Winter's Bone

I guess it shouldn't be surprising that in perhaps the most boring summer movie season ever, the best film of the summer is not a blockbuster, but a small independent film. In many ways, the twists and turns of a film like Winter's Bone far surpass any excitement to be found in the paint-by-numbers blockbuster mentality of Iron Man 2. It might be blasphemous to suggest that you should skip seeing The Karate Kid or The A-Team this week in favor of a movie with no explosions, no quippy dialog, and no kung fu atop the Great Wall, but that's what I'm going to do. There's no denying that Winter's Bone isn't for everybody, but those who will appreciate it will get infinitely more from Winter's Bone than anyone could ever get from any other blockbuster released so far this year.

From the opening shots, you get a good sense of the kind of film you're in for. Lingering shots of the Ozarks, set to the haunting vocals of folk singer Marideth Sisco help to give us a sense of both mood and place. From this opening, the film wastes no time setting up the stakes: Ree Dolly (Jennifer Lawrence) is a 17 year old taking care of two younger siblings and a mother who is a shell of her former self. When the sheriff comes by and informs her that her father skipped town while on bond, she has a week to find him or lose her home. It's a simple enough premise, and the premise itself is simply a way to explore the world and characters, as well as explore the darker side of family bonds. By about halfway through the film, I was caring less and less about the resolution to the plot, and more and more about the details of the world of the film.

Indeed, this is a film so filled with intimate details about the world the characters live in, it may take a few viewings to take them all in. The cinematography is starkly beautiful, soaking in all the nuances of the Ozarks and its people. One of my favorite moments has nothing to do with anything, and yet it will stick with me all year: aforementioned Marideth Sisco and a group of compatriots simply sit around in a circle singing folk songs in a rundown little house while Ree wanders in looking for her father. Any other film would have made this scene about what Ree might learn about her dad, but Winter's Bone makes it as much about the people populating Ree's life as it does the plot details.

The film works for any number of reasons, but reason number one is Jennifer Lawrence. Tasked with the job of carrying the entire film, she soars. So much of the performance is internal; as we watch the events of the film take their toll on the heroine, we can see how it is wearing her down mentally. Ree never comes across as outwardly desperate, but we can see in here eyes just how little hope she has of finding her father in time. Facing one obstacle after another - many of which take the form of menacing estranged family members - Ree is so determined yet sorrowful. It's not the kind of performance that has an easy Oscar clip, instead keeping a consistent and engrossing tenor throughout. If there is one standout moment, it would surely be when Ree goes to see a military recruiter. So much is going on in that scene: a desire to simply escape the life she's been forced into, the need to take care of her family financially, and the way it reveals how young and naive she still really is. The last few years have seen a plethora of great young actresses emerging - Gabourey Sidibe, Ellen Page, Carey Mulligan, Saoirse Ronan to name but a few- and Lawrence is as good as any of them. Let's hope this is the start of a long career.

The other half of the acting equation is John Hawkes. Hawkes has turned in stellar work in supporting roles for years, but here he has truly great material to work with. We initially think he is nothing but another obstacle for Ree. His character of Teardrop is the brother of Ree's father, and his connection to his brother slowly consumes him. Like Ree, he can't let his brother simply disappear, becoming desperate to know where the man went. Where Lawrence is internal, Hawkes gets to be a bit more showy. Anger and rage permeates the character, but beneath it all is a deep sadness. We get the sense that Ree never knew her father as anything other than a failure, but Teardrop knew him as a brother, and as such he feels protective of him. Hawkes makes you feel as though Teardrop's very soul is on the line, that he needs to find his brother more than even Ree does. It's powerful and understated work.

Director Debra Granik has constructed a well done thriller, tapping into ideas of family bonds, revenge, and the fulfillment of one's potential. There are moments here that will rank among the year's most memorable. The film's chainsaw wielding climax is the kind of sequence that sticks with you long after the film is finished. Winter's Bone is not an action movie, and it's not a high octane thrill ride. What it is, though, is a strong character piece that knows how to scare you, shock you, surprise you, and entertain you.

Splice

There was a time, long ago, when horror movies were more than just jump scares and loud noises. More than a lot of other genres, horror has allowed filmmakers to address social issues in unique and exciting ways. By taking current political issues and combining them with monsters and thrills, a director could smuggle his message out to audiences without them explicitly knowing it. Everything from race relations (Night of the Living Dead), to religion (The Exorcist), to Communism (Invasion of the Body Snatchers), anything was fair game for the horror genre. Sadly, that seems to have faded since the 90's. Now we are inundated with torture porn and hollow remakes that miss the point of the originals. But once every so often a film will sneak through in the same vain as classic horror cinema. Such is the case with Splice, a film with a lot on its mind, even if it's never quite sure what to do with all that creativity.

Taking a page straight from Cronenberg, Splice is pure body horror. What would happen if someone combined the genes of a human with those of other animals? Such is the question two award winning scientists ask (Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley), resulting in the creation of Dren. Dren is human-like in appearance, but animalistic in nature. Instead of aborting the creature when they realize how dangerous it is, they adopt it as a surrogate child, trying to help it tap into its human side. Much of the fun to be had comes from the tension between Dren's opposing sides. Dren seems to have human emotions, but also has a very violent side, and you're never sure which side will win out in a given scenario. Armed with a poisonous stinger in its tail, Dren can wreak bloody havoc when it wants to.

Brody and Polley play the parts of surrogate parents perfectly, with Polley especially standing out. Polley is so protective of Dren, she seems willing to sacrifice everything she has for Dren. There is an obsessive, almost deranged quality to the character, and you can see why she would latch on to Dren so strongly. The movie has a lot of fun playing with the idea of these three characters being a deformed family of sorts. All the problems they have with Dren are like perverted inversions of the kinds of things a normal family would deal with when raising a child. The film can often be as funny and silly as it can be scary. Indeed, it's often much more of a dark comedy than a horror film at times. This is a wise choice, as playing this deadly serious would not work at all. The tone can still have some issues, but it mostly works, often because the actors understand what kind of movie they are in.

Because the film doesn't simply go for cheap thrills, but actually allows its audience to think and consider what is happening, Splice works. Stem cell research is still a complicated and divisive topic, and Splice has some interesting things to say on both sides of the argument. On the one hand, using human genes to create Dren results in some serious medical breakthroughs. On the other hand, it causes far more damage than it may be worth to those who create Dren. If the film does have a problem, it is the ending. For the majority of the run time, the film is content to be a character piece with grotesque visual moments and dark humor. But the end suddenly changes tone completely, turning into something other than what the film was before. The end feels cheap and unearned, and more than that, unnecessary. We spend so much time getting to know and understand Dren, that when something changes in Dren, it undermines what time we spent with the creature. It feels like the filmmakers couldn't figure out how to end the film they'd started, so they switched gears and took the easy way out. Too bad, as an ending in a similar tone with the rest of the film would have been much more satisfying.

Why is it so hard for horror films to be about something more than just violence? Splice is able to have some great bodily horrors in addition to interesting characters and thematic arcs worth thinking about. While it won't likely appeal to those looking for simple thrills, it is definitely more engaging than any other horror film released so far this year. And at its center is Dren, certainly one of the more complex movie "monsters" of recent memory.

Micmacs

It's been far too long since we last saw Jean-Pierre Jeunet's special brand of crazy on the screen. Best known for Amelie, he has made a career out of whimsical, off kilter films about outsiders struggling with the strange world they've been dropped into. Whether it be the new tenant in the cannibalistic apartment complex in Delicatessen, or the mercenaries in Alien: Resurrection, it is a common theme throughout his work. Micmacs offers more of the same, so if you enjoy his brand of storytelling, you will probably find more to like here. If not, be aware that he is at perhaps his most whimsical with Micmacs, arguably to the film's detriment. Inspired by both the slapstick comedies of the silent era and the films of Jacques Tati, Micmacs follows Bazil, a man who is accidentally shot in the head and still has the bullet lodged in his skull. He one day discovers that the manufacturer of the bullet in his head is operating near where he lives. Not only that, but the company that built the landmine that killed his father is across the street from that building. With the help of some eclectic friends, he decides to take down both companies at the same time.

One might argue that Micmacs is the logical conclusion to the idea of the eccentric loaner in Jeunet films overcoming the fantastical world around him. Never has one of his protagonists been quite as much of an outsider as Bazil, who literally has nothing to his name after being shot. But through the discovery of others like him living in a junkyard, he is able to achieve something like a perfect existance by film's end. Bazil's struggles aren't simply against a butcher (Delicatessen), an Alien (Resurrection), or a war (A Very Long Engagement), but against society itself. Only the other rejects will have him, and he ultimately abandons all connections to reality to live out his junkyard fantasy with people that could politely be called "caricatures." It's a simplistic way of looking at life, which fits Bazil's very simple nature throughout the film. Bazil is often portrayed as little more than a man-child. He says little, watches videos all day, and likes to play games with his hands. That he would find bliss in a junkyard filled with misfits makes sense.

Due to the nature of the kinds of films Jeunet makes, the acting can rarely be called subtle. There is a lot of mugging, a lot of shouting, a lot of broad physical comedy. It makes sense in the context of the genre that Jeunet is working in, but it can become insufferable to those not in tune with what he is doing. The two most engaging performances, interestingly enough, is that of the two weapons manufacturers. While they don't exist in much more of a realistic world than the protagonists, they do have layers to them that are lacking from all the supporting players. I often found myself enjoying the film most when it spent some time with these two men, often oblivious to the machinations of Bazil and company. The things Bazil does to get revenge on the two ends up looking more like corporate subterfuge, so the two men suspect each other and not Bazil, providing the film's best moments of comedic paranoia.

This is almost certainly the slightest film Jeunet has done, but one can't deny the infectious goofiness on display. While Jeunet's worldview can some across as regressive at time (abandon the difficulties of society and enjoy life with friends!), he does populate his films with amusing characters, visual splendor, and numerous sight gags. The plot is nothing more than a MacGuffin to provide a framework for the characters to exist in (the bullet in Bazil's head is mostly forgotten, even though we are lead to believe he could drop dead at any moment). Let's hope that this was a necessary recharging film some directors need in order to get back on their game. Whimsy is fun once and a while, but to make a whole career out of it doesn't seem feasible.

Iron Man 2

Rereading my review of the original Iron Man from two years ago, I was struck by the fact that all the minor issues I had with that film are also what I took issue with in the sequel. But where those issues were minor annoyances in the first film, here they become almost unbearable. It's as if Jon Favreau took all the wrong lessons from the first film. Where once there was a loose structure, now there is no structure. Where once we had villains with little screen time, here we have villains who make little sense and essentially do nothing. Where once the actors not named Robert Downey Jr. felt underused, here they are wasted. It's a shame, because this seemed like such an easy film to knock out of the park. I ended my review of Iron Man confident that the sequel would easily surpass it, as most comic book sequels seem to do. Sadly it was not to be.

One of the things I found so interesting about the first film was that Iron Man wasn't a small hero: he was essentially a man out to protect the world. The stakes in an Iron Man film should be huge. So the fact that the only real drama comes from Iron Man's personal demons is a major letdown. Iron Man alter ego Tony Stark fears he is dying (the only clue to this is the infection we see around his arc reactor, as he never displays any signs of weakness). The film follows his struggles to cope with this fact. The main villain, as such, is not the megalomaniac Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) or the vengeance seeking Whiplash (Mickey Rourke), but his own failing body. Because that's what we really want from a summer blockbuster. For the first hour or so, I didn't mind this fact. I figured they were laying the personal stakes for Tony so that there would be more weight to the drama when the S hits the F. But by hour two, you realize that no, there is no other drama. This is it.

So what of these villains? Well, Whiplash is a joke. He has so little screen time that you'd be forgiven if you forgot he exists during the middle section of the film. He has the most stock of villain motivations: revenge. Now, this could be treated in an interesting way if the film allowed him to actually share any screen time with the man he is seeking revenge on. But because his motivation is so weak, the filmmakers decided to keep him and Tony Stark separated for the whole film. They meet twice and talk to each other even less. And that's the "main" villain. The other villain of sorts is Justin Hammer, the main competitor of Stark Industries. Rockwell makes him into a fun character, but again, there is little motivation for him beyond corporate rivalry. He ultimately comes across as a child who is mad he isn't getting all the attention.

Why do you hire all these really great actors if you aren't going to use them? I get that they want to focus on the sublime performance by Robert Downey Jr. but part of what makes him so much fun is seeing him play off of these other actors. Stark is by himself for so much of the film that even he becomes dull after a while. Don Cheadle gets a fun, if obvious joke when he is introduced as Rhodey, commenting on the fact that he is not the person we remember from two years ago. But beyond that he is put in the background with Gwyneth Paltrow, only allowed to pop in once in a while. And Scarlett Johansson is the biggest waste of the whole film. She exists only because they want to continue to build up the Avengers film. And there in lies perhaps why this film was doomed to fail: it's one big advertisement for another film.

Iron Man 2 is not allowed to have its own plot. Instead, it's a constant reminder that there are other movies that Marvel wants you to see in the future. Why is Nick Fury here? To remind Stark that they want him on their superhero team. The film ends on a note that adds absolutely nothing to the film, and is only there to advertise the big Marvel movie coming out next summer. It has zero to do with anything that has happened in the film previously, or with anything that will happen in any future Iron Man movies. It's all excessive, and is simply filler for a film that otherwise has no interesting plot threads of its own.

I'm not sure what anyone involved here was thinking when they made this film. There is almost no action, Tony Stark rarely dresses up in the Iron Man suit (and when he does, it is often as a joke, such as when he throws a birthday party for himself). The final fight is perfunctory and short (mainly because it's obvious that no villain they came up with was really any match for Iron Man, let alone Iron Man and War Machine). It's just such a nothing film, you can't help but wonder why it was made (besides to advertise other movies). Were it not for Robert Downey Jr. delivering his usual great performance, this would be a total waste. All in all, this is not how you start the summer movie season.

How to Train Your Dragon

Perhaps it is because I am spoiled by Pixar every year, but I have never been able to really enjoy a Dreamworks Animation movie before. Sure Shrek was ok at the time, but it has not held up well over the years. Indeed, that is the problem with all of Dreamworks' movies: they are so invested in pop culture jokes that they can feel dated only a few years later. How funny, really, is a Who Wants to be a Millionaire joke or an American Idol spoof now? Not very. And yet, Dreamworks continued to allow these films to be made, not caring about any sort of longevity. So along comes How to Train Your Dragon, and I brush it off, in spite of the glowing reviews. Kung Fu Panda got good reviews, and that wasn't very good either. But after hearing from many people that this is the anti-Dreamworks Dreamworks movie, I finally gave in and watched it. And I am so glad I did.

How to Train Your Dragon is in the tradition of Pixar's best: it's about the characters first and foremost. Any story, jokes, or emotions all develop from the characters, not the other way around. The film tells the story of Hiccup, a Viking child who is training to be a dragon killer. One day he comes across a downed dragon in the forest, but can't bring himself to kill it. In letting it live, he learns that everything he thought he knew about dragons is wrong. Naming it Toothless, the boy and dragon become friends and try to change the Vikings' view on dragons. It's a simple enough story, but it is told with such weight and emotion that you really care about the characters. Key to this is the voice talent, or lack thereof.

Jay Baruchel plays Hiccup, and his performance hits the right notes. But it wouldn't work if Toothless wasn't mute. The most surprising thing about this film is the fact that they allowed the dragons to not speak English. Toothless isn't a wisecracking sidekick; he's a pet. This allows us to project on to him the things we need to in order to empathize with him. The voicelessness gives all the dragons a noble, sad quality that is vital to making them sympathetic. The rest of the voice talent is a bit more hit and miss. Actors like Jonah Hill and Christopher Mintz-Plasse feel a bit out of place, like something left over from an older Dreamworks film. But then Gerard Butler uses his persona to great effect as Hiccup's disappointed father. And America Ferrera disappears into her role of the love interest, making her into more of a tough girl than a damsel in distress.

This film simply would not work if it wasn't about the story and characters first. Some really funny moments come out of who these characters are, and the connection between Hiccup and Toothless is palpable and fun. Visually it is stunning, especially during the flying scenes. All in all, it is a far better movie than I ever would have given Dreamworks credit for. I hope they learn from this movie and continue to grow in the right ways. Is it too much to ask that Shrek Forever After is the last of a dying breed, and that How to Train Your Dragon is the future for Dreamworks?

Hot Tub Time Machine

When a movie has a title like Hot Tub Time Machine, reviewing it almost seems futile. Movies like this come down to whether or not you find it funny. Unfortunately, it seems that the movie had most of its jokes ruined by the trailers, so I found myself laughing less than I would have liked to. Sure, there were a few surprises, and the characters were occasionally entertaining, if not a little stock. Still, if you like knowingly dumb comedies, you could do worse than Hot Tub Time Machine.

Do I even need to explain the plot? Four friends get into a hot tub and it takes them back to the 80's. It's the barest of premises, and it serves to give us a lot of riffs on both the 80's and the 00's (Indeed, while there isn't a lot of 10's culture yet established for a film to make fun of, this film seems most comfortable with jokes about things that are more than a few years old, like "Let's Get Retarded" by the Black Eyed Peas). Like any good 80's satire, everything is extremely exaggerated. People all wear ridiculous clothes, love Red Dawn, and listen to the most on the nose 80's songs. The 80's are such an easy target, it can often make for very lazy jokes (what color is Michael Jackson?). It would have been nice to see the film try a little harder. Still, when the jokes do work, they work well. The running joke about Crispin Glover's character is probably the standout.

The cast is strong for this kind of film, even if they have little to do. John Cusack seems so out of place here, and as our de facto lead he is probably the only dull spot. His straight man routine doesn't really provide any real comedy, he is mostly there to comment on what is going on. Craig Robinson and Rob Corddry are, as expected, very reliable. While we've seen the Corddry character a thousand times before - the boorish friend who seems to have no boundaries - Corddry takes the guy to new and outlandish heights. And Clarke Duke, as the youngster of the group, is surprisingly amusing as the only person who seems to be aware of how much damage they could cause to the future. Realizing he was conceived the very weekend they end up in, his neurosis over erasing his birth is very funny. And then there is the cameo by Chevy Chase. Chase seems to be in the midst of a very minor comeback, which is a wonderful thing. Sadly, his talent is squandered here in a borderline non-sequitur performance. He is apparently some sort of time traveling God who only speaks in riddles, but he is so insignificant to the plot and is clearly only there because he is a familiar face.

Your mileage may vary, but I found the film to lack the big laughs and truly memorable characters of something like the similar Hangover. Still, it does have some nifty riffs on time travel, and the callback to the "Johnny Be Good" sequence from Back to the Future is a clever moment that doesn't hit you over the head about being a reference. Again, when you call your film Hot Tub Time Machine, you aren't exactly delving into the intricacies of time travel or the profundity of life.

Greenberg

What is it that drives Noah Baumbach to create some of the most unlikable characters in recent cinema? Greenberg is his third film in a row that centers on how an essentially irredeemable misanthrope ruins the lives of those around him. If that doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun, you wouldn't be mistaken. While The Squid and the Whale was saved by some truly great performances, Greenberg does not have Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney to depend upon. Instead, it has Ben Stiller and Mumblecore queen Greta Gerwig at its center. They try their best with such difficult material, and they ultimately save it from being as passionless as Margot at the Wedding. Still, not being as bad as Margot is damning with faint praise.

Stiller plays the titular Greenberg, a man who had the world in the palm of his hand fifteen years earlier, but let it slip away. Now he is a socially awkward, angry, bitter man with only one tenuous friend and no real prospects. He meets Florence (Gerwig), who is sort of an errand girl for Greenberg's brother. The two don't exactly hit it off, but for some reason Florence is intrigued by Greenberg. The two start an on and off relationship, which often results in some demeaning moments for Florence. Baumbach doesn't really seem to think people can change who they are, so we know from the beginning that this relationship can never really work. That's a big part of why it can be such a slog to sit through.

Stiller does a good job of being unlikable, but he isn't able to make being unlikable interesting. Aside from a few uncomfortably funny quips ("That's the worst story I've ever heard. Bye!"), he is difficult to watch. Gerwig, on the other hand, is kind of a delight. Her Florence is the opposite of Greenberg, a bit of a doormat that lets people use her. She's such a sad and endearing person, and Gerwig gives her just the right amount of spark to make you care for her. Gerwig helps you understand why this girl would settle for Greenberg, even if you don't agree that she should.

To say this film offers nothing new to Baumbach's oeuvre wouldn't be totally fair, but not entirely off the mark, either. It's certainly got some of the funnier moments in any of his films, and Gerwig is enjoyable to watch. But if you've seen The Squid and the Whale, this isn't something that ever reaches the same heights. It's not easy to endure the kinds of characters and situations that Baumbach likes to create, so I simply can't recommend sitting through this one if you've seen anything else he has done.