Contraband **1/2

Short Take: A former smuggler returns to his life of crime one last time to save a family member.

Reel Take: Contraband, the American remake of a 2008 Icelandic thriller, sounds like a great vehicle for Mark Wahlberg. In many ways it is. He can utilize his street smarts, his physical prowess and his acting chops. The Icelandic director of the original, Baltasar Kormakur, was even enlisted to direct the American version. Unfortunately it’s not as smart a thriller as I (and I think many others) had hoped it would be. It is perfectly enjoyable, but utterly disposable entertainment. If I did not have to write a review, I wouldn’t have thought twice about it upon exiting the theatre. The disappointing part is that it really could have been the film I’d hoped to see.

Wahlberg is Chris Farraday, a former smuggler who has left his life of crime behind and gone legit. He has a beautiful wife (Kate Beckinsale), two young sons and a successful homes security system business. He is a happy man, content to leave his previous life behind. When his dumber-than-a-bag-of-hammers brother in-law foolishly tries to pull a job, Farraday must return to his old life one last time to bring in a shipment of counterfeit money in order to save his family. Sounds pretty straight forward as far as things go, but what ensues is anything but.

What unfolds is a series of twists and turns and tested loyalties. All of which, done well, could be very clever indeed. The filmmakers manage to pull off a few surprise punches, which are fun for the audience, but eventually just becomes messy. My colleague Justin Souther (Mountain Xpress) called it convoluted, and I think that’s the appropriate world. The result is totally mediocre fare.

The film is set between the Port of New Orleans and Panama. Farraday, who was very good at his old livelihood, enlists the help of his close friends to pull off the job. For someone that’s so smart, he isn’t smart enough to know who really has left their life of crime behind and who hasn’t. I am not familiar with the original film, but have heard that it’s really good. I don’t know if something was lost in translation or if it was changed for American audience, but we are given very superficial stereotypes to work with in these characters.

With the exception of Giovanni Ribisi (who seems to be falling into a one-hit wonder of weirdness) as the drug trafficker/smuggler to whom the debt is owed, the rest of the actors, including Ben Foster, Lukas Haas, J.K. Simmons and David O’Hara, give the film their best with the material provided. At the very least, they all seem like they had a good time making the film. Unfortunately I think the end result may have disappointed them as well.

Contraband is perfectly adequate, mainstream, date-night entertainment. If you are looking for something more, look elsewhere.

Rated R for violence, pervasive language and brief drug use.

Review by Michelle Keenan

Coriolanus ***1/2

Short Take: Ralph Fiennes directs and stars in this modern day adaptation of a lesser known Shakespeare play that brims over with intensity but may be hard for many people to follow.

Reel Take: The posters for Ralph Fiennes’ adaptation of Coriolanuscould have read (and probably should have read) “Shakespeare meets The Hurt Locker.” That’s because Fiennes has updated the play’s setting from Ancient Rome to what appears to be the Balkan conflict of the 1990s. He even hired The Hurt Locker’s cinematographer, Barry Ackroyd, to make sure that he captured the look of the other film.

Although the setting has been updated and the cinema verite approach utilized, the dialogue and text are pure Shakespeare. Combine that with the hard to follow visuals and the average person is going to have a very difficult time keeping up with the proceedings. I have more than a passing acquaintance with the Bard, having acted in a number of his plays and having seen several film adaptations, yet I had difficulty following the action.

That’s too bad because Coriolanus is a play that seems very much in tune with our time. A Roman general with no governing experience is approached by the Senate to be their candidate for ruling the city. Once he grudgingly accepts, he is quickly hounded out of office and into exile after a political deal is made behind his back. Aligning himself with a former enemy, he marches on Rome for payback only to not be able to follow through because of his strong willed, patriotic mother. This inaction winds up sealing his doom at the hands of that former enemy.

The principal performances are all high caliber with Fiennes as a grim and dedicated Coriolanus, Gerard Butler as an intense and determined enemy, and Vanessa Redgrave as a political mother to rival Angela Lansbury in the 1962 version of The Manchurian Candidate. This year’s breakout actress, Jessica Chastain, isn’t given very much to do but Brian Cox makes the most of a dishonorable part. All have the proper command of the Shakespearean dialogue and, if it weren’t for the distracting visuals, this could have been a top drawer adaptation. Just for fun I played it back without a picture and it proved to be absolutely riveting. Unfortunately for first time director Fiennes, movies were meant to be seen as well as heard.

Rated R for scenes of bloody violence.

Review by Chip Kaufmann

A Dangerous Method ***1/2

Short Take: David Cronenberg’s take on Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud, and the female patient who inspired both men is anchored by the performances of the three leads but for the most part it is a dull and uninvolving film.

Reel Take: What is one to make of David Cronenberg’s A Dangerous Method? Fans of the director’s earlier more visceral works will certainly be disappointed by how bloodless the film is. Not only by a lack of the deep red liquid, but by how devoid of life the movie turns out to be. I realize that a movie about Freud and Jung can’t avoid being clinical, but Cronenberg overdoes it.

The story of Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender), his extremely disturbed but highly intelligent patient and later mistress (Keira Knightley), and their relationship to Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) should be a highly charged affair. After a very dynamic opening, the film bogs down in an overly technical approach to its subject matter. Although a brief appearance by Vincent Cassel enlivens the proceedings, he disappears way too soon.

The film is beautifully photographed and the period recreation is perfect, which appeals to the history geek in me as pre-WWI Vienna is one of the places I would most want to time travel to. The performances by the three leads, especially Knightley who is cast against type, cannot be faulted. The screenplay by Christopher Hampton, which is taken from his play that was based on John Kerr’s book of the same name, is certainly intriguing as it allows us to see how the process of psychoanalysis develops. But what works on the stage doesn’t always work on film unless you know how to translate it.

I really wanted to like A Dangerous Method not only because of its time setting but because of its subject material. I enjoyed the film for the reasons mentioned above but I fault it for its inability to come to life. Most of the audience that I talked to at our special screening didn’t like it either. It’s a real pity because, considering the talent involved, this movie should have been better than it was. For a fascinating cinematic look at Sigmund Freud, track down John Huston’s 1962 film Freud starring Montgomery Clift and Susannah York. Now that’s a movie worth analyzing.

Rated R for sexual content, nudity, and brief language.

Review by Chip Kaufmann

Haywire ****

Short Take: First rate action thriller told without explosions or car chases and with an old fashioned focus on plot, characterization, and non-CGI fisticuffs.

Reel Take: As moviegoers we need to be thankful that director Steven Soderbergh decided to postpone his retirement. Soderbergh is a throwback to the type of old Hollywood studio director like Robert Wise or John Sturges who could consistently make good movies and in just about every genre. Earlier this year we got Contagion which bore a strong resemblance to such disaster movies as The Andromeda Strain and The Satan Bug. This time around Soderbergh seems to be channeling the no frills action thrillers of Don Siegel like Telefon or The Black Windmill, which is perfectly fine with me.

Covert operations specialist Mallory Kane (Gina Carano) is sent by her contractor/lover Kenneth (Ewan MacGregor) on a mission to Barcelona to free a hostage. Immediately afterwards she is sent to Dublin where she is doublecrossed and framed and turned into an international fugitive. Her father (Bill Paxton) and a shady government official (Michael Douglas) are the only ones she can turn to. Somehow she must get back to the U.S., find out the truth, and then get even.

That’s Haywire in a nutshell and that is all the plot the film needs. Mixed Martial Arts star Gina Carano is an engaging heroine whose action sequences keep her constantly in movement. This approach suits the material perfectly. Surrounding her with a solid cast (Michael Fassbender in a supporting role is very effective) and solid, no-nonsense direction from Soderbergh keep the film from bogging down and allow it to build to a wonderfully understated climax with a great final line from Antonio Banderas.

While the film’s high critical rating on Rotten Tomatoes didn’t surprise me, the much lower audience rating did. Judging from the comments I read, it would appear that they wanted more skin, more explosions, and more high tech effects a la Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. However Haywire is much more than the female Bourne ripoff that many are calling it. Of the three new films reviewed this month (The Artist is reworked from an earlier review), Haywire has stuck with me the most. Most movies are made as escapist fare and for one to make an impression on someone who watches a lot of movies is no mean feat.

Rated R for language and some violent sequences.

Review by Chip Kaufmann

Red Tails ***

Short Take: The long overdue big screen story of the Tuskegee Airmen of World War II.

Reel Take: George Lucas’ Red Tails is taking more of pounding from the critics than the actual Red Tails did from the Germans. This is unfortunate, but to a degree it is understandable. While it may not be a great movie, I hope it is a movie that many people will go see. The story of Tuskegee Airmen in World War II is long over due being told. Sadly, it took George Lucas 23 years to get this made – George Lucas! And when he did manage to get it made he had to finance it with his own money and distribute it himself. The reason? No one would green light this kind of movie with all Black cast. I guess when it came to the almighty dollar, progressive Hollywood forgot that it’s 2012!

The story is set in Italy in 1944. The Tuskegee Airmen were part of an experimental program with young ‘colored’ pilots. ‘Scientific’ findings and social norms of the day believed their kind would not make good pilots. Those ‘scientific’ findings went out the door when, at long last, late in the war, the Tuskegee Airmen were finally put to the test. They proved themselves beyond any shadow of a doubt. Tasked to protect American bombers at any cost, the Red Tails of the 332nd Fighter Group never faltered. Their successful efforts, skill and dedication changed race relations, if only in a select branch of the armed services. It’s a great story, an important story and one worth cheering for.

Someone recently told me that people have said that the movie is like an old John Wayne war film with black people. They say that like that’s a bad thing? Lucas very deliberately chose to make this film old school. It very much feels like an old Saturday matinee war movie which is appropriate given the content. However some of the cheesy dialogue is a disservice to the film’s emotional impact and is better served in a galaxy far, far away. What we’re really supposed to feel is how brave these young pilots were, what they were up against, and how thrilling the flying was. On this score the movie succeeds.

Led by Terrence Howard and Cuba Gooding, Jr. Lucas assembled a fine ensemble of young, relatively unknown actors. David Oyelow, Nate Parker and Tristan Wilds turn in particularly likeable performances; we will certainly see more of these young actors in the future. Unfortunately the myriad of slightly convoluted sub-stories is a bit of detriment to the film as well.

Bottom line: this is an important story. The spirit of Red Tails is in the right place. That in and of itself is enough to cheer for the Tuskegee Airmen.

Rated PG-13 for some sequences of war violence.

Review by Michelle Keenan

The Artist *****

Short Take: This 21st century take on the silent movie is a valentine to Old Hollywood and to film lovers everywhere.

Reel Take: The Artist has become one of the most talked about movies in recent years. Its series of awards and plaudits (a 20 minute standing ovation at Cannes, 3 Golden Globes and several Oscar nominations) have only increased the buzz concerning this most unusual offering.

Unknown French director Michel Hazanavicius, who also wrote the screenplay, wanted to take on the challenge of making a silent film, complete with black and white photography and title cards, in the 21st century. To say that he succeeded with The Artist would be an understatement.

The setting is 1927 Hollywood. Silent superstar George Valentin (patterned after Douglas Fairbanks Sr. and played by French actor Jean Dujardin) is about to be caught up in the transition to sound. While he is dealing with this crisis, young extra Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) makes the transition to sound and is on her way up. The parallel to A Star is Born is obvious as are countless other references to classic Hollywood movies like Citizen Kane and The Thin Man and that’s part of the film’s appeal to a modern day audience.

Along with the French performers, there are prominent roles for two American character actors. John Goodman plays the Hollywood studio head, complete with fat cigar, while James Cromwell is George’s loyal chauffeur (a reference to Sunset Boulevard). Both adapt themselves to the silent medium perfectly.

I could easily spend the rest of this review citing the various old movie references but The Artist is much more than just a simple homage. It’s also a heartwarming story of two people headed in different directions with a healthy dose of lightweight comedy thrown in. It also contains one of the most charming and suggestive scenes ever captured on film with Berenice Bejo and an empty coat.

I can unequivocally say that The Artist is my number one film of last year. Martin Scorsese’s Hugo and Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris round out my top three. Speaking of Midnight in Paris, if you loved that film (and it played here for 20 weeks!) then you will love The Artist. And if you show it that kind of support, maybe its limited engagement in Asheville will last that long.

Rated PG-13 for some disturbing images and a crude gesture.

Review by Chip Kaufmann

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy ****1/2

Short Take: A remarkably subtle, elegant and reserved espionage thriller.

Reel Take: Based on the John le Carré novel of the same name, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is a studious espionage thriller set at the height of the Cold War in the early 1970s. The premise is simple: MI6 has a highly placed mole. Finding out who the double agent is proves a bit trickier, a lot trickier. A stellar British cast and a spy story sounds like box office gold, but be forewarned, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy is not for everyone, not by a long shot. It is a ‘spy’ film, but bears no other similarity to adrenaline pumping espionage flicks a la James Bond, Jason Bourne or Ethan Hunt. Tinker Tailor is meant to be as methodically digested as it is methodically told. Like its characters, you must watch carefully and listen carefully. Look away or drift off for a moment and you’re lost.

When British Intelligence first realizes they have a Russian mole in the upper echelon of their operatives, the head of MI6, known as ‘Control’ (John Hurt), enlists the help of one of his most trusted agents, George Smiley (Gary Oldman). After a crucial operation in Budapest goes horribly awry, they are both put out to pasture. Shortly thereafter Control ends up dead and Smiley is brought out of retirement.

Smiley’s world is a stark contrast to the glamorous life of secret agents usually depicted in the movies. He is a beige trench coat wearing, middle-aged man with a receding hairline, heavy glasses, and a mild as milk toast personality. In short, wallpaper is more exciting than George Smiley. This bland exterior is of course deliberate. He operates with a cold and calculating ever watchful demeanor. His own humanity is carefully concealed and protected. Only a slight enigmatic smile hints of anything beneath the surface. The character of George Smiley was made famous by Alec Guinness in a made-for-TV mini-series. Humbled but undaunted by this legacy, Oldman makes the character his own and plays Smiley with an exacting detail all his own.

Oldman is surrounded by a brilliant ensemble, including Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Ciaran Hinds, Tom Hardy and Toby Jones as well as the aforementioned John Hurt. Their characters are equally enigmatic. Each is integral to the layers of the story, the ever growing tension and the unraveling of clues along the way.

The story unfolds in a blend of linear narrative and seemingly errant flashbacks, all of which give us glimpses of the men at the ‘top of the circus’ in MI6, including the familial-like camaraderie and dysfunctional elements of having spent many years together. In the end it is the flashbacks, as they dovetail to the story at hand, that unearth the humanity of these men. Swedish director Thomas Alfredson (director of original version of Let the Right One In) gives the already austere film an even more diffident tone (a seemingly typical Scandinavian trait in film) and yet evokes an almost oppressive feeling of melancholy.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is one of the most demanding films you’ll ever watch. It demands that you watch and follow every detail. It demands that you think about what you’re watching. Its subtlety and plodding pace does not denote gentility. On the contrary, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is cutthroat in the most cunning way.

Rated R for violence, some sexuality/nudity and language.

Review by Michelle Keenan

War Horse ***1/2

Short Take: Spielberg makes the point once again that war is stupid, by telling the epic journey of horse during World War I after being separated from the boy who trained him.

Reel Take: Steven Spielberg’s epic story of a horse’s journey through World War I has been touted as one of the best pictures of the year. War Horse is beautifully filmed, and the horse (or horses) gives one of the most amazing performances of the year. (If they gave Oscars to animals, this horse would trounce Uggie from The Artist and Cosmo from Beginners, and that is saying a lot.) War Horse also certainly improved stock in Kleenex, but for me, that’s not necessarily an indicator of greatness. Spielberg aimed high, really high with this one, but he didn’t quite hit the mark.

Joey is a beautiful thoroughbred bought in a bidding war between a farmer and the local landed gentry in Devonshire England. To everyone’s amazement, the slightly sauced farmer wins the bid. His prize is spirited, untamed and not fit for farming work. To save his father from public embarrassment, the farmer’s son, Albert (Jeremy Irvine), trains Joey. The horse and boy forge a bond that even war cannot sever. This elemental value alone will carry the film for most people.

Altogether too soon, World War I begins. Unable to pay the rent, after a crop failure and purchasing Joey, Albert’s father sells the horse to a young officer. The rest of the film tells Joey’s journey through the war. Without giving away too much, the horse finds himself under various owners on both sides of the war.

The only part of the journey that I found heartening was the fact that wherever the story took the horse amidst the horror of war, there was always a human that showed some shred of compassion to the animal. This is one of the film’s greatest strengths, and I think also plays to one of Spielberg’s strengths, telling positive and resilient stories of the human spirit.

The colorful cast of characters throughout the horse’s epic journey includes some fine performances, including Niels Arestrup, Tom Hiddleston and Patrick Kennedy. Jeremy Irvine gives a very earnest and slightly cheesy performance as Albert, but over all it works. Peter Mullan and Emily Watson give fine performances as Albert’s parents, but the cheesiness of the scenes back home are in such contrast to the scenes of the war, it feels odd. But then again, maybe that contrast is the point.

The film is so involved, so intense, but in the end it falls flat. For me, it’s already long running time of 2 hours and 26 minutes felt even longer. After the time and Kleenex invested in the process, missing the mark is felt so much more profoundly than it is in watching something of a lesser value (Contraband for instance – see review on pg. 11).

However, like Red Tails (see review on pg. 14) the spirit of War Horse is in the right place. Unlike Red Tails, War Horse is trying to be too much; it was always intended to be Oscar nominee. As such it’s failings are less forgiveable. However, like Red Tails, the spirit of the film is in the right place. In a story like this, that’s the most important thing. Between War Horse and Extremely Loud Incredibly Close, I won’t need to have a good cry for quite a while. Watch this film without a hanky at your own risk.

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of war violence

Review by Michelle Keenan