad and undefined topic.

The "story", I guess you could call it, follows the life of a woman (Olga Kurylenko) and her love story with a man (Ben Affleck). They begin in France, exploring this beautiful castle - and then the man asks and her daughter her to come back to America with him. This is Malick's attempt to explore love and everything to do with it.

Review & Topic of the Day

There is no way I can divide this movie into two categories, I just need to spill my beliefs into one unorganized segment.

About a month or so ago I did a review on The Tree of Life and I stated that it wasn't really a movie - it was a poem explored through moving images. Call it poetry in motion if you will. To the Wonder is exactly the same as The Tree of Life in terms of delivery and style. I'm all for objectivity and the fact that everyone has their own opinion, but when it comes to the direction and cinematography of Terry's latest work, I don't think you can deny his excellence. You may disagree with his thoughts and his structure (or lack of one), but you have to give him credit for what he's able to do with a camera. It's astounding. I would even go as far as saying that Terry's films provide the absolute best cinematography of any movie created by leaps and bounds. Take that for a statement and let it soak in for a second.

Does Malick succeed in his journey through these characters to ultimately define love? Well, the answer to that is both yes and no. No, because it's really hard to sit there at the end of this movie and think to yourself - "ah, I get it now; that's what love is." If you did, and you're reading this, please leave a comment because I'd love to hear your opinion. I believe he succeeded because he makes people think. That's what poetry is meant to do, isn't it? It gives you this concept, it explores it very well with many layers, and then it leaves you with the content and it's up to you to decide what you want to take from it. It can definitely leave you frustrated, but that's only if you go searching for the meaning within it. For me, it just came naturally.

Malick has a weird way of exploring his characters. In an interview with Olga Kurylenko, she said that she had about 3 hours worth of dialogue and hardly any of it was even in the movie. She also said that it was very rare she got to speak on important takes. Malick would get her to say the words under her breath and act them as if she were saying them without moving her lips. That's his weird way of getting emotion out of characters. He gives you just enough to grasp what's going on, but then turns the page and uses whispers and human movement/emotion to capture the essence of his message. The character of the woman was different. She was very dark and gloomy. The man strong and silent. Most of the movie they hardly talk to one another, so it's kind of hard to connect with them, but the way they move is spiritual. Malick always expects to bring out the big picture in things. And this is moreso I think done with the character of the priest played by Javier Bardem. He goes around dealing with the mentally sick and criminals of the world. Through him we get a sense of where love sits on the scale of planet Earth. People who lack love, people who aren't love, people who are searching for love - they all give us different angles on the subject at hand, which is the love between these two humans. He never says their names because they're not individuals - they're symbols of love; icons of the true meanings of the movie.

I think the message I took strongly from this was the fact that love isn't what most people think it is and that society views it totally wrong. Everyone views it as this eternal greatness and satisfaction - the ultimate bond between two people. And that's mostly true because that's kind of what it is. But it's not eternal. Being humans we all make mistakes, we all get agitated, we all do things we regret, we all learn and grow differently from the people we were a few years ago. Love isn't a fairytale. It's pretty cruel and it's really hard to enjoy at times, but it's getting through those hard times - because in the end, all that really matters is that we learn from our two "icons"(characters) and don't end up like they do.

I love how Malick makes his viewers think and I love his visuals. Right now he is the most interesting director out there in my opinion and he has this mystique to him that makes me really interested as to what goes through his head. I really wish he'd do an interview one day. We'll see I guess. 

I am frustrated with most of the bad reviews so far because all of these critics claimed they "didn't get it", simply dismissing the movie as "rubbish" and "meaningless". Maybe they didn't get it, but I certainly took from it, and I think that if a film does that it has to serve some purpose. I'm glad the film is getting a generally positive critical response (83% on RT so far, 7.3 on imdb) because with a film like this it's quite hard to expect the majority of this world to respect it, so those are actually quite high ratings.

Consensus

To the Wonder is beautifully filmed poetry in motion. Terrence Malick has created another work of art that is filled with deep layers of emotion and love. This will go down as one of the most controversial movies of 2012, as The Tree of Life did in 2011, but I'll always remember it as a movie that taught me something. For the reason that its message will stick with me, this film is timeless, making its rating something special.

9.2/10

TIFF Review- The Iceman

Logline: The true story of Richard Kuklinski, the notorious contract killer and family man.

Cast: Michael Shannon, Chris Evans, Winona Ryder, Ray Liotta, James Franco, David Schwimmer, Stephen Dorff

Directed by: Ariel Vromen

Please excuse the smaller font used today - I tried something different and I didn't like it much. It will be fixed for tomorrow's review.

Soooooo, I was fortunate enough to receive a ticket to The Iceman for my birthday. In case you are unaware, this movie doesn't have a release date just yet, and I watched it at the Toronto International Film Festival. I'm ashamed to say this was my first TIFF day - even though I consider myself a huge movie fan. I loved every minute of the experience & I had an awesome day. If you live around the area I highly suggest seeing a film there. It was pretty sweet staying and listening to a Question & Answer session with director Ariel Vromen. He actually went to law school and made money DJing parties. Now he's made this. Pretty inspiring actually.

P.S. Tomorrow I will be reviewing To The Wonder - I'm going to need some time to think about that one.

Summary

I managed to watched a 45 minute documentary on Richard "The Iceman" Kuklinski before watching the movie because I find this type of stuff really interesting. For those who don't know, The Iceman was a brutal contract killer. He was tied in with the mob and killed on his own time as well. He's widely known for freezing bodies to hide the date of death of his victims, hence the nickname. The funny thing about him was, his wife and children had no idea. At home he was a nice family man and they believed he worked at the bank dealing with inflation changes. He killed well over 100 people and was known for having no feeling towards the murders of his victims.

It took me a few scenes to realize this was Chris Evans (Captain America)

Review

The movie really nailed the character of Richard Kuklinski. Michael Shannon was pretty much perfect and this is his best performance to date bar none. It's really hard to believe just 10 years ago in '02 this guy played Greg Buehl in 8 Mile opposite Eminem (not knocking 8 Mile, just saying he had a really small part - I actually love the movie). He's widely known for his work in Boardwalk Empire, but has gained recognition in movies like Take Shelter, Premium Rush, and Revolutionary Road. He's slated to be General Zod in the next Superman flick Man of Steel and after watching this I'd imagine he has a very bright future ahead of him. Not often does an actor carry a story the way he did here.

The Iceman is a biopic, meaning it's the true story of Richard Kuklinski's life. I went into it without any expectations of the film following typical plot structure. Like I've said before in many of my reviews, if the film is there to serve a purpose it may be excusable to drop the basics and capture that raw emotion and reality needed to tell the story. What the film lacks in storytelling, it makes up for in capturing the real events that took place in Kuklinski's life, all in which are quite the spectacle. In the documentary there is a segment where he describes his killings and he regretfully tells of how one of his murders he wishes he never did. I'm sooooooooo glad they put this into the movie. He has a guy praying and begging for his life - he stops before he kills him and asks: do you really think God is going to come save you? Let's see - he sits down and waits for awhile, then gets back up and says, God must not care about you - and he kills him. This defined The Iceman for me. In the documentary this is exactly the moment where I knew what this guy was all about. Stone cold. They did this really well.

However, I really wished they would have went more into detail about some of the killings he committed. If you look him up, he has some really BRUTAL methods of killing people. He was also known for his use of cyanide, but he only kills someone with it once in the film. I guess I'm being picky, but oh well. I did enjoy the movie, every actor delivered convincingly, and the movie kept me intrigued for its entirety.

Is it possible Winona Ryder looks better than she did 10 years ago?

Topic of the Day

Since it is TIFF week and I did get a chance to listen to the director speak, I've chosen to divert from learning aspect about the basics of filmmaking today and reiterate some of the questions Ariel Vromen was asked.

He noted that originally he wrote the screenplay with Liev Schreiber in mind to play Richard Kuklinski. The studio was then thinking about offering the role to Sylvester Stallone after negotiations with him didn't work out. Eventually Vromen got to see Michael Shannon do a screening for the part and he admittedly said he was obsessed with his work prior, especially his acting in Revolutionary Road. He was pretty sold on his screening and the casting of him then led to the casting of James Franco as they're both good friends and wanted to work together.

Unfortunately, James Franco's father passed before filming had begun and his schedule was severely conflicted with the filming of Oz: the Great and Powerful, so he almost had to drop out completely. He said he still wanted to stay on and film a minor role though, so they put him in one scene and Kuklinski finds him. Chris Evans then took the lead role that Franco was originally slated for. 

He said that he took inspiration from the HBO documentary and the out-takes from it. He stated, and this was something I pointed out to a friend, that the last image and statement of the movie is taken directly from the documentary word for word. What drew him close to Kuklinski was the fact that he appeared to be a stone cold emotionless guy, but he was able to love a family with all of his heart at the same time. 

He also said the moral center of the story was that at home we can be who we want to be and feel safe about it, but outside of home counts just as much. In the case of Richard Kuklinski, he never managed to respect the world as he did his own family and he paid severe consequences for it, so it's important to treat everyone as you would your own family.

Consensus

The Iceman is a strong biopic that is powered by the electric performance delivered by Michael Shannon. Given that this is a story of true events, the regular aspects of storytelling were altered and instead the movie focused on raw emotions and the reality of Richard "The Iceman" Kuklinski's life. A contract killer and a true family man. It's a really well done film and Shannon's acting elevates it above that status.

7.7/10