The Groundrules

There are countless factors which, when taken together, determine whether or not a movie is successful. Is the story compelling and well written? How well has the director told an understandable and cohesive story? Are actors’ performances believable, and empathic? Has the editor kept the pace crisp? Is it visually interesting?

Another way to measure a film is by how well it achieves its intended goals. For example, obviously “Schindler’s List” has loftier aspirations than most of Adam Sandler’s fare. Still, both films have different targets. Spielberg seeks to move the audience, as well as make them think, while Sandler simply wants them to laugh. Each is successful at hitting the mark. While most of us would say "Schindler's" is the more important, historically-memorable film, neither can be said to be more noble, because they have entirely different intentions.

However, as years have passed and I’ve seen more and more films, I believe that, as much as any other variable, my enjoyment of a movie is ultimately determined by my own expectations, going in.

For example: Back in college, I went to the downtown dollar-theater, to see Schwarzenegger’s “Last Action Hero.” The picture had been ravaged by critics more than any film I can recall (Maybe “Ishtar” took a similar beating?). Anyhow, it was so reviled, I can’t imagine what it was I was thinking when I decided to go (perhaps just a desire to avoid studying?). Why had I even made the effort?

Once I'd settled into my seat with bucket of popcorn, I expected to find an embarrassing train-wreck of a film so awful that I might not make it through to the end. Certainly, given the volume of critics’ vitriol, at the very least I’d use “Last Action Hero” as a measuring-stick and reference-point for everything horrible, for years to come.

But it turns out that wasn’t bad. In truth, it was actually even pretty good. Poking fun at both Schwarzenegger and his reputation, as well as the action genre as a whole, it was clever and fun. Not great, but at worst mildly entertaining. But since I'd expected it was going to be unwatchable, I was pleasantly surprised. I had a similar experience watching Hudson Hawk.

In contrast, I went to see “There Will Be Blood” after hearing critics praise it as one of the year’s best. Danial Day-Lewis’s performance was hailed as the latest evidence of his genius. After the critical success of “Boogie Nights” and “Magnolia,” the film would supposedly cement its director’s (Paul Thomas Anderson) reputation as a modern master. Needless to say, my expectations going in were fairly high.

…And then...nothing happened.

I watched, and I waited. Characters said and did things. The pictures on the screen changed. But I had absolutely no reaction to the images on the screen. I sat there patiently in the dark theater for the entire film, hoping for that on crucial moment, where the plot, or a character, or the dialogue, or any conflict might hook me. It never came. It was all simmer, and no boil. As the end credits rolled, I was still waiting. Hoping it was going to be so much more profound and memorable, I was fairly disappointed.

Both films, I believe, hit their director’s intended goals; they achieved what they set out to do. The only real difference then, was what I expected from each.

To this end, I think it’s important to recognize there are no absolutes. When it comes to the subjective experience of movie watching, everyone has their own unique set of preferences. I could love something you hate. Or you might esteem a film I abhor (looking at you, Sandler fans). A film could be technically “good,” but I might not necessarily enjoy it as much as you. In contrast, a picture might not be Fellini, or Scorsese, but I could still enjoy it.

To wit: at the end of my reviews, I’m going to rate films as either disappointing, met expectations, or exceeded them. I’ll use this system instead of “thumbs up,” or a number-of-stars rating. Hopefully this will describe how much I enjoyed the whole experience, rather than simply judging the film in-a-vacuum.

Perhaps I should have some baseline expectation for every film (that it at least be competent?), but that feels unrealistic. How to do that? While I can recognize a film’s technical accomplishment, as well the craft with which it was made, both are at times entirely separate from how much I actually enjoyed the experience.

Even if this doesn’t establish how good or bad a film might be, if nothing else it should give you some sense of my own cinematic sensibilities. Which is probably the better part of a critic’s worth, anyhow.  

Magic Mike (2012)

This wasn’t the film I expected. It was better.

When I hear “movie about male strippers,” I think over-the-top, greased up, hip-thrusting, long-haired, tanned-to-orange, pouting silliness. And to be sure, “Magic Mike” has all of that. However, what this film also has is an original story, which contains genuine, sympathetic, likeable characters. Which explains why “Magic Mike” is both effective and successful.

I probably should’ve known to resist my preconceived, negative assumptions. Three-times-out-of-four, director Steven Soderbergh is to be trusted. Sure there have been puzzling misfires (Solaris, Bubble), as well as films that (on paper) seemed promising, but turned out to be less than the sum of their parts (Contagion). But those are the exceptions that prove the rule. Most often he makes very entertaining pictures, ones I’d recommend unreservedly (King of the Hill, Out of Sight, Erin Brockovich, the Informant!, the Oceans movies, etc…). Usually even his less-narrative, more experimental efforts (the Girlfriend Experience) are (even if imperfect) well-made, interesting, and worth seeing,.

“Magic Mike” falls into the middle category. It’s set in what feels like present-day Tampa, Florida (full disclosure: I grew up there). By the time we meet him, Mike (Channing Tatum, who also grew up in Tampa; we actually attended the same high school, him decades after me) has been a stripper for six years. He clearly makes good coin doing it, witnessed by his comfortable beach-front house. But has other side projects, as well. He sometimes works construction, in addition to having a mobile car-detailing business he runs out of a van. Squirreling away what earnings he can, Mike hopes to one day start his own custom-furniture company. Alas, bad credit keeps him from securing an all-important small-business loan. That, along with the easy money he makes dancing, keeps him doing a job he tries hard to pretend isn’t a dead-end.

One day while roofing a house, Mike meets Adam (Alex Pettyfer), a 19-year old former football player, who lied about his work experience in a Craigslist ad, just to get the job. Adam is essentially Mike, six years prior: young and good-looking, but lacking any real focus, direction or prospects. When Adam’s car won’t start after work, Mike gives him a ride home. They talk casually, as guys will, without sharing very much about themselves.

Later, they bump in to each other outside a dance club. Mike gets Adam past the velvet rope, despite the hoodie and sneakers. Once inside, Adam’s shy and inexperienced. He does little more than look around, smile and down shots. When introduced to a pair of women “named after cars and jewels,” Adam politely asks “What do you do?” His awkwardness contrasts sharply with Mike’s confidence. This clumsiness multiplies exponentially later, when later the pair unexpectedly go to the all-male review where Mike works.

Surrounded by mostly naked men, and throngs of screaming women, Adam couldn’t be further from his element. However, he’s also intrigued. Backstage, the male strippers are loose and confident in all the ways he’s not. Out front, the mob of women is frenzied and uninhibited. This new world makes his head spin. Suddenly everything seems possible.

When one of the other strippers is too drunk to perform, young Adam is dubbed “the Kid,” and reluctantly coaxed onstage. He awkwardly takes off his clothes “like a teenager in a locker room.” He’s hesitant and shy, but enjoys the attention he gains from his newfound abilities. It’s at this point where the plot of “Magic Mike” begins.

Adam begins dancing regularly, with Mike as his mentor. Along the way we’re introduced to Adam’s skeptical older sister Brooke (Cody Horn). She’s tired of Adam crashing on her couch, but isn’t sure stripping is the smartest path for him to change his circumstance. There’s also Dallas (played with wild-eyed swagger, by Matthew McConaughey), a maniacally-ambitious club owner, who sees promise (and more importantly dollar signs) in the new dancer. We’re also introduced to various other male strippers, each with their own concocted stage personality.

In addition to its dramatic narrative, the movie also contains long dance numbers, which are at once spectacular, and ridiculous. (Consider the absurdity of sweaty, grown men, performing themed and synchronized dance routines, while nearly nude, in front of shrieking strangers. When viewed with critical distance, on what planet would/could this ever be considered “sexy?”)

And what of the women in the audience? They’ve stood in line and paid to see an all-male strip show. Yet, when push comes to shove, and the pants drop, they all feign surprise and incredulity. What did they expect? Like walking in on your parents (or kids) having sex, is it simply a case of where simply imagining it, and actually seeing it in the flesh, are two far different things?

Channing Tatum was a stripper in his previous life. So it makes sense that his performance (as well as the film’s overall portrayal of the male-stripper environment) feels authentic. While watching, I never once thought “he’s just an actor, whose been taught to dance, taking his clothes off.”

One of the things I liked most about “Magic Mike” is that it isn’t a traditional cautionary tale. It’s not about some rube getting in over his head, or someone’s life spiraling out of control because he’s fallen in with a bad crowd. Mike’s not simply a dumb, reckless, out-of-control, stereotypical Florida meathead/party guy, living solely in the moment, squandering countless opportunities. Instead, from the start he’s shown as a fairly level-headed, emotionally-together guy. He considers his future, and has plans (humble as they are) about how to potentially get there. He’s confident, thoughtful, well spoken, and fairly mature. He even serves as a surrogate big brother, trying to shelter the younger, naïve and inexperienced Adam. Perhaps he’s just trying to help the youngster from repeating his mistakes? During an argument, Brooke remarks that Mike’s “basically a good and decent guy.” And he is. Like many of us, he’s someone who has come to a point where he realizes, while not entirely unhappy now, his life will ultimately need to change, or he might soon be.

Several times watching “Magic Mike” I was reminded of “Boogie Nights.” Though the former isn’t nearly as sprawling, dense, finely detailed, nor as tragic the latter, they share striking similarities. Obviously, both are set in worlds of sex work. Also, they both document a young character’s initial steps into the business. Each demonstrates the various prejudices their workers encounter, when engaging in jobs mostly deemed marginal by conservative America. Finally, both capture the profound sadness and suffocating desperation that saturate a world, where so many people lead impulsive, disposable lives.

Smart, briskly-paced, and energetic, “Magic Mike” deftly avoids clichés that would’ve sunk a lesser movie. It works because it shows the entirety of characters lives, and the struggles they endure trying to improve them, rather than simply moralizing about the jobs they do on-stage. I was entertained from beginning to end. It exceeded my expectations in every way. Though not on par with Soderbergh’s best, it’s still very good, ranking towards the top-of-the-middle of his efforts.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012)

Patrick, Sam and Charlie try to survive high school.

 Adolescence is a terribly awkward time of life. We’re smart enough to know a few things, but so emotionally immature and insecure to do much about them. Visceral trumps cerebral, every time. The filmmakers behind “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” understand this well. They accurately portray this confusing stage, when impulsiveness and misunderstood neuroses can, at any given second, make the most-recent emotion feel like the most-powerful moment in our lives.

“Wallflower” (directed by Stephen Chbosky; based on his book) centers on Charlie (the particularly effective Logan Lerman), an earnest and likeable kid from the affluent Pittsburgh suburbs. Sweet and unassuming, Charlie’s soon to be a freshman in high school. Significant problems from his past are hinted at, but not initially explained. His older brother’s gone off to play football at Penn State. His only-slightly older sister is dating a guy who’s physically abusive, even though he sports traditional hippy signifiers (ponytail, dashiki sweaters, Birkenstocks), and is president of the school’s earth club.

With few friends, and fearful he’ll likely be the target of hazing, Charlie dreads the transition from middle- to high school. In fact, he regards his remaining four years of school like a sentence, going so far as counting the days til he’s free.

That is until his chance meeting with Patrick (Ezra Miller, particularly menacing as the title character, in “We Have to Talk About Kevin”), and Sam (“Harry Potter’s” Emma Watson) at a football game. Patrick recognizes Charlie from shop class, and invites him to a party. Charlie’s surprised, but accepts. Seemingly, this is the first time a classmate has ever reached out to befriend him.

Charlie is fascinated, and pleasantly surprised, to find fellow students who drink, use drugs, and are interested in literature, art, film, and music. They don’t pick on, or reject him. He revels in their acceptance.

More than all that, he’s enchanted by Sam, the beautiful-but-obviously-damaged older girl, who embodies hope and possibility. Believing she seems him as “just a friend,” he admires her from up close, but is afraid to act on his feelings. As the film states eloquently, we only pursue the love we feel we deserve.

The action of the movie is fairly predictable. We follow the clique as they grow closer, suffering through the inevitable growing pains of teenage years: Their romances, break-ups, drug and alcohol use, and individual self-discoveries impart life lessons. They endure high-school dances, have parties, hook up, and occasionally fight. But mostly they talk, and enjoy each other’s company. Over time, tucked safely within the nurturing embrace of this tight circle of close friends, Charlie begins to grow, and come into his own. He develops confidence, and starts to form his own voice.

But what to do about Sam?

I enjoyed “Wallflower,” though it isn’t without problems. While not out-of-place within the context of the film, it’s hard to imagine real-world kids possessing this level of self-awareness, insight, confidence and wisdom. For all their struggles, most of these kids seem fairly well-adjusted, most of the time. Also, by showing problems unique to adolescence, it sometimes veers into melodrama, as well. Which is OK, I suppose. Adolescents are the movie’s primary target-audience, and they’re often given to fits overly dramatic. This flaw isn’t fatal. Finally, the parents are barely around (believable enough, from my experience). However, when they are, they’re shown as mostly stuffy, and out-of-touch. (Paul Rudd’s sympathetic English teacher is the exception. He sees something in Charlie, and tries to nurture that spark).

There’s also a development late in the film (which I won’t divulge here), that I found unnecessary. It didn’t add to the story, or my understanding of its characters. It felt out of place, contrived, and needless.

Still, Lerner’s performance as the shy, insecure Charlie is convincing. His gentle expression and calm demeanor elicit sympathy and compassion, from us as well as his film friends. Smart, reflective, selfless, and kind, we root for him to overcome the personal demons of his experience.

“Wallflower” owes much to the early John Hughes films, such as “Sixteen Candles,” and “The Breakfast Club,” as well as “Dead Poet’s Society.” Like those films, it takes its teenagers seriously. It sees them as thoughtful, sensitive, 3-dimensional people, rather than caricatures. It also similarly uses music to create mood and tone. Finally, it covers much of the same “coming-of-age” ground, where a hurtful word can lead to a torturous crisis, and the perceived promise contained in the smile of a pretty girl can make your day.

I liked this film very much, but stopped just short of loving it. I did, however, love its music: David Bowie, the Smiths, New Order, Badly Drawn Boy. Mostly this is the music of my own youth, in the late 1980s (which made me wonder in what time period exactly the film was supposed to take place). “Wallflower,” and its melodic stroll down Memory Blvd, made me think about my own youth, smile and then hum.

Libery Heights (1999)

Ben Foster and Rebekah Johnson share a walk

I adore “Liberty Heights.” Films like this one, Beautiful Girls, Nobody’s Fool, Swingers and the Brother’s McMullen where, regardless of what happens to its characters, no matter how dire their circumstances, we (and they) know deep down that everything will ultimately work out OK in the end. In these are the kinds of pictures, the characters seem not only to like, but also genuinely care about (and for), one another. I find these films at once profoundly comforting, and tremendously hopeful. I want to watch them over and over. They make me smile.

I’ve seen “Liberty Heights” countless times. It’s the kind of movie that, when I flip by it on cable, regardless of how far along it happens to be, I’ll watch from that point to the end, regardless of my mood.  

You’d think that would make reviewing “Liberty Heights” a breeze. It’s not. I’m so familiar with it, I usually talk about in the ways you might talk to one close relative about another. I use shorthand, expecting those with whom I’m talking to be familiar with it in the same ways, and to the same degree, that I am. I have to remind myself that that may not always be the case.

“Liberty Heights” takes place in 1950s Baltimore. It’s a very different, seemingly much safer world. One filled with humongous, pastel-colored American cars with enormous tailfins, early rock-and-roll, sock hops, and unlocked front doors. Before video games, the internet and mobile phones. However, this world isn’t innocent and gentle as it appears. It has a very recent history of segregation, both legal and social. A sign at the local swimming hole blares “No coloreds, Jews or dogs.”

The film focuses primarily on a group of high-school kids, each one going through some stage of adolescent transformation.

Ben Kurtzman (Ben Foster), the younger of two brothers, is smart, curious, funny and likeable. He lives in a predominately-Jewish neighborhood of Forest Park, where milk, white bread, and “luncheon meat” might as well be from Mars. He’s old enough to know he shouldn’t wear an inappropriate Halloween costume outside the house, but young and rebellious enough to want to, anyway.

Van (Adrien Brody), is Ben’s older, wiser, far-cooler brother. He knows that their father’s (Nate, played by Joe Mantegna) struggling burlesque theater is little more than a front for an illegal numbers racket. However, he also recognizes that his dad is, at heart, a good man, and that there are shades of criminal gray.

Integration is a new experiment. Suddenly instead of everyone in homeroom being named Coen or Blum, there’s now Sylvia (Rebekah Johnson), a bright-faced African-American girl, about whom Ben and his friends Sheldon (Evan Neumann) and Murray (Gerry Rosenthal) love to talk and fantasize. Sylvia is smarter and more mature than her male classmates. While the rest of the class recites the 23^rd Psalm rote, she actually considers what the words mean. She’s polite, respectful, articulate, and more insightful than most girls her age.

There are several other characters along the way, such as the defensive, constantly-agitated classmate Yussel (David Krumholtz), as well as Nate’s right-hand Charlie (played by former “Three’s Company” alum Richard Kline). They are all perfectly played. None of them are needless or distracting.

Like the characters in director Barry Levinson’s earlier masterpiece “Diner,” much of the charm of “Liberty Heights” derives from conversations. Sometimes inside diners, at others during car rides, at parties, and over evening seder, we learn much about these characters hearing their interactions.

But “Liberty Heights’” true strength lies in its characters, and the connections they share. All of them, down to even the smaller roles, are richer and more nuanced than they initially seem. They have depth, and are fully formed. Whether it’s dancing with his wife (Bebe Neuwirth, from Cheers) in their basement, or ensuring his sons understand the importance of giving back to their community, Nate shows how sincerely loves his family. Later, Ben grows to care deeply for Sylvia. In what might’ve been a clichéd, manufactured rivalry between Van and the boyfriend of an angelic girl he meets at a party, instead we’re shown two bright, confident young men, who admire and respect each other.

I could describe the plot of “Liberty Heights,” but that wouldn’t be fair. It would rob you of discovering its intricacies, surprises and joys for yourself. Would it matter if I told you it involves chance meetings at Halloween parties and aboard street trolleys, fist fights defending religion, Red Fox records, unexpected friendships, racism, more than one high-school crush, Rosh Hashanah, new Cadillacs, James Brown, bleached hair, a long-shot bet that unexpectedly pays off, and an act of respect and bravery that is moving? Suffice to say it is entertaining, funny, poignant, touching, and heartfelt, and honest.

I can’t recommend this film in higher terms. It’s nearly perfect.

Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God (2012)

 

The child-abuse scandal which continues to embroil the Catholic Church feels like it’s been happening forever. In fact it has. In the new film “Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God,” filmmakers uncover church writings about pedophilia committed by priests that dates back hundreds of years. Priest jokes fill late-night monologues. Headlines are splashed across newspaper columns. Like mass shootings, the incidents have become so commonplace, we hardly raise an eyebrow when the latest one occurs. In the time since I watched this film and posted this review, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and Cardinal Keith O’Brian (the highest-ranking Catholic in the UK), both have admitted to sexual indiscretions, or paid millions to settle abuse cases. But what’s the true story behind the church’s role in all of this? How much is it to blame? Did it punish the guilty, and comfort victims?

Directed by noted documentarian Alex Gibney (Enron: the Smartest Guys in the Room, Taxi to the Dark Side, Freakanomics, Client 9: the Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer), “Mea Maxima Culpa” (which translates to "my most grievous fault") delves deeply into the issue, unearthing several disturbing answers along the way.

The film begins simply with a letter, written by a former student at the St. John’s School for the Deaf, in Milwaukee, Wisc, to the Vatican. In it, the student details how Father Murhpy, the school’s headmaster from the late 50s through the early 70s, molested hundreds of children, over decades. The father found a perfect storm of opportunity: young, defenseless children (most unable to speak and largely unable to communicate with the outside world, which typically doesn’t understand sign language) were preyed upon mercilessly by Father Murphy. In addition, not only did the priest suffer no consequences for his crimes, he enlisted a cadre of older students, who also participated in the abuse (“grooming the children for Father Murphy”).

Surely the letter is detailed and damning enough to require a response.

The Church never did.

From there, the film expands its focus. It illuminates the many avenues which might’ve stopped the abuse, and how they all proved to be dead ends.

One explanation states the abuse was nothing more than a few bad apples, and that the entire church shouldn’t be held accountable for their actions, regardless of how heinous. But the film details the abuse as a global epidemic, involving numerous clergy, and indeed the Vatican, itself. One cardinal, a chief-fundraiser and close confidant of Pope John Paul II, is even shown with multiple mistresses and children.

Through interviews with former and current members of the church, the filmmakers build a case, piece-by-piece, against the entirety of the church. Who knew the church has a special branch (the Congregation of the Servants of the Paraclete), tasked solely with dealing with pedophile priests? The problem existed to such an extent, that the church once took initial steps towards buying a remote island, upon which to sequester its criminal element. Internal documents show that this problem existed, all over the world, for over 1700 years. I didn’t. Or that the most-recent Pope, in his previous role as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger, ordered that every case of alleged abuse be sent directly to his office, so he could personally review each one? He, more than anyone, knows the scope of this problem.

One subject of the film is a former priest, who describes his role in the scandal. He was tasked with traveling the country, putting out fires where abuse was alleged. Dismayed that he’s more of a fixer (he details a multi-million dollar budget, doled out when and only if the injured party would sign a binding confidentiality agreement) than someone ministering to victims, he left the church in disgust.

About the fact that abuse was committed by many, many parish priests, there is no longer any question. What’s astounding about “Mea Maxima Culpa” is not only the scope of the tragedy, but also how many others aided in the cover-up. In addition to members of the church hierarchy (all the way up the ladder to current and former Popes), others responsible for the welfare of children were also involved, either by action or inaction. Nuns, local police departments, and political figures were implicitly involved. Several times watching this film, I felt incredulous at how many opportunities to interrupt the abuse were either missed, or willingly ignored. The churches moral failings are twofold: initially denying there was (is) a problem then, perhaps even more egregious, doing everything in its power to cover up the crimes. Moving priests to new parishes. Neglecting to reach out to victims or their families. Countless times the church dragged its feet about decisions on what to do about criminal activity by its minions, allowing predators to continue harming children, without consequences.

In one riveting scene, a now-adult former student confronts Father Murphy, who is retired, and living in a cabin in the woods of Wisconsin. See how the priest reacts. Earlier in the film he justifies and rationalizes his behavior, when church investigators question him. Now, older, tired, and nearing death, faced with an adult rather than a child, he is too weak to maintain his feeble, dishonest defense.

Full disclosure: I’m not a Catholic. In truth, I have no religious affiliation of any kind (which perhaps makes me the perfect reviewer for this film). I have neither an axe to grind, nor any emotional connections about which to feel defensive.

That said, I imagine many who see this picture will have strong feelings, one way or the other. The subjects (child molestation, the Catholic Church) are too intimate and personal.

“Mea Maxima Culpa” shows the failure of several layers of society to protect innocent children from predators. Nuns, law enforcement, local district attorneys, and the Vatican itself all were complicit in allowing the abuse to continue as long as it did. Any could have done more—anything—to prevent molestation, but instead either rationalized away the crimes or worse, pretended they didn’t exist, and ignored them altogether. As one interviewee says “these aren’t sinners, they’re criminals.”

This is a meticulously investigated, damning indictment of the church, whose crimes are numerous, blatant, and egregious. Rather than acknowledging the rampant problem, punishing the guilty, and reaching out to support victims, Catholic leaders closed ranks, and allowed crimes to continue. In the name of protecting their brand, they aided in the further injury of countless innocents. This is one of the best films of 2012.

Sinister (2012)

Ethan Hawke in "Sinister."

Most of us are afraid of the dark. Because of this, basements and attics elicit a visceral reaction. Like spiders and snakes, they intrinsically fill us with a tinge of apprehension. Or worse. Often dimly lit and sparsely furnished, their cracking paint, dust and cobwebs convey a distinct sense of abject and imminent foreboding. Whether it’s descending a staircase, or climbing a rickety ladder, the trip into darkness surrounds us with the unknown. We feel vulnerable. What we can’t see might hurt us. The filmmakers behind “Sinister” use these common fears persuasively.
-->

“Sinister” stars Ethan Hawke as a true-crime author Ellison Oswalt, hot on the trail of his latest best seller. Searching for inspiration and insight, he moves his supportive wife (Juliet Rylance) and two children (Clare Foley and Michael Hall D’addario) into a suburban house, which happens to be a former crime scene. It’s not long before things that go bump in the dark make him wish he hadn’t.

The film’s opening shot shows grainy 8mm footage of the house's previous occupants hanging lifeless from a tree in the backyard. All but the family’s youngest daughter was slaughtered. She’s vanished, and is presumed dead. No perpetrator was ever caught.

Oswalt sets about unraveling what happened to them from his bunker-like study. He tacks crime-scene photos of family members to a bulletin board, connects them with yarn, and affixes questions and theories posted on sticky notes.

Pecking away on his laptop one night, he hears a strange noises coming from his attic. Anxiously (stupidly?), he investigates, creeping with trepidation through a house which desperately needs more lightbulbs.

In the middle of an otherwise empty attic, he discovers a conspicuous packing box. Inside he finds a projector, and several old film canisters labeled “pool party,” “bbq,” and “sleepy time.” Curious, he sets up the projector, and loads the film. He’s horrified by what he sees. Instead of innocent home movies, he witnesses snuff films, documenting horrible murders of idyllic families, stretching back to the 60s. Each film contains the same cryptic symbol, as well as a menacing figure watching the carnage. Oswalt believes if he can uncover the identity of this shadowy visage, and how the crimes are connected, he’ll have his own “In Cold Blood.”

What follows is an often-implausible, but also creative and surprisingly effective horror picture. Ethan Hawke tiptoes around dark rooms, where most of us would simply turn on the lights. Sudden, loud noises are startling. However, the straightforward way the violence shown in the home movies is disturbing. Unlike many in this genre, the plot wasn’t evident midway through. Cinematographer Chris Norr frames shots that highlight characters’ vulnerability. Writer/director Scott Derrickson has taken what could’ve been a forgettable, gratuitous slasher, and instead crafted a tense and frightening little film. Aside from conversations with local law enforcement, and a couple of arguments between Hawke and Rylance, there’s little dead weight here.

Like many modern horror films, sound provides many of “Sinister’s” scares. Loud bangs and eerie music create much tension. Without this, the film might be little more than characters wandering in darkness.

Little effort is given to character development or depth. In fact, the only ones who have multiple speaking lines are the Oswalt family, a sheriff and his deputy, and a occult-studies professor. But that’s not the point of a film like this. Its job is to not set off our suspension-of-disbelief detectors, and to frighten. “Sinister” does both well. It is a dark film, full of disturbing moments. While no masterpiece, and often times hard to look at, it's actually pretty good.

Bully (2012)

Anyone who’s gotten beyond 9th-grade knows that adolescents can be cruel and hurtful. Provided a vulnerable target, middle-school children often behave like sociopaths, lashing out without empathy. They hone in on weaker targets, inflicting physical and emotional damage on anyone unfortunate enough to stand out. “Bully,” the sobering, affecting documentary by director Lee Hirsch, makes the case that bullying is an epidemic in American schools, with catastrophic results.

The film begins with a somber man (David Long) speaking directly into the camera. His sadness is palpable. He answers questions from an unseen interviewer, about the endless torment his son received at the hands of fellow students. Brutalized for too long for not being athletic or popular enough, the man’s 17-year old son Tyler eventually hanged himself in his bedroom closet to escape.

We never see Tyler onscreen, except in a handful of old home movies. However, his death hangs over the film. Its a cautionary tale telling what might happen to several other sympathetic kids we meet along the way, if not enough teachers, school administrators and parents get involved to interrupt the violent cycle.

First we meet Alex, a gangly, awkward, immature, unusual-looking but ultimately sweet middle-schooler from Sioux City, Iowa. He wears glasses, isn’t particularly athletic, and describes himself as “having trouble making friends.” From footage of him in classrooms and hallways, he appears to be right. How many 13-years olds have this level of self-awareness? Or would describe themselves so negatively? He’s brutalized mercilessly on the bus ride to-and-from school each day. Older, bigger kids slap, punch, choke, stab him with pencils, knock books from his arms, and threaten him with unspeakable torture. 

Rather than fight back (as his father admonishes him), Alex quietly accepts his lot. He tries to keep his head down, accepting whatever punishment for uncommitted crimes he receives, hoping it won’t escalate, and that it’ll all be over soon. His is one of the saddest tales I’ve seen at the movies in a very long time.

Next we meet Kelby, a thoughtful, mature, articulate, lesbian high-school student from rural Oklahoma. She loves basketball, but isn’t allowed to play on the school team, because of her sexuality. We’re not shown actual footage of kids bullying her. However, she goes into great detail about the unimaginable lengths to which students go, simply in order to let her know she’s not welcome. Idealistic and optimistic, she would rather stay and fight the bigotry, rather than flee.

Ja’Maya, from Yazoo, Mississippi, is the third child we meet. Like Alex she, too, faces daily threats and abuse on the bus. Unlike him, when pushed to her limit, she decides to fight back. For this brave but reckless act, she faces disproportionate backlash from the same local administrators who never acted to shelter her from aggressive classmates.

One trait the kids share is that they’re all outcasts. Whether because they’re gay, uncoordinated, or socially clumsy, they all exist outside the protective, reassuring mainstream of their schools’ societies. Some have small, supportive social networks. For those who don’t, their ability to endure daily torture is nothing short of incredible.

One of the most infuriating portions of the film deals with the reaction (or lack thereof) of school officials. When presented with irrefutable evidence of bullying in their schools, like the Catholic church they insist it’s merely an isolated problem, perpetrated by a few bad apples. Bullying is not widespread problem at their school, they assure the filmmakers. Their complete failure to understand the scope of the problem is remarkable. Without exception, teachers, vice principals, and superintendents rationalize assaults as just “kids being kids,” or social interactions between children which are beyond adult control. When the parents of one victimized child meet with a vice principal, instead of searching for solutions, or offering compassion, she instead says the abuse might continue regardless of their efforts, and shows them pictures of her own grandchildren. Her lack of judgment, common sense and compassion are astounding.

We’re also introduced to parents of children who have suffered bullying. These poor people are frustrated, bewildered, but determined to make change. But how? Where to begin? Especially with a school board that refuses to even acknowledge a problem exists?

The film contains many harrowing scenes of children viciously abusing classmates. It also shows small acts of tremendous courage. One young child describes, in traumatic detail, the extent of bullying at his school, in front of a school-board meeting full of stern-faced adults. His lips trembling, the boy’s desperate cry for help is one of the movie’s most poignant scenes.

“Bully” is compelling on several levels. Those of us who have survived middle school can probably attest to the frightening violence of bullying experienced first-hand, either as victims, silent witnesses, or the perpetrators ourselves. Memories of these ordeals leave an indelible mark.

Further, the kids in the movie are all gentle, kind and good-natured. Seeing them on the receiving end of such treatment is unpleasant. Alex, Kelby and Ja’Maya want little more than to attend school unmolested. As well as just a small amount of acceptance and tolerance. Their plight is heartbreaking.

It would have been useful for the filmmakers to interview the bullies themselves, as well as their parents. Perhaps we might’ve learned something about how these kids were created. What fills them with so much anger? What might stop them? The film doesn’t ask these important questions, when it should.

Filled with sadness, anxiety and ultimately hope, Bully is moving plea to begin dealing with this pervasive problem. Its message is urgent, impassioned, and convincingly delivered.

To Rome with Love (2012)

In my book, Woody Allen always has been, and still is, funny. I read critics who all the time talk about how one of his more recent films or other is “a return to form.” Critics referred to “Match Point,” and “Vicky Christina Barcelona,” and “Midnight in Paris” this way. How can every film be a return to form? Where’s the drop off? The earlier (and oft-overlooked) "Melinda & Melinda" is an example of a creative, funny, satirical, thought-provoking film, which was terrific, as well. Ditto "Hollywood Ending." In addition, over the last 20 years he's also made "Husbands and Wives," "Manhattan Murder Mystery," "Mighty Aphrodite," "Small Time Crooks," and "Sweet and Lowdown." Show me another director who's made that many entertaining pictures over the same time span. Incredibly, he's released at least a film (sometimes more) every year since 1977. Surely (don’t ever call me Shirley!) some of his films are better than others. What artist makes only masterpieces? But for my money, he’s never fallen off.

To Rome with Love continues this streak.

For one thing, it has Woody in front of the camera for the first time since 2006’s “Scoop.” It’s a welcome return. There are certain lines of his dialogue that are funnier simply for his having said them. His delivery is a perfect fit for his words. Though others (Will Ferrell, Kenneth Branagh, Larry David, etc…) have played the quintessential, nebbishy Allen lead role, there’s just something about hearing it delivered in Allen’s nasal New York drawl that’s more satisfying.

Allen plays Jerry, a music producer who describes himself charitably as being “ahead of his time.” He and his wife Phyllis (Judy Davis) fly to Rome, where their daughter Hayley (Allison Pill) has fallen in love with, and gotten engaged to, a local called Michelangelo. (Flavio Parenti).

During an awkward meeting with his future son-in-law’s parents, Jerry discovers Michelangelo’s father is a pitch-perfect opera singer. This is his chance at career redemption! Only the father-in-law can only sing confidently in the shower, natch.

In parallel story line, Alec Baldwin plays John, a successful architect, who once lived in Rome as a younger man. He clearly misses those carefree days. John plays a sort of conscience to Jesse Eisenberg’s “Jack,” a young architectural student studying in Rome, while living with his girlfriend Sally (Greta Gerwig). In Jack, John sees himself, twenty-five years prior. He’s eager to steer Jack clear of the mistakes he’s made, offering constant advice, especially when an eminently available and tempting actress friend of Sally’s (the emotionally-fragile “Monica,” played convincingly by Ellen Page) comes to visit.

Additionally, a young married couple Milly and Antonio (Alessandra Mastronardi and Alessandro Tiberi) are honeymooning in Rome. Things go disastrously wrong when Milly goes out for a haircut, and the voluptuous hooker Anna (Penelope Cruz) mistakenly walks into the wrong room.

Finally, there is a smaller story line involving Roberto Begnini’s “Leopoldo,” who suddenly and inexplicably becomes an incessantly-stalked celebrity, for doing absolutely nothing whatsoever.

If this sounds like a lot for one film to juggle, it is. Not all the storylines are cohesive. Certain of Allen’s musings could’ve better fit in another movie.

But no matter. This is an entertaining, amusing, enjoyable film. The characters are all animated, warm and likeable. Despite whatever preposterous predicaments they fall into, they all seem to share an underlying sense that, regardless, it will all turn out OK. Which is comforting and reassuring.

Cinematographer Darius Khondji captures the gorgeous backdrop of Rome, framing it an additional character in the film. In this way the movie plays on its title, as a sumptuous vacation postcard.

As for the dialogue, it’s as clever, funny and insightful as you’d expect from an Allen picture.

So what if this isn’t Annie Hall, or Manhattan? Not all Picassos' were Guernica, but they were still Picasso's.

PS- I wish Allen had stayed with the film’s admittedly erudite original title: “The Bop Decameron.” Though Plan C (“To Rome With Love”) is better than Plan B: “Nero Fiddled.”

Ted (2012)

Mark Whalberg, Mila Kunis, and the title character

"Ted" is the kind of film you’d be happy to find on cable if you were home sick from work, or snowed in. It’s amiable and good-natured, with a pleasant, good-looking cast. It’s formulaic, mostly predictable, and aimed at the same frat-boy set that’s made director Seth MacFarlane’s TV shows (Family Guy, American Dad, etc…) terribly popular, sure. But it’s also entertaining, well paced, has a clever, satirical edge, and many genuine laughs. It’s happily raunchy, and has its heart in the right place.

Mark Wahlberg plays John Bennett, a middle-class guy from the Boston suburbs, who didn’t have lots of friends as a kid. An eight-year old John receives a stuffed teddy bear from his parents, for Christmas. His eyes light up, and his smile grows wide. It’s the perfect gift. Instantly he bonds with his new toy. “I’m gonna call him Ted,” John says. The two become inseparable.

One night John wishes that the bear were actually alive, so the two could literally be best friends. He’s lonely, and scared of thunder, wanting more than an inanimate object for company. Wouldn’t you know it, a shooting star happens to fly over John’s house at just the right moment. Guess what happens next. 

This isn’t one of those films where only the main character can see the toy’s incredible abilities. The following morning, John proudly displays Ted’s newfound walking and talking skills to his parents. They’re horrified. But soon, everyone comes to accept that, sure, why couldn’t a teddy bear just magically to come to life (if you’ve considered seeing this film in the first place, you probably won’t have too much trouble suspending your disbelief).

Ted becomes an instant media sensation, appearing on magazine covers and television talk shows. He’s stopped on the street for pictures and autographs. However, even with all his fame, Ted is first and foremost the faithful companion to his best-pal John.

But what would happen to John and Ted as the years pass? As adults, we outgrow most of our favorite childhood toys, right?

Like too many child celebrities before him, Ted is emotionally ill equipped to handle his meteoric rise. When his 15 minutes fade, he winds up a foul-mouthed approximation of 80s TV puppet Alf. Voiced by MacFarlane (in an accurate Boston accent), Ted is a constant stream of one-liners, and vulgar observations.

Twenty-seven years pass. Both grown up, John and Ted are now bros, smoking bongs on the couch over breakfast, watching Spongebob, infatuated with the campy 1980 film Flash Gordon, laughing at each other’s inside jokes, and living together in an improbably upscale Back Bay apartment, with John’s improbably attractive girlfriend Lori (Mila Kunis). The passage of time hasn’t changed the fact that they’re still best friends.

John works at a local car rental office. His is a menial job he says he’s OK with, but which we see is probably not going to lead anyplace meaningful. Which is in stark contrast with Lori’s work at a corporate PR firm, where she fends off the constant advances of her lecherous boss (Joel McHale). In the game of life, she’s already well ahead of John, and still accelerating.

Though unimaginably patient and understanding, and able to overlook most of John's (and Ted’s) faults, the current arrangement with Ted isn’t entirely comfortable for her. She realizes three’s becoming a crowd. Lori needs John to mature, and stop living the fun-loving, libertine lifestyle he’s created with Ted. Fiercely loyal to Ted, and grateful for his decades of friendship, John’s conflicted. He can’t simply turn his back on his boyhood pal. What to do?

One of the film’s major themes, a question it returns to repeatedly, is asking what it means to grow up. Can a 35-year old, who spends most of his time clowning with a wise-cracking teddy bear, be a man? Or is he simply an older, taller, still-irresponsible boy?

The movie has other minor characters. Seinfeld’s Patrick Warburton is over-the-top, as John’s sexually-confused co-worker. Giovanni Ribisi stars as a maladjusted townie, obsessed with acquiring the talking bear for his overweight son. There’s a running joke about actor Tom Skerritt. Patrick Stewart provides narration. 

Ultimately, however, this film is about its three main characters. Wahlberg shows surprising vulnerability, in a character which could have been boilerplate. Kunis is patient and sympathetic, as his put-upon girlfriend. Ted is simply inappropriately funny.

How will John reconcile his need to be a responsible, evolving boyfriend to Lori, with his desire to stay out late drinking and chasing skirt with Ted?

“Ted” plays out through a series of events that are improbable, but entertaining, just the same. Though many jokes miss, like the “Airplane” films, there are so many that more than a few are very funny. Often we can see where the movie’s is headed, but are fine watching it get there, because its characters are likeable, and well-intentioned. It parodies more earnest films, which lack its sharp insight and self-awareness. "Ted" recalls lewd-but-basically-harmless films from the 80s, which had salty language and nudity aplenty, but lacked cynicism and malice. Despite off-color humor about hookers, cocaine, and bukkake, the film's message is even kinda old fashioned. It’s certainly not one of the best movies of the year, but there are worse ways to spend a couple hours on your couch.

Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012)

 

Quvenzhane Wallis as Hushpuppy

Beasts of the Southern Wild, the much-lauded, first-time feature by Ben Zeitlin, isn’t easy to describe. On the surface, it’s the story of a group of impoverished residents of the Mississippi delta, the struggles of their daily lives, and how they attempt to persevere and recover in the wake of havoc wrought by a ferocious storm recalling hurricane Katrina. But it’s also a fiercely intimate father/daughter-story, about the difficulties of growing up. It’s about a little girl’s search for her beloved, but now lost, mother. Beneath all this, it’s a fable about the connections (seen and unseen) shared by its characters. The entire time, giant, menacing, pre-historic wild boars (who’ve been frozen in arctic ice, but recently thawed) charge towards civilization. With them they bring what? And why?

Along with various other locals who might euphemistically be described as “eccentric” or “colorful,” the father (“Wink,” played impressively by first-timer Dwight Henry) and daughter (“Hushpuppy,” played by 9-year old Oscar-nominee Quvenzhane Wallis) live in “the Bathtub,” an almost impossibly-rural, destitute swamp, located below a series of levees. At the film’s open, the carefree locals are celebrate, despite their poverty. These aren’t the kinds of people who feel sorry for theyselves. Their lives seem to suit them just fine. They drink from the bottle, eat off paper plates, play music too loud and too late on the front porch, shoot off fireworks, race infants on picnic blankets, and talk about the people above the levee in disparaging tones. Though every day is a struggle, they seem, if not entirely happy, not overtly unhappy, either.

Wink and Hushpuppy share a fierce, loyal, intense, but at times combative, bond. Perhaps that’s why they live (curiously) in separate homes? She resides in a dilapidated trailer, oddly standing on stilts, that’s in a forest so remote I wondered how it had gas and electricity. The place is cluttered, claustrophobic, dingy, riddled with holes, and overrun by squalor. Along with its human inhabitant, the house is also host to pigs, chickens, and a few scraggly dogs. Her father lives in even more desperate conditions: a ramshackle hut constructed of little more than a few sheets of corrugated metal, with a tarp for a roof. The two structures are connected by a long clothing line with a bell at one end, which Wink rings to call Hushpuppy for meals. The family pets get the leftovers straight off the plate.

There is no physical sign of a mom, though Hushpuppy talks to her frequently.

The little girl is wide-eyed, wild-haired, observing everything, rarely taken aback by what she sees. Almost angelic in her innocence, she is also independent, stubborn and tough. She shows kindness towards her pets, but also remarks matter-of-factly that, after having gone several days without food, she might have to start eating them.

Wink is far from an ideal dad. He drinks too much, values his privacy more than he should, and probably doesn’t know where his daughter is most of the time. When forced to share a room, he tapes a line down the middle, telling Hushpuppy in no uncertain terms to stay on her side. After going missing for several days, he returns in a daze, without explanation, wearing a hospital gown. 

However, in his peculiar way, Wink does care deeply and desperately about his daughter. During these fleeting moments, he fiercely tries to instill pride, courage and resilience in her, through harsh instruction and life lessons. Instead of having the requisite ball-catch with her, he teaches her to fish with her bare hands. When she throws a tantrum, he responds in kind. “Never cry,” he admonishes.

I’m not sure I could describe the film’s story in a way that would be entirely accurate. It primarily follows the travails of Hushpuppy and Wink, and traces how they regroup each time. The plot kind of seeps from their journey, and from the interactions with those they meet along the way. It doesn’t result from a traditional story arc. None of the characters does anything that feels false, or simply necessary to push the story along. Though I’m loath to describe it this way, the film’s progression feels “organic.” It unfolds in an unhurried way, which evokes its deep-southern setting. The picture lacks dialogue in long stretches, and has an hallucinatory, fantastical, magic-realism quality throughout, (similar to, though not to the same degree as, Terrence Malick’s 2011 “Tree of Life”). I learn from IMDB that the film lacked a formal script. The filmmakers use poetic, almost hypnotic shots of water, fireworks, mud, trees, storm clouds, collapsing glaciers, and close-ups of writhing marine animals, instead.

Where there is dialogue, Hushpuppy often speaks in voice-over, observing facts about life that are more wise and insightful than any elementary-school aged child could ever know. She says things like “The whole universe depends on everything fitting together just right. If one piece busts, even the smallest piece... the entire universe will get busted.” Without context, this might seem like a hokey, writer’s contrivance. In this film, however, given these characters’ uncommon existence, it feels believable. In her short life, Hushpuppy’s been through a lot.

Not a traditional narrative by any stretch, “Beasts of the Southern Wild” is meditative, thought-provoking film. It stayed with me after I saw it, and I have thought of it often since. I enjoyed its performances, visual imagery, and message, but would not argue too strongly with those who prefer something more conventional. It possesses a quiet nobility, which I admire. Ultimately, it’s about (I think) summoning the strength and courage to believe in oneself, and pursue happiness, in a world where life can be startlingly arbitrary, unusually cruel and unimaginably difficult. My expectations where high going in, and I’m not sure it entirely lived up to them. That said, I’m glad I saw “Beasts.” It is unusual, creative, and likely unlike anything else you’ll see soon.