Not that there's still anyone here...

... but if someone should stumble onto it, I figured I should post this since it is movie-related. I've given myself a challenge. Every Best Picture winner. In order.

More details at the Boston Babblings blog.

You need to see this.

Last night, my mind was blown.

I've got a degree in theater, and I think by most standards for the industry, I'm a bad theater student. Frankly, I don't like weird stuff. Most of the time, it's not because I don't get it. Very often, I get the point that is trying to be conveyed through unconventional means of presentation, but very seldom do I ever feel that the point is made more effectively than it could have been made in a more straightforward production. Being weird for the sake of weirdness has always annoyed me, because it seems selfish. It doesn't seem to me to be done for the benefit of the audience. It's done for the benefit of the performers or the artists who are putting the show together. And that's fine, but if that's the case... why are you making me pay to see it?

What I saw last night completely redefined what I thought of as theater. It's not something that will ever replace conventional theater, but I think it could do more for the idea of the theatrical experience than anything else I've ever seen.

It's called Sleep No More. It's been brought to Boston (Brookline, actually) by the American Repertory Theater in Cambridge, but the project belongs to Punchdrunk, a theater group out of London. They first performed the show in London in 2003, and the run in Brookline marks Punchdrunk's American debut. And they certainly have me interested.

Sleep No More is a reimagining of Macbeth as a Hitchcockian thriller. For this production, they've taken over the old Lincoln School on Boylston Street in Brookline, and transformed it into... something else. I want to be very careful how I phrase things, because the best way to walk into that building is knowing nothing at all. Their new setting is reminiscent of the '20s or '30s. You start your experience in a small but beautifully appointed speakeasy that was dropped in the middle of the building. From there, you don a mask (which I think is for the comfort of both the performers and the audience), and are let loose to explore the hallways and nearly fifty transformed rooms over four levels of the school.

Some of the rooms are appointed in a pretty standard theatrical fashion - sitting rooms, dining rooms, offices - while others are much more imaginative - on one floor, there's a dune of black sand that makes its way through three or four rooms. In some rooms, there's little done to hide the fact that this used to be a school, even if that room's design doesn't fit a school at all. Other rooms, especially in the basement, are fully transformed into something else... anything else.

As you wander through the rooms, you'll encounter characters who are at the very least reminiscent of the characters from Macbeth, if not the characters by name. They'll go about their days, usually completely unaware of you and your fellow audience members, interacting with each other as if you didn't exist. My girlfriend described the feeling as being ghosts, with free reign to travel wherever you see fit and observe anything (and I do mean anything) and everything these characters do. One really cool way to experience the show is to pick a character and follow them. Everywhere. At no point did anyone go where the audience couldn't follow, so you really get a complete, unbroken experience. And if you pass a room or another character that looks more interesting, just break off and explore that room, or follow that new character. The actors are on a cycle that repeats at least once over the course of the night, so if you think you missed something after you stopped following someone, you can always try to pick it back up again later.

There's very minimal dialogue in the show, and that's for the better, I think. The actions, movements and relationships might become a little too defined if the characters were allowed to speak out loud, and the show would lose a very surreal, ethereal quality that helps make it so fascinating. It also means that when characters do talk, it's that much more important, and you need to pay close attention.

The one thing that I was worried about for this format was how well I would be able to follow the plot. You really have no restrictions on where you can go - if you can open a door in the school, its part of the show and you're welcome to explore. It does make for a very disjointed connection with the plot, but in the end I found that really didn't matter. There's a quote from a review in the Guardian newspaper of the London production: "... although you will need more than a passing knowledge of the play to make the connections, I suspect that the experience is sufficiently novel that, even if you had never heard of the play, you would take a puzzled pleasure in the evening." The performers are strong enough that you'll feel the full intensity of emotion just by watching and, if you're lucky, interacting with them. And those emotions will run the full gamut of possibility. The venue and scenes are constructed in such a way that you will see and feel everything. You'll find humor, you'll find sadness and joy, you'll be attracted and repulsed, and you'll definitely feel every hair on the back of your neck stand at attention more than once.

It's really a surreal experience. Very shortly after it began, I found myself standing in a hallway, completely alone. It very easily could have been a scene from The Shining, but sustained for the nearly three hours we wandered through the place. My girlfriend and I got separated right at the beginning, and despite crossing paths a couple more times during the course of the evening, we always opted to part ways again and explore on our own. It's a compliment to the atmosphere that they have created in there that even if you came with someone (and you should, so you can talk about it after), you really want to experience this by yourself.

At the end, they reopen the speakeasy to you so you can have a drink (which you'll probably need) and swap stories with other spectators. After talking to my girlfriend and about half a dozen other people, it became very clear that despite technically attending the same show for nearly three hours, we all had wildly different experiences. My girlfriend saw a character I didn't know existed. I saw rooms she never came across. It's remarkable to build something like this and have it really allow for that much repeat attendance. I just went last night, and already I'm dying to go back and find other routes, other rooms and other experiences. I hope I've given you an idea of the show without giving much of anything away, because there's really no replacing going in completely blind and seeing where the show takes you.

Here's the warning - this is very much a show for adults, definitely an R rating. Only adults. Nudity abounds, and there's a number of things that happen that are unquestionably too intense and mature for kids. The Shining reference holds, but you need to add in a little Session 9 or Eyes Wide Shut - and of course some Hitchcock - to really get the idea. It's eerie, it's unnerving, and I'm sure it's a better experience when you don't have to worry about what sort of trauma you might be inflicting on your child.

Right now, it's scheduled to run through the end of the year, but I wouldn't be shocked if it gets extended - it's not like the school will be used for anything else, and I really hope this becomes insanely popular. If you're interested, I've got three pieces of advice: 1) Abandon any preconceived notions you have about the play, the characters, or theater in general; 2) Be ready to go along with anything - the show and the experience will be better for it; and 3) GO.

For tickets, click here. Or go find out more about ART and Punchdrunk.

A side note: I'm completely shocked that I ended up writing this. I've been consistently unimpressed with ART for years. For a long time, they've been the closest thing Boston had to professional avant garde theater, but I've always got the impression they were doing what I said I hate: being weird for the sake of being weird. It was almost like they were expected to do it, so they did it without a legitimate reason. That's not to deride anyone who has worked there in the past, I just... it always felt stuffy, and full of "importance" and "purpose," and none of that appeals to me. This show is full of "feeling" and "emotion," and it's incredible. In my mind, ART is back on the proper road. Their production of David Mamet's Marriage was fantastic, Sleep No More is hands down one of my favorite productions of anything ever, they've got a really cool-sounding version of The Great Gatsby coming next year... I can't remember the last time I was excited about ART. It's cool. Now let's just hope they don't screw it up with Red Sox Nation...

Taken

* * * * * (out of five)

Assuming that people like some complexity, Taken might be a hard sell. It just doesn’t mess around with any of that. It’s a thriller. It knows it, you know it twenty minutes in, and you never forget it until the very last second. Frankly, there’s not a lot of character here. There’s not a lot of background. There’s not a lot of relationship development. And honestly, there’s not a lot of moral consideration, all of which might turn some people off. But if you walk into this movie looking for a good time without any needless complications, you’ll walk out satisfied.

Liam Neeson, who owns the movie every single second he’s in frame (and there are very few Liam-less frames in the whole 90 minutes), plays Bryan Mills. There are really only three things you need to know about Bryan. A) He used to work as some sort of covert ops agent for the US government, a job at which he was very good, B) he is extremely meticulous and detail-oriented, and C) he loves his daughter, Kim, but didn’t get to spend much time with her growing up because of work. All of these points are bluntly established within the first twenty minutes.

After some exposition establishing tension between Bryan and his ex-wife (Famke Janssen), who now lives a much better life with her new, rich and present husband, Kim (Maggie Grace) asks her parents for permission to spend a summer in Paris with a friend. Bryan is skeptical, something that initially reads as overprotective, but it’s sort of understandable – without details, it is established that he has seen much more bad in the world than most people, and wants to shield his daughter from that if possible. But eventually he relents, with a number of seemingly-controlling conditions, and off she goes. Naturally, everything that could go wrong does go wrong within a matter of hours, and Bryan flies to Paris with a presumed 96-hour window to find his daughter before the trail runs cold.

Liam Neeson is not a guy you look at and immediately think “action hero,” but he doesn’t have to be, because this is not that kind of movie. Bryan isn’t a hero. He’s not even trying to be a hero. Bryan is dangerous, and Bryan has a goal. He knows exactly of what he is capable, and as far as we know there is no line he won’t cross in order to attain his goal. Compared to most other lead characters, this could very well come off as a flat character, because he doesn’t demonstrate many of the humanizing qualities we’ve come to need from action heroes in order to justify their actions. Difficult decisions, especially those that might result in violence, pain or death, are typically given heavy consideration. This is not a concern for Bryan Mills. It’s not that he’s sadistic – at no point does he enjoy what is does. It’s not even that he’s immoral. It’s all about priority, and in his case, doing what he needs to do to find his daughter outranks any moral consideration he might otherwise have.

There’s the potential for commentary about Bryan’s life in the times leading up to or following this particular moment – what training made him this way, if he comes to regret his actions, etc. – but while those might be interesting ideas to explore, they aren’t this moment. For that, credit writers Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen. Most of their scripts are action-based, but this sort of stripped-down single serving is relatively new for them (see Banlieue 13). They focus so completely on one situation, they’re able to really perfect the telling of this story, this moment, without other side plots getting in the way. The film is a straight line, from abduction to the end, and it is tense for the entire run. It’s really beautiful in its simplicity – sidetracks would have required more time to explain, and almost certainly would have lost the momentum of the main story.

Neeson’s not going to win any awards for this one, but I doubt there was any intention of that going in. This is a film about a man unleashed, and Neeson handles both extremes flawlessly. His stillness and quiet is often impressive, and nearly as frightening as his very, very violent outbursts, because to this guy, those are both means to the same end, equal tools for the same job. It’s Neeson that makes Bryan Mills dangerous, not his training or ability. But at the same time, it’s Neeson’s early sincerity in his love for Kim that justifies for the audience his actions later on, even though there’s absolutely a vindictive edge to some of the violence. Neeson’s total commitment to the black and white nature of what he’s doing sells that not only is Bryan doing what he must, but the bastards had it coming. There’s a recurring idea of focus that Bryan keeps coming back to – he exhibits it in everything he does, and he reminds everyone with whom he has contact of its importance. That idea really wraps up what Neeson brings to this part – a tunnel vision-esque focus that sets the pace and the mood for everyone else who has the pleasure or misfortune of being in Bryan Mills’s life.

The only issue with the film for me was the directing, car chases in particular. It’s a long-held complaint that didn’t get any better here… the best way to sell action and suspense in fistfights, in car chases and in tense scenes is to show us what the hell is going on. Showing Bryan’s car swerving in and out of oncoming traffic, hearing and feeling near miss after near miss, with the occasional look at Bryan’s reactions, will be much more tense than fraction of a second cuts that just end up being spatially confusing. I understand that the idea is to get a frenetic, stressful blood boil, but it doesn’t work for me. It’s stressful, but only because I get frustrated when I can’t see what’s going on. Anyone who wants to put a car chase in their movie ought to be forced to watch Tarantino’s Death Proof and take notes.

Other than that, Pierre Morel does just as well here as he did in Banlieue 13. He knows the story Besson is trying to tell, and knows the best thing he can do is stay out of the way. Besson and Kamen are working through Neeson to create this guy’s life and Morel is there to put it on film. He does well enough, but no one is exactly making it hard on him.

Neeson and a tight-as-hell script are the reasons to see this one. Why it got dumped in a crap slot like the end of January, I’ll never know. It’s much better than that. But it sure was a nice distraction from the cold. Appreciate it while you can.

Also up on eFilmCritic.

Angels & Demons

Let's get a couple things clear. I enjoy Dan Brown's books. They are complete throwaway novels - they can be read on a single airplane or bus trip, they are perfectly engaging when you read them and absolutely forgettable after the fact. I think Angels & Demons and The Davinci Code, from a commercial literature standpoint, are just about perfect. There's a lot of people who will find a lot of things wrong with the books, but just about everyone will read them, and from a straight entertainment standpoint, millions will enjoy them.

I also hated, hated, hated The Davinci Code film. I think Tom Hanks is completely wrong for the character - he's too old, he doesn't possess nearly the amount of charm that Robert Langdon is supposed to have. This was supposed to be a slightly - slightly more bookish Indiana Jones. I think Audrey Tatou was even MORE wrong for her character, and I could have told you that without ever seeing her onscreen. The film came off much more like a scavenger hunt than a mystery. There's no doubt that there's a scavenger hunt aspect to the story, but it really felt like the pair didn't have to work for too much of what they found.

Since the day The Davinci Code film was announced, I was very, very worried about the inevitable Angels & Demons follow-up. The fact that it's a prequel and they're using an older Tom Hanks to play a younger Langdon is painful. There's any number of late 30-mid 40's guys who could pull this off. Tone Robert Downey, Jr. down a little bit and squeeze this in before Iron Man 2. It still worries me.

All that being said... I don't hate this. I'm not overly psyched by it, but I expected a lot worse. The tone seems a bit darker, which is necessary, and... I just really hope they pull this one off a lot better.

Religulous

This is an exceedingly difficult movie to watch, let alone review, without allowing some personal feelings to slip in between the cracks. It is so slanted to one particular viewpoint (and shamelessly intended to be that way) that to watch it with any attempt at objectivity almost gets in the way of the film’s objective: Bill Maher wants you to be incensed or repulsed, preferably at his subjects of ridicule. But he’s OK if you’re repulsed by his actions, too. That just means you become one of his subjects.

Much like Larry Charles’s last cinematic effort, Borat, this film becomes a series of unscripted “gotcha” moments as Maher travels to different religious-minded communities and locations around the world and chats with anyone willing to talk to him. Most of these conversations follow the same pattern: Maher sets up the pins so the unsuspecting interviewee can trip and stutter their way to his ultimate point. Points to Maher for really hitting every possible slant on the major religions – he interviews the guy playing Jesus at Orlando’s “Holy Land Experience,” then makes a stop at a Trucker’s Chapel before jumping on a plane for London, Amsterdam, Israel and the Vatican.

The film is by no means even-keeled, and never makes any attempt to act like it. I mean, c’mon, it’s Bill Maher. If you’ve ever seen one of his TV shows, you know where he stands on the issue of religion. One thing I did find interesting is that he makes it very clear who amongst his victims he actually respects, and the answer is actually surprising. Above everyone else, the resident Vatican astronomer and a pastor working in Rome meet the least of his scorn, mainly because they show a disdain similar to Maher’s for literal interpretations of scripture. Nearly everyone else is subject to his well-laid traps, and that is where most of the comedy emerges. It’s pretty funny to watch Maher get a sitting senator to admit that you don’t need to pass an IQ test to get into the senate, even if you might not approve of how Maher backed the poor guy into that corner.

Read the rest at HBS!

Eagle Eye

Stupid movies have carved out a nice little niche in America. They cost little, they do well, and they are often forgotten shortly after audiences leave the auditorium. The problem is that those tend to be comedies. Eagle Eye is not a comedy. But boy, is it ever stupid. On the bright side, it could be a lot worse.

I don't want to give the wrong idea. I enjoyed the heck out of Eagle Eye. While I was watching it, it was a damn good movie... most of the time. Occasionally, I would have a flash of realization that something I was seeing onscreen was completely absurd, ridiculous, misguided, paranoid or just plain idiotic. But then something would blow up REALLY BIG, and I would be sucked back in. In that way, I think the movie does exactly what it was designed to do – it's escapism at every possible level. But the way the plot is written, there may be people out there (re: stupid people) who try to see it as more than it is. If you fail to categorize the twist as absolutely moronic, then we have a problem.

Now, I can't go into what that twist is, really. In fact, giving away anything about the plot beyond what is shown in trailers and advertisements would be unfair. To start, we have two seemingly unconnected stories. The first is Jerry Shaw (Shia LaBeouf), a super slacker working at a Chicago copy center in between hands of a nightly poker game. Jerry's life kind of sucks – crappy job, crappy apartment, no savings to speak of – but early on you get the impression that if he wanted to, he could move beyond that life. There must be something attractive about it. Tragedy hits Jerry's family, which reveals a lot about the choices he's made, and upon returning home for the night, he finds his crappy apartment stuffed to the gills with weaponry, explosives, and classified intelligence. His cell phone rings, and a woman gives him instructions to run. He doesn't, he gets arrested, the woman calls again and helps him escape... we've all seen this clip in the trailer.

The second story is about Rachel Holloman (Michelle Monaghan). We meet her as she is bringing her son Sam to a train station in Chicago for a trip with his school band to Washington, D.C. Naturally, she's nervous, and her deadbeat ex-husband's presence doesn't help anything. Luckily, we don't see him again. After putting Sam on the train, her cell rings, and the same woman threatens her son. Rachel complies, ending up driving the car the picks up the escaping Jerry Shaw. From there, they are on the run together, completing assignments from the mystery woman without really knowing what the end game is.

It's about at this point that the movie turns deeply stupid. In the opening segment, we met Secretary of Defense Callister (Michael Chiklis), and his story is the one that reveals the mysterious woman to us. And it's deeply, painfully idiotic. I caught it about half an hour prior to the reveal, and I quietly swore that if it turned out to be true (which it was), I might leave the theater. I didn't. After the movie ended, I started talking about it with my girlfriend, and we picked it clean before we got to the restaurant down the street for dinner. Particularly involving the mystery woman's methods of getting Jerry and Rachel to where she needs them to be, there are leaps of logic over gaps so vast that they almost come off as clever at first, since there's no way in hell that YOU would have thought of doing things this way. But after a quick discussion, you'll quickly figure out that the reason you wouldn't have thought of it is because it's a damn stupid idea. This became a pretty common theme in our post-movie chat.

Read the rest at HBS

2007: The Superlative Post

Looking at the list of films eligible for an award next month, if in fact the ceremony does happen, it's a little depressing, for a few reasons. Not only is my list of films seen the shortest I can remember it ever being, but the list of films I wish I'd seen is almost as long. But, all that aside, this space has been vacant long enough, so here we go.

Top 10 Movies of 2007
1. Sunshine - I freaked out the moment I saw the first trailer. It was sent to me by my brother, who had basically the same reaction. This is sci-fi done right, balancing the two parts... there's just as much science here as there is fiction. Is the science accurate? Well, who really knows, but it sounded pretty good to me. Boyle's visuals are amazing - that's not to say that they look real, or even necessarily that they deserve the Oscar for special effects. These are presented in such a way that you never forget the beauty or the raw, dangerous power of the sun as it is simultaneously humankind's only possible savior and worst possible enemy. Fantastic performances by the entire crew are led by Cillian Murphy, Rose Byrn and Chris Evans. Read that again. I said Chris Evans. Give the guy something good to read, and dude can act. If you have a chance to see this in high-def, do it. I'll be hitting Jay's place at some point. It should be freakin' awesome.


2. Ratatouille - Brad Bird better be on Pixar's permanent payroll by now. This is Pixar's best since Toy Story & Toy Story 2, and it sits right next to those two as one of the greatest animated pieces of artwork ever. It's note-perfect just about everywhere - the voice casting and acting is flawless, the visual style is both beautiful and inviting, and the story is just amazing. Bird's three features (The Iron Giant, The Incredibles, Rataouille) have all been brilliant, story- and character-driven masterpieces, and Ratatouille is the best of the three. In particular, the final restaurant review and Bird's way of visualizing taste are pieces of magic that made me love this movie from the moment I sat down.

3. No Country for Old Men - For my money, the Coens always deliver. Even their last two films, The Ladykillers and Intolerable Cruelty, which a lot of people disliked, found the right notes with me. This is different. This is Fargo, but better. Absent are a lot of the Coen regulars; instead they opted for a totally new cast. And damn, did it work. Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurh is one of the scariest screen villains to come in a long time. Josh Brolin's Llewelyn Moss is about as everyman as you can get, and still completely fascinating and badass. Tommy Lee Jones as Sheriff Bell is the perfect mediation, and following his story - straight through till the end - is what ties the entire film together. Those are just the big three. The depth to this cast is incredible. The Coens landscape is beautiful and terrifying in its bleakness. There's really nothing wrong here.

4. Grindhouse - I can't say much about this one except god DAMN it was fun. Tarantino and Rodriguez made it perfectly clear what they were shooting for with these films, and I'd say mission definitely accomplished. My only complaint was that they might have gone a little too far with the "crappy prints with scratches and missing reels" part of the experience, particularly with Planet Terror, but that's nitpicking to the highest degree. These three hours were probably the most fun I had in a theater this year. Between Rose McGowan's machine gun leg and Zoe Bell being COMPLETELY insane, I don't know why people complained about this one.

5. 3:10 to Yuma - I just saw this one again the other night, and it's still great. Bale and Crowe are wonderful opposites, and I realize that I pretty much ONLY like Russell Crowe in westerns (this and The Quick and the Dead). Mangold built a dynamic, lively world for these two guys to clash. It looks good, it sounds great, it just feels right. I have my gripes about the ending and one of Ben Wade's final decisions, but that decision sure made for a great final shootout.

6. Hot Fuzz - Just further proving that these guys can do ANYTHING. Much as Shaun of the Dead did with horror movies, this one successfully roasts and toasts everything that is awful and wonderful about the action movie, all while delivering one of the best action movies of the year. Simon Pegg continues to prove that he can pull of just about anything. I really don't know why this guy isn't a superstar yet. He's on his way. Many people might say this is a little too crazy for its own good, but that's kind of why I love it.

7. The Bourne Ultimatum - If, like me, you thought Supremacy slowed this series down a little bit, then Ultimatum soothed those worries away. It takes the best parts of the first of the series, combs some clear inspiration from Casino Royale, and rolls it all into a very good mystery that they never let you forget about during the chase. The best improvement? SHOWING THE FIGHTS. Car chases are still a bit suspect, but at least in this one, Greengrass let you see the fighting. Damon is still great - I think Bourne is going to be the character he's remembered for, aside from Will Hunting. This was the best blockbuster of the summer, by far.

8. Breach - On the list almost entirely for Chris Cooper, but the fact is that watching him in this part made me enjoy this movie more than most other ones this year. Laura Linney and Ryan Phillippe do their parts as well, but this is Cooper's movie, through and through. A shame it was dumped back in February, or he might have a shot at a statue.

9. Gone Baby Gone - There are so many good things that are offset by a lot of questionable things, but in the end, I think the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I do love these books and these characters, and I'm positive that they can be done better, but the Afflecks still made a great movie. If they did anything right, it's capture the distinct feel of Dorchester, for better or for worse, and they owe a lot of that to Amy Ryan. It's a good mystery with some hazy marks, but the best part is that this will probably be enough reason to give some of the other Kenzie/Gennaro novels a try... though I wouldn't mind if someone else took a stab at it.

10. Ocean's Thirteen - ... what? Leave me alone, I enjoyed myself. Is it flawed? Absolutely. But it's better than Twelve, and there's no denying that it's fun watching these guys have fun. Like I said, there are a lot of movies I didn't get to that I imagine would have bumped this one off the list, but I can only pick from what I saw.

Biggest Disappointment
Juno - I so wanted to love this movie. Everything from the trailer told me I would love this movie. As it turns out, three minutes is about as long as I can buy Ellen Page spewing these lines while still being told she's 16. I get it, she's not like other 16-year old kids. But NO 16-year old talks like this. Hell, as far as I know, no 20-year old talks like this. The first hour is a set up of the quirkiness of her world and everyone in it, but by the end of the movie, the only people you come off liking or relating to are the non-quirky ones - J.K. Simmons, Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman, notably. Ellen Page was great, but then they had her play a teenager. The style is good, but it trips on itself. There are pieces of a good movie here, but it gets marred by the details.

Biggest Trainwreck
Transformers - Just go here. This explains everything.

I imagine I will find myself back here next week to talk Oscar picks. Hopefully I'll have been able to squeeze in at least one other viewing by then, so I'm not completely uninformed. Until then...