Danny Collins

Director: Dan Fogelman
Starring: Al Pacino, Annette Bening, Jennifer Garner, Bobby Cannavale, Christopher Plummer, Katarina Čas, Giselle Eisenberg, Melissa Benoist, Josh Peck, Eric Michael Roy, Nick Offerman
Running Time: 106 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★) 

About a decade ago, Neil Diamond released a Rick Rubin-produced album that was complete departure from anything he'd previously done, trading his usual, over-the-top bombast for an acoustic guitar and stripped down sound. The result was his biggest commercial and critical hit in years. I couldn't help but think of it while watching the immensely enjoyable Danny Collins, wondering if Diamond had a crisis similar to the title character to cause that change in course. Probably not, even if the aging rocker Al Pacino plays seems much closer in style to Diamond than the actual inspiration, folk singer Steve Tilston.

Just as his music was taking off in 1971, Tilston was written a letter of encouragement from John Lennon and Yoko Ono that he didn't receive until 34 years later, sparking a dramatic change in his life. As a concept, it's an ingenious starting point, made all the more satisfying screenwriter Dan Fogelman's (making his directorial debut) immediate acknowledgment that he'll be taking liberties with it. And they're mostly clever ones. But what's more amazing might be his ability to secure the rights to Lennon's music for the film, as some of his biggest solo hits punctuate key scenes. While I'm not sure it dramatically increases the overall experience and he goes a bit overboard with it, if ever a screenplay screamed out for Lennon's songs, it's this one.    

While Pacino's clearly channeling Diamond, he's also channeling Pacino, as it's impossible not to consider the actor's legendary career while watching and rooting for this character. It's not only a reminder of how long he's been at this, but perhaps some of the choices he's made along the way. Some good, others less so. This is one of those better choices and, as usual, he looks like he's having the time of his life.

Pacino plays Danny Collins, a show-stopping rocker whose fan base now primarily consists of older women singing along with his early 1970's pop hit, "Hey, Baby Doll." Filling up arenas by coasting on the success of that "Sweet Caroline"-like smash, he hasn't written any new material in 30 years and refuses to give up his costly, hard partying rock star lifestyle, which includes a girlfriend (Katarina Čas) half his age. But when his best friend and manager, Frank (Christopher Plummer) gives him a framed, 40-year-old undelivered letter written to him by John Lennon as a birthday gift, he's forced to reexamine his choices and consider how differently his life could have turned out had he gotten it.

Danny's suddenly determined to locate his estranged son, Tom (Bobby Cannavale), who's built a normal life with wife Samantha (Jennifer Garner) and daughter, Hope (Giselle Eisenberg) that emphatically excludes the celebrity father who abandoned him. But an indefinite stay at the local Hilton turns his attention to the hotel's no nonsense manager, Mary (Annette Bening), who he keeps trying to hit on. She keeps his ego in check as he reluctantly begins to write new material and attempts to find redemption with his family.

From the opening flashback scene, it's obvious this is going to be a good time. It shows a twenty-something Danny (Eric Michael Roy, a dead ringer for young Pacino) being interviewed by a music journalist (an unrecognizable Nick Offerman doing his best Lester Bangs) looking like a deer caught in headlights of fame. Scared to death by celebrity harming the artistic purity of his work, a letter from his idol could have provided him with some guidance and encouragement at just the right time. Instead, he became this larger than life showman, who never stopped to consider himself a sell-out until reading Lennon's letter delivers an unexpected jolt.

Danny's far from a failure, but it wouldn't be a stretch to call him somewhat a joke. At this point, he's famous for just being famous, having contributed nothing meaningful in years, yet still riding high with an enjoyable but tired act. Without naming names, we see it all the time, so it's easy to understand why he'd be afraid to step out of his comfort zone to try something artistically different. And it helps that Pacino plays him as this charming, wonderful, one-of-kind guy who just storms into this hotel like a force of nature and wins over everyone in sight, complimenting the staff and even trying to set the desk clerk (Whiplash's Melissa Benoist) up with the parking valet (Josh Peck). Only the seemingly humorless manager, Mary, remains unimpressed, which of course makes her his ideal equal.

Danny even eventually wears Mary down in the film's most successful sequence, with Pacino and Bening at their respective bests playing off each other in a hotel bar as their characters discover they have much more in common than they thought. They share such a natural chemistry (or "patter" as Danny calls it) that would feel entirely contrived with two other actors in the roles. Here, you're just lost in two real people just enjoying each others company. Their interplay is so seamless it's often tough to tell where Al and Annette end and Danny and Mary begin.

A development occurs almost midway through that's best not to talk about other than saying it comes out of the "Screenwriting 101" handbook and would likely get you kicked out of class. It's a credit to Fogelman's expertise, Pacino's convincing work and Bobby Cannavale's realistic, matter-of-fact performance as a working class father justifiably offended by Danny's arrival, that they pull it off. And as questionable as it looks on paper, that I'd have problems coming up with any reasonable alternatives must speak to its success on some level. Without it, we also wouldn't have gotten the unusually observant final scene, which puts a nice bow on the story while not depriving us of the (admittedly remote) possibility that maybe things don't work out.

In hindsight, the direction this goes does kind of make sense in that his son Tom's problems (more severe than expected) would get in the way of Danny's "happy ending" and redemption. After all, as likable a guy as he is, he's also an egomaniac who thinks the world revolves around him. Pacino plays these two sides of him so well that it's a blast seeing him bounce off everyone else.

Aside from Bening, who invests Mary with more depth than anticipated, Christopher Plummer smoothly and sarcastically conveys the experience of a music industry vet who simply tells it like it is. Jennifer Garner also gets some solid scenes opposite Pacino as the spouse more receptive to having Danny in their lives, despite the emotional risks to her husband and daughter. And as Hope, Giselle Eisenberg (no relation) accomplishes the rare child actor feat of being the precocious center of attention without becoming overbearing.

There's an alternate moviegoing universe in which Danny Collins tops the box office and becomes a giant hit for Pacino, possibly even earning him a nomination. That universe is the 1990's, when crowd-pleasing, star-driven adult dramas were still filling multiplexes. Consider the fact that this was released at all, and turned out this well, a victory in itself. And those justifiably lamenting that studios aren't making intelligent mainstream movies about older people anymore will find a lot to appreciate here. It's formulaic in every sense, but proof that in the right hands, the formula still works.

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011)

Director: David Fincher
Starring: Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgard, Robin Wright, Yorick Von Wageningen, Steven Berkoff, Joely Richardson, Goran Visnjic
Running Time: 158 min.
Rating: R

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

It's a terrible feeling when a highly anticipated release lets you down. It's an even worse feeling when it's made by your favorite director. But in the interest of looking at the glass half-full, David Fincher's The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo remake is probably as good as it could possibly be and it's easy to imagine a worse result had another filmmaker tried to tackle it. I haven't read author Stieg Larsson's first book in his "Millenium Trilogy," nor have I seen the 2009 Swedish film adaptation that starred Noomi Rapace in the title role. But what's interesting is how little interest I want to after seeing this. And that's not to say the picture is a full-on failure by any stretch. From a direction, production and acting standpoint it's actually outstanding, which leads me to believe the source material is the culprit here, preventing this project from ascending to a higher level. It feels like a David Fincher film. It looks like a David Fincher film. But the soul is missing. Two intersecting stories are being told and while one is moderately successful the other is unmistakably ordinary. The acting and direction almost save the day, struggling to lift the material out of routine thriller territory.   

Disgraced journalist and co-owner of the Swedish Millenium magazine Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) has just lost a very public libel case brought against him when he's hired by millionaire Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) to investigate the disappearance and possible murder of his grandniece Harriet 40 years ago. It's a case full of holes and mysteries in which Blomkvist relies on old photographs, notebook scribblings and feuding siblings to unravel the sordid secrets of the dysfunctional Vanger clan in hopes of finding leads. Upon requesting a research assistant, he's given tatooed, body-pierced computer hacker Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), who has a history of physical and sexual abuse. A ward of the state due to mental incompetency, she's forced to perform sexual favors for her rapist guardian Nils Bjurman (Yorick Von Wageningen) in order to receive an allowance. That is until she breaks free. Cold and untrusting, Lisbeth isn't the easiest partner to work with but she and Blomkvist make an effective team as they inch dangerously closer to discovering the truth about Harriet's disappearance.

It takes almost an hour and a half into the almost 3 hour film before Lisbeth and Blomkvist even meet with much of the preceding time allotted to setting up the mystery and getting to know the leads. With Lisbeth's situation it's time mostly well spent but Blomkvist's investigation and the case is a drag, too often playing like a poor man's Zodiac. It just isn't interesting at all and at times seems completely indistinguishable from a missing persons TV crime drama case. Even more alarming is that none of the plot developments caught me off guard despite having zero familiarity with source material or the original Swedish film. It's also odd the revelations would be so dry, especially considering how cool and edgy the film has been touted as being. Most of that edginess comes when the focus is on Lisbeth and remarkably I had no problems believing the relationship that develops between her and Blomkvist or how quickly it was consummated. In fact, given how psychologically damaged she is and how bored he must have been from investigating this case, it almost seems inevitable.

Mara's performance is about as great as you've heard, sporting a remarkable, unwavering Swedish accent and doing her best to supply depth where there's seems to be very little coming from Steve Zaillian's script. Though I was still unsure at many points how I was supposed to feel about Lisbeth as a character. Regardless of how she's depicted in the novels or original films, I did sense a play was being made to make her increasingly sympathetic to the point of almost being a lovesick puppy as the film entered its final act, which seems at odds with how uncommercial everything else is. Daniel Craig's miscast as a passive bookworm but turns in typically strong work anyway. If anything, this role really highlights the challenges facing Craig in a non-James Bond project since it's inescapably off-putting seeing him play such a non-heroic part, especially in a thriller. I had to keep reminding myself Blomkvist was just a journalist who can't shoot his way out of any situation. Stellan Skarsgard, Robin Wright, Joely Richardson and Steven Berkoff are given roles of varying importance and quality to the story.

That the film's sole Oscar win for editing is a head-scratcher, unless the honor refers to the least amount of editing. There were many spots during the first hour where I felt certain scenes could have been chopped and tightened for clarity, as it marks the first instance in a Fincher film where copious details don't justify an exorbitant running time or add depth to the story in any meaningful way. This is especially true at the tail end where there's a perfect point to start wrapping up the picture following a chilling sequence that's highlighted by an unforgettably creepy musical moment. But then proceedings drag on for almost a half hour longer. It's bad enough this coda seems pointless, but it's also presented in a needlessly confusing manner, sucking the energy out of the narrative as the film limps past the finish line. Whether it's true to the source material or not, if it wasn't going to be presented crisply then there's no reason to include it. If the editing is close to being a disaster the opposite should be said of Jeff Cronenweth's cinematography and Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross' haunting score, both of which  compliment the murky atmosphere. The opening credit sequence (set to Karen O and Reznor and Ross's cover of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song") looks tremendously cool in a high-tech music video type of way, even if I couldn't thinking that was its only purpose. In any event, I'd be crazy to say the movie doesn't look great.

That this all almost still works despite these flaws is a credit to Fincher, who's slumming it here with pulpy material below his talent level. For the first time he actually feels like a hired gun. Here's hoping he doesn't sign on to film the two sequels and moves on to something else as there's nothing left for him to try to elevate here. But he does remain true to form in managing to provoke a strong reaction, even if that reaction is negative. Given the filmmaker, it's always possible I could return to this down the road and come out with a new appreciation, but a single viewing definitely feels like enough right now. There's just very little depth or subtext to the story, which is especially problematic if an actress is going to be put through what Mara is. She hasn't even looked the same since this wrapped and that she's already contractually committed to continuing this is unfortunate. It shouldn't be too much to ask that a film featuring brutal rape and murder have something to say, especially if it's taking up this much time, talent and money. I knew going in The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo wasn't be an amusement park ride and didn't want it to be. But what really surprised me was just how little it amounted to.

Burning Questions from the 84th Annual Academy Awards

So I guess that whole banning Sacha Baron Cohen from the red carpet thing didn't exactly work out, did it?

And didn't Ryan Seacrest look thrilled?

Who would have ever thought the opening would feature Billy Crystal inserting himself into a montage of the year's Best Picture nominees?

Blackface?

Really?

Justin Bieber?

Really?

Wasn't Crystal in Tintin face slightly more disturbing than Crystal in Blackface?

Wasn't the segue from the pie-eating scene in The Help to the bathroom scene in Bridesmaids pretty clever?

Who would have thought Crystal would ever do a song and dance number?

Is there something to be said for not stepping out of your comfort zone?

Is it 1997?

No monologue?

Didn't the set actually look pretty good this year?

Why do I always seem to predict cinematography wrong every year?

Is it really THAT difficult a category?

That I feel more invested in the results since reviewing films be a viable reason why my predictions have gotten progressively worse over the years?

So how about J-Lo's dress?

Wardrobe malfunction?

Wouldn't it be great if we someday saw the return of serious actress Lopez who starred in Out of Sight, Anaconda and The Cell?

Did I just call Anaconda "serious?"

But compared to her recent work, isn't it?

How bad was that audio all night?

With its near sweep of the technical awards Hugo really had some momentum going there for a while didn't it?

Did that give its fans false hope it actually had a shot at the big prize?

Based on the clips, didn't the makeup for The Iron Lady actually look pretty bad?

Didn't the makeup in Albert Nobbs look even worse?

How about that standing O for Octavia Spencer?

How often does a film not nominated for Best Picture win film editing?

Weren't having clips of actors sharing their first movie memories a cool idea (at least on paper)?

Should Brad Pitt have offered up a spoiler warning before discussing War of the Gargantuas?

So Miss Piggy and Kermit introduce Cirque du Soleil but they can't find time to have the nominated Muppets song performed?

Wasn't it funny when Christopher Plummer pointed out that Oscar is only two years older than him?

Isn't it scary he's right?

How great was Crystal's dig following Academy president Tom Sherek's "speech?"

Bret McKenzie for "Man or Muppet"...most deserving win of the night?

Does Crystal's mind reading bit ever get old?

Especially when he's doing it to Nick Nolte?

Is Angelina Jolie okay?

Does it bother anyone else that Woody Allen no-shows when the Academy went out of their way to give him multiple nominations for an average film?

Why is it when Terrence Malick no-shows it adds to his mystique but with Allen it makes him look bitter and resentful?

We know these awards are ridiculous but would it really kill him to just once suck it up and graciously accept the praise of his peers?

Was Emma Stone (successfully) imitating Anne Hathaway's performance last year as host?

Was she the only presenter all night who was actually funny and charming?

Couldn't a case be made she deserved a nomination for The Help?

Weren't you glad the previous year's Best Director winner didn't announce this year's Best Director since no one remembers him?

Did you know it was Tom Hooper?

Who?

Wasn't the In Memoriam montage well done and classy this year?

Isn't it always a pleasure to be reminded that Esperanza Spalding beat Justin Bieber for the Best New Artist Grammy?

Natalie Portman had some work ahead of her with that Best Actor presentation, didn't see?

Didn't she do a good job?

Am I the only one who misses the five friends/colleagues personally addressing each Best Actor/Actress nominee?

Am I just saying that because I wanted Katie Holmes to appear and talk about Michelle Williams?

Would that have made the show for me?

And how exactly does Portman doing the work of of five people at the podium SAVE time? 

Given their connection with The Professional wouldn't it have been great to see her announce Gary Oldman as the winner?

Didn't Jean Dujardin have a Roberto Benigni/Cuba Gooding Jr. moment of excitement there toward the end of his speech?

Am I the only one hoping his post-Oscar career is significantly better than theirs?

How could it not be?

Didn't Clooney look legitimately happy for him?

Or was he just happy to be there with Stacy?

Given how her career's been going, should we just go ahead and reserve Michelle Williams and BFF Busy Phillips their front row seats at next year's Oscars now?

Did Colin Firth really need to remind everyone of Mama Mia?

Wasn't Meryl Streep spot-on when she imitated everyone's likely reaction to her winning?

Do I wish she would give her Oscar to its rightful owner Charlize Theron?

Did you know you can see for yourself when Young Adult hits DVD/Blu-ray on March 13?

How boring a year is it when Streep winning Best Actress is an "upset?"

Did this screw everyone up in their Oscar pools?

Are there even still Oscar pools?

Do you think voters realized Viola Davis' performance really belonged in the supporting category instead?

Has Tom Cruise aged in the past twenty years?

Is it ironic he was seriously considered for the role of Benjamin Button?

Wouldn't The Artist's catchy score make for a great ringtone? 

Given how much they played Mychael Danna's incredible score for Moneyball in the video packages all night, isn't it embarrassing it wasn't nominated?

Considering the year he had, wasn't it weird not seeing Ryan Gosling at the show?

Isn't it weirder he wasn't nominated?

After a really awkward start, didn't Crystal settle back into his role well?

Unlike Hathaway and Franco last year, doesn't it help when a host actually HOSTS the show?

Wasn't there something strangely reassuring about seeing him up there again?

Are you as excited as I am to not (mis)spell or (mis)pronounce Hazanavicius again for a while?

Should I just be relieved there couldn't have possibly been an injustice as big as The King's Speech winning over The Social Network last year?

Up

Director: Pete Docter
Starring: Edward Asner, Christopher Plummer, Jordan Nagai, Bob Peterson, Delroy Lindo, John Ratzenberger
Running Time: 96 min.
Rating: PG

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Immediately after watching Disney/Pixar's Up I briefly visited the internet movie database and noticed something very interesting. Despite being the most universally acclaimed animated film since, well, Pixar's last universally acclaimed animated film, and riding a tidal wave of critical and commercial support as well as a potential Best Picture nomination, the movie somehow managed to be "Down 50%" in popularity the week it hit DVD. The relatively simple explanation for that: People like me who (wisely) chose to skip it this theaters are just now seeing it and probably feeling slightly disappointed. "Pixar has done it again." We keep hearing that but the connotation isn't as positive as you'd like to believe. They've essentially been repeating themselves over and over again, but exceptionally well. Only this time their effort isn't exceptional (at least from a writing standpoint) and is a far cry in depth and complexity from last year's Wall-E, which, in a way, could be viewed as a positive. Kids will eat this up even if the middle portion of the plot resembles anything they could catch on Nick Jr.

The opening minutes are magical and moving until it settles into a familiar groove and the film has some difficulties following through on its own promise, struggling some to reconcile the more serious, adult issues with the silly adventure nonsense that pads the rest of the picture. It's fun, but predictable fable that's only partially about an elderly man coming to terms with his wife's death and learning to embrace life again with the help of a little boy. The rest of it is filled with endangered birds, diabolical explorers, dog pilots and a sub-plot that plays like something out of Beverly Hills Chihuahua. Of course, because it's Pixar and they are the best at what they do within this genre, they get away with it and make it seem important. It's recommendable, if just barely, because it succeeds in being an animated feature the whole family can enjoy. Beyond that, it accomplishes very little. Best Animated Film? Maybe. But Best Picture material this isn't, no matter how many extra nominees there are.

It begins with a touching romance between childhood friends Carl (Edward Asner) and Ellie as they bond over their shared passion for exploring and disgraced adventurer Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer), who we learn through newsreel footage was accused of being a fraud. In a narrative approach never employed in an animated film, in just a few silent minutes we flash forward in time to see Carl marry Ellie, fix up their dream home, take respective jobs as a zookeeper and balloon salesman, endure personal tragedy and save up to one day travel to Paradise Falls in South America. Ellie passes away before they can.

This entire sequence is as powerful as anything I've seen in an animated feature and the rest of the movie works largely because those images never leave the mind. Now a lonely, bitter old man cut off from the world, Carl grieves over the loss of his late wife, turning their run down house into a memorial even as recent neighborhood industrialization threatens to destroy it and send him to the Shady Oaks Retirement Home via court order. Rather than face that, he uses thousands of his helium balloons to lift the house from is foundation and send it soaring into the sky. Accidentally coming along for the ride is Russell (Jordan Nagai), an 8-year-old Wilderness Explorer trying to earn his final merit badge for "assisting the elderly."

The adventure that unfolds when they arrive in South America is fun, if also totally pedestrian, at least when stacked against the magical set-up. It mostly involves them rescuing rare, flightless bird named Kevin from the evil clutches of Carl's childhood idol Charles Muntz and his pack of wild dogs with talking translators for collars. The talking collars are more creepy than inventive. Why not just have the dogs talk? It is an animated film. Were they worried it would seem too unbelievable in a story where an old man attaches helium balloons to his house so he can fly out of the country?

In spite of my reservations during this section of the picture (at which I occasionally caught myself clock watching) the story is bolstered greatly by the friendship that develops between the two characters. The opening minutes of the story are so powerful and the central idea of escaping life's problems by just flying away in your house is rendered perfectly onscreen. Carl is curmudgeonly but the script smartly doesn't go too far by painting him as an inaccessible scrooge. Supposedly, Carl Frederickson is at least partially inspired by Spencer Tracy while you could easily say young Russell is based on every cute, but sometimes annoyingly precocious 8-year-old kid you've ever met.

As per the norm with Pixar the animation is astounding, this time with an even more vibrant color palette, even if I found Michael Giacchino's musical score overbearing at times. For what its worth, I do think they went in the right direction following up Wall-E with a lighter effort likely to have more broader appeal and be less to digest thematically for kids. It does deal with serious issues like death and child abandonment, but the social topics aren't all encompassing like they were in Wall-E, which could have been categorized as a Disney movie doubling as an adult science fiction parable. This isn't. It's very much a kid's movie with some appeal for adults. Obviously, I saw this in its regular format, but imagine the gimmick of 3-D would be more likely to lessen than bolster its impressive visuals.

While the actual adventure at the movie's center seems average compared to what leads them there I'd have a tough time coming with any alternatives that would have worked better. It is what it is. If this seems to be just about the most unenthusiastic endorsement I could possibly give a film, in its defense I had very little interest going in and had problems mustering up much excitement at the prospect of Pixar repeating themselves again. They've gone as far as they can go and you've got to wonder what's even left. I enjoyed myself, but aside from the opening minutes, didn't share in the deeper experience everyone else seemed to have watching the picture. Up is a good time, but not much more.