Movies Gone By: the Continuation

As stated yesterday (two posts in as many days, waddayaknow?! Off to a good start I'd say!), I'll continue posting all too short reviews of movies I saw in the last few months but failed to comment on in more detail due to computer troubles at home. I might write more extensive reviews on a few of these somewhere in the future if time permits me (fat chance!), while I do plan to give these more coverage in the Movie Archives in the long run; which will be very long, since it's practically a work in progress forever (until the day I die most likely, or the day I turn blind and can't watch films no more). But so far there is cause for optimism, so let's focus on that, and on another batch of recently seen movies. Today's group, like yesterday's, consists entirely of films I had the pleasure of screening at Provadja.

Lawless: ****/*****. Hard-edged, gritty and extremely violent Prohibition era set drama, sort of a substitute for people who don't have the time to watch Boardwalk Empire (which is superior in terms of story development, but showcases acts of violence not nearly as disturbing as this film does). Three brothers operate an illegal liquor business in a small town, but big city mobsters are closing in on their turf and give them the choice to cooperate or see their venture terminated. Not taking crap from nobody, also because of an urban legend regarding their supposed immortality, they respectfully decline and quickly find themselves the target of both the mob and a ruthless deputy trying to force the matter. Obviously, they retaliate against both the lawbreakers and the law itself, with deadly consequences. A more intelligent film then you might be inclined to believe judging from this brief synopsis, with strong performances by amongst others Guy Pearce and Tom Hardy. Director John Hillcoat (The Road) delivers an impessive look, also in regard to the period look of the Twenties, at the rough life of independent booze runners harassed by bigger fish and unscrupulous law enforcers on their payroll.

Amour: ****/*****. Excellent but still severely overrated social drama depicting the autumn days of a elder couple still absolutely in love. When the wife suffers a devatasting stroke leaving her helpless, her husband takes care of her despite being in a process of mental deterioration himself. Soon he comes to the realization there's only one solution to their problems and it's not a pretty one, shocking many a spectator (but not so much me since I found it only a logical and ultimately predictable step), as is usual for uncompromising director Michael Haneke who has a history of not making it easy on his audience. Though this is still a gripping and tragic film, in my mind it's marred by its slow pace and lazy cinematography. And someone explain to me why this foreign film is nominated not only for the correct 'Best Foreign Film' category at the Academy Awards, but also for four other categories despite not having a single word of English in it (as has always been the norm at the Oscars). Good film, but not so mindboggingly good as some would have us believe.

Cloud Atlas: ****/*****. Fascinating mosaic of connected lives throughout the ages. Quite reminiscent of Aronofsky's The Fountain, but not as compact (since it spans three more time frames). Telling six vastly different tales set from the 1700s to the distant future, it delves into the matter of acts, both good and bad, and their consequences leaving an impact lasting for hundreds of years. The point is made clear by an impressive international ensemble cast (including Tom Hanks, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving and Halle Berry) turning up in completely different roles – bridging issues like gender and race – from tale to tale, sometimes with daring but also occasionally awkward results (most notably Hugo Weaving playing a woman and an Asian guy). The spectacular visual look and the different attitudes and styles of the various stories, incorporating social drama, comedy, horror and science fiction leave something to enjoy (and no doubt to detest as well) for everybody, while none of the stories suffer from an overly fragmented or complicated narrative. Courtesy of a fruitious cooperation between the Wachowskis (The Matrix trilogy) and Tom Tykwer (Lola Rennt).

Le Magasin des Suicides: ***/*****. Offbeat and quirky animated French film about a city so bleak and miserable that most people can't wait to end their life, aided by the many possibilities of dying offered by the local suicide shop. Run by a grim couple and their not so cheerful kids, eagerly exploiting the despair of their fellow man, the shop is a booming business, but matters are complicated when their third child turns out nothing but happy and obnoxiously optimistic, soon disrupting their livelihood as he means to bring a smile to everybody's face. Though wonderfully animated and stylistically inspired, making for a pleasant change from its American counterparts, the story cannot help but feeling overly random in the solutions offered to ending the omnipresent desire for death plaguing the town (and what's with that awkward nude dance?). Plus, some of the songs (this is, in fact, a musical too) just aren't very enjoyable to endure, though that might be a case of Francophobia on my part.

Seven Psychopaths: ***/*****. Oddball comedy from the director of the brilliant In Bruges. An aspiring screenwriter (Colin Farrell) is set to produce a screenplay about seven psychopaths but suffers from writer's block. However, he soon gets all the inspiration he needs from his flamboyant and basically lunatic pal (Sam Rockwell) who gets into trouble when his dognapping associate (Christopher Walken) kidnaps the wrong Shih Tzu, the best friend of a maniacal gangster (Woody Harrelson). Soon events lead to a colourful array of bizarre and quirky situations as the dim witted protagonists try to stay out of ever more explosive circumstances alive, resulting in the all too soon audience drawn conclusion that none of these people are in any way normal and the screenwriter is surrounded by all the psychopaths he could want. Though starting off promisingly, the narrative gets ever more convoluted and harder to follow while the number of jokes keeps feeling lacking, especially compared to the far superior predecessor (which also starred Farrell). The very definition of a mixed bag.

Anna Karenina: ***/*****. Unusual but still lavish (in some regards at least) adaptation of the classic Tolstoy novel. Keira Knightley stars as the Russian lady of noble blood torn between her romantic desires and the restrictions and traditional expectations placed on her by upper class Imperial society of the late 1900s. Will she compliantly stay with her boring husband Jude Law or be swept off her feet by the dashing young officer Aaron Taylor-Johnson instead? Whatever choice she makes, she will predictably suffer from it. In the meantime, young nobleman Domnhall Gleeson (son of Brendan) explores other possibilities offered by the rising revolutionary tides offering a vastly different but ultimately more simple and satisfactory life from high society. To underscore the feeling of being trapped in an upperclass setting in danger of being overtaken by the reality of the common people, most of this movie is set in a rundown theatre, which is an original choice (and undoubtedly budgetary inspired as well) but as the movie progresses not exactly a stylistically pleasing one. Contrary, Gleeson's character is the only one to explore the outside world, along with the traditonally snowy Russian plains. As is usual by now for a Keira Knightley film, excellent costume work. And some lovely acting to go with it.