How to Make a Killing

Director: John Patton Ford
Starring: Glen Powell, Margaret Qualley, Jessica Henwick, Bill Camp, Zach Woods, Topher Grace, Ed Harris, Bianca Amato, Raff Law, Alexander Hanson, Adrian Lukis, James Frecheville, Nell Williams, Grady Wilson, Maggie Toomey
Running Time: 105 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)     

Extending his streak of compelling, outside the box choices, a still very busy Glen Powell delivers another charismatic turn in writer/director John Patten Ford's unjustly overlooked How To Make a Killing. Seemingly popping up everywhere, Powell's been labeled as overexposed, this despite challenging himself in a variety of different roles where he's fared better than most. And having now recently proven his worth as an action and rom-com lead, he tackles a wicked, biting satire best described as Dexter meets American Psycho. It's also a real hoot, subverting expectations at nearly every turn.

As the narrative unpeels its numerous layers, it's easy to envision audiences complaining about an abundance of plot holes. But the script's tighter than you'd think, with Ford effectively covering his tracks by keeping the focus squarely on the antagonist's complicated and constantly evolving motivations. Skillfully mixing dark humor with social commentary, it aims higher than being the latest Hollywood outing obsessed with eating the rich, as there's actually a lot more happening beyond it. 

On death row for murder, Becket Redfellow (Powell) awaits his final meal while telling a priest (Adrian Lukis) the story of how he wound up in prison. It begins decades earlier when his mom Mary (Nell Williams) was disowned by her father and wealthy Redfellow patriarch Whitelaw (Ed Harris) after her unplanned teen pregnancy. With Mary trying to make ends meet as a single mother to young Becket, the boy's crush on wealthy friend Julia Steinway falls by the wayside after his mom's shocking death sends him through a series of foster homes.

Years later, Mary's final wish for Becket to "fight for the life he deserves" still echos in his mind as an adult selling luxury suits in New York City. But after uncovering a legal loophole that entitles the last living Redfellow heir to a $28 billion inheritance, he gets an idea. Just as a recently married Julia (Margaret Qualley) reenters his life, he formulates a plan to kill the remaining members and collect the money. Considering the suspicions those consecutive deaths would raise, this proves challenging, at least until he's welcomed into the family by his generous Uncle Warren (Bill Camp). Though Becket starts to obtain the acceptance he's longed searched for, the murder and subsequent guilt continues, threatening to unravel this new life he's built for himself.  

By bookending events with Becket's imminent execution, the film not only creates a sense of urgency, but enables Powell to establish this confident and relaxed character who strangely appears resigned to his own fate. And while the story he spins is far out there, we're left with the impression he isn't lying or fudging facts, allowing us to see how this cocky but superficially likable guy ends up on death row. It may be easy to assume he gets sloppy and his luck runs out, but what actually happens is a lot more complicated.    

The intriguing pre-credit flashback prologue crucially sets the stage for all that follows, giving resonance to the cruel ultimatum Becket's mom receives at the hands of her cold, dismissive father. And whatever meaning she intended with her last words give him the green light for revenge, providing in his mind a reason to take what he's owed.    

That whole section is enhanced by the brief but impactful performances of child actors Grady Wilson and Maggie Toomey, who play the respective younger versions of Becket and Julia. Not only do they physically resemble their older counterparts, but certain quirks and details of their personalities are later replicated by Powell and Qualley. For a change, it's actually not a stretch to believe both pairs of actors are portraying the same people, with only time and age separating them.

Once Becket commits to clipping the leaves off his family tree to become sole heir, hilarity ensues when he clumsily realizes he's good at this whole murder thing. Dimwitted, arrogant Stock broker Taylor (Raff Law) and pretentious artist Noah (Zach Woods) are his initial targets, but these hapless younger cousins are merely in Becket's way, standing between him and a huge payout. The plot then further thickens once he falls hard for Noah's girlfriend Ruth (Jessica Henwick), who hasn't a clue she's involved with a serial killer. 

To Ford's credit, he preemptively addresses issues with the premise by having the FBI trail Becket early, even if they're incredibly dense and struggle to find a shred of evidence linking him to unexplained deaths of multiple family members. But at least the script has them make enough of that connection for us to accept he can't outmaneuver authorities forever, always remaining a misstep away from being caught. 

Becket's bond with his uncle Warren might be the most genuine relationship he has, if only because he's the sole Redfellow sincerely apologetic about what happened to him and his mom. And in giving this long lost nephew a job and opportunity, he proves it, earning Becket's loyalty and presumably ending his killing spree, at least until he's tempted to finish off other slimy cousins like crooked pastor Steven J. Redfellow (hilariously played by Topher Grace).

When Becket keeps the murder train rolling long after he's accumulated enough money and status to stop, Powell's performance helps explain why. If maybe there's a sick, addictive rush that comes in getting away with it, everything still comes back to the quest to avenge his mother and fulfill her dying wish, however twisted that logic becomes.  

Some may think Powell should have gone darker, but he gets it just right by playing him more reluctantly, putting viewers in the awkward spot of examining his justification, perhaps even while condemning the selected methods. Amid a plethora of less redeemable characters, he's at least given somewhat of a conscience as the actor strong arms us into considering whether Becket's really some sort of anti-hero. 

Margaret Qualley electrifies as Julia, popping in and out to prey on her childhood bond with Becket. Every mannerism and line delivery help define the eccentricities of a quirky, unpredictable character you can't take your eyes off. And neither can Becket, whether he wants to or not. Inevitably, he's torn between Julia and loyal, pure hearted girlfriend Ruth, who Henwick effectively plays as nearly her polar opposite. In many ways she represents Becket's best life, if only he can let go of his obsession with the inheritance. Instead, the lies and games continue to pile up. 

All this leads to the heavily awaited showdown with grandfather Whitelaw, who's chillingly played by a quietly intense Harris. And while Becket's encounter with the Final Boss who kicked his mom to the curb doesn't disappoint, there's also that nagging issue of how he ends up on death row. It's not for the reason you'd think, resulting in a devilishly ironic third act twist that carries strains of a gender reversed Gone Girl. 

Loosely based on the 1949 British film Kind Hearts and Coronets, this is Ford's follow-up to his indie sleeper hit, Emily The Criminal. But save for a law breaking main character, it's a total 180, with the director using this bigger platform and budget to make a far different film featuring an exceptionally loaded cast of talent. Compelling from start to finish, it's just a lot of fun, as wild developments lead the story exactly where it needs to go, climaxing with a final act that solidifies this as a strange trip worth taking.

Love Lies Bleeding

Director: Rose Glass
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Katy O' Brian, Jena Malone, Anna Baryshnikov, Dave Franco, Ed Harris
Running Time: 104 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)  

While A24's wild and exhilarating Love Lies Bleeding takes inspiration from of darkly comic, noirish thrillers like Blood Simple and Bound, it also manages to feel like a grittier, far superior alternative to what Ethan Coen couldn't pull off with the recent Drive-Away Dolls. It starts slowly before taking what would otherwise be considered B-movie material to a higher level than the elevated trash suggested by its plot description. Gloomy and violent, it also has a wicked sense of humor, with co-writer/director Rose Glass taking a stylistic approach ideally suited to all the pulpy madness that unfolds. 

Much of its success can be attributed to the leads, each of whom give magnetic performances that only grow more absorbing as the story's complications multiply. After initially playing her cards very close to the vest, Glass teases at serious trouble before flying off the rails in fresh and exciting ways, cornering us into awkwardly rooting for these troubled lovers in over their heads.

It's 1989 in a rural New Mexico town when Crater Gym manager Lou (Kristen Stewart) encounters Oklahoma native Jackie (Katy O' Brian), a bisexual bodybuilder passing through en route to a competition in Las Vegas. Disturbed by her sister Beth's (Jena Malone) marriage to physically abusive sleazebag J.J. (Dave Franco) and constantly hit on by clingy friend Daisy (Anna Barishnikov), Lou quickly bonds with Jackie, supplying her steroids.

Before long, Lou and Jackie are in a relationship and living together when Lou discovers her new girlfriend began working as a waitress at her estranged father Lou Sr.'s (Ed Harris) gun range alongside J.J. As the F.B.I. trails Lou for information about her dad's sordid criminal past, a traumatizing event sends her over the edge, causing a protective, chemically altered Jackie to take drastic action. All this leads to a big problem that desperately needs cleaning up before Lou Sr. handles it first. 

When we first meet Lou she's unclogging a toilet and evading Daisy's sexual advances so Jackie's presence couldn't be more welcome. Stuck in this depressing town while managing a dingy gym that lives up to its "Crater" moniker, it's no wonder she's instantly intrigued. It's not like there's much else to occupy her in a place barren and lonely enough for residents to commit crimes out of sheer boredom. 

For the withdrawn Lou, Jackie's initially calm, supportive demeanor proves a welcome respite from the violent insanity that's defined her family. Sleeping under highway overpasses on her way to Vegas, Jackie proves she'll do whatever it takes for cash and accomplish her goal of not only entering this bodybuilding competition, but winning it. And we immediately get the impression she could.

As Lou deals with J.J. regularly beating the hell out of her sister while the feds lurk, a single crime  changes everything. Glass and Weronika Tofilska's script wisely holds back in revealing too much about Lou Sr., even if Ed Harris's casting is strong enough a clue. With his creepy, quietly menacing presence and long, stringy skullet, it's obvious that whatever Lou Sr.'s into is unimaginably bad. Those complaining Harris is too old for the role are probably right but few could play this kind of part better.   

It's hard to argue Stewart's quirky but effortlessly cool persona isn't used to its fullest potential in smaller, more daring projects like this. She again proves up to the task as Lou holds a lot back until a series of circumstances cause her to completely boil over. But the surprise is O' Brian, who's subtly terrific as a woman whose dreams of making something of herself are both enhanced and derailed by this relationship. 

Even those familiar with real life former bodybuilder O' Brian from her more restrained role in The Mandalorian will have a tough time identifying her because she's so unrecognizably jacked. And Glass definitely takes full advantage of that, lingering on close-up shots of expanding muscles and bulging veins as Jackie's roid rage leads her down a path that feels lifted from the old Incredible Hulk TV series. Like Lou, she yearns to prove her family wrong, if only they even cared. Now her world revolves around a competition she may not even make it to, but revealing more risks spoiling the film's most humiliatingly uncomfortable scene.

The last act is a thrilling cat-and-mouse game that forces Lou to finally break a poisonous lifelong cycle. Lou Sr. knows the power he wields, and if push comes to shove, eliminating his own daughter isn't off the table. With a grungy mood and atmosphere that feels dead on, Glass takes some big swings that could have seemed derivative with a less talented filmmaker at the controls. It also has some tricks up its sleeve, like a moment in the closing minutes that defies explanation by asking viewers to abandon all pretense and take a leap as gigantic as one of its characters. It shouldn't work at all, yet somehow does, convincing us this is the ride we signed up for all along.   

Top Gun: Maverick

Director: Joseph Kosinki
Starring: Tom Cruise, Miles Teller, Jennifer Connelly, Jon Hamm, Glen Powell, Ed Harris, Val Kilmer, Lewis Pullman, Monica Barbaro, Charles Parnell, Danny Ramirez, Bashir Salahuddin, Manny Jacinto, Raymond Lee, Lyliana Wray, Jean Louisa Kelly
Running Time: 130 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

When the final book's written on Tom Cruise's career, it's a pretty safe bet that Top Gun: Maverick, the long awaited follow-up to his 1986 blockbuster, will be one of the primary talking points. The actor not only reenergizes familiarly nostalgic material so well you'd think he never left his rule-breaking pilot behind, but director Joseph Kosinki delivers a film that summons the spirit of Tony Scott's original. Expertly made with the sensibilities of a huge 80's action spectacle, it takes everything that was special about its predecessor and expands upon it, resulting in a pitch perfect sequel that surpasses the highest of expectations. On a technical level, there's little doubt these action scenes are superior, but what's more impressive is Kosinki's firm grasp on what was needed for this to really work, just as he previously proved with his criminally overlooked TRON: Legacy. 

The movie knows what it is and wastes no time getting there, making for one of the breezier, endlessly enjoyable 130 minutes you could spend watching a huge budget franchise movie. And while a quintessential big screen experience, it's still not hard to imagine viewers returning to it from the comfort of their own couches for a while to come. And by providing thrills that go beyond the adrenaline-fueled flight sequences, it further establishes Cruise as an expert at managing his own brand, again navigating the line that separates movie star and actor. This is the best possible combination of both, proving an ideal showcase for his talents and a welcome surprise for those understandably complaining they just don't make them like they used to.

Over 30 years after graduating from the TOPGUN program, U.S. Navy Captain Pete "Maverick" Mitchell (Cruise) is a test pilot whose constant insubordination and recklessness has kept him from rising up the ranks. But upon hearing that Rear Admiral Chester "Hammer" Cain (Ed Harris) is shutting down his jet program in favor of funding killer drones, Maverick responds by flying a prototype jet beyond Mach 10 and into high-hypersonic in a last ditch attempt to save the program.

Just as Caine intends to ground him for the stunt, Maverick's old friend and current U.S. Pacific Fleet Commander Tom "Iceman" Kazansky (Val Kilmer) intervenes to save his career, assigning him to NAS North Island, where he's ordered to train an elite group of TOPGUN graduates for an extremely dangerous mission. As a disinterested Maverick is tasked with leading a new team to the bottom of an enemy nation's canyon to destroy an unsanctioned uranium enrichment plant, Naval Air Force Commander Beau "Cyclone" Simpson (Jon Hamm) takes a strong disliking to the cocky, headstrong pilot, based mostly on reputation alone. 

Further complicating matters is that one of Maverick's students is Bradley "Rooster" Bradshaw (Miles Teller), son of his late best friend, Goose, who resents him for intentionally sitting on papers that held up his military career. He'll not only have to earn Rooster's respect, but that of the team's other pilots like flashy LT Jake "Hangman" Seresin (Glen Powell), determined LT Natasha "Phoenix" Trace (Monica Barbaro) and the unassuming oddball LT Robert "Bob" Floyd (Lewis Pullman). Struggling to let go of the past, Maverick reconnects with ex-girlfriend and bar owner Penny Benjamin (Jennifer Connelly). But he'll need to step up, as the future of the entire TOPGUN program and the safety of these pilots now falls entirely on him.

Where Maverick's head is at decades after the original's events concluded makes sense given what we've known about the character. He definitely wouldn't be a higher ranking officer given his rebellious propensities and was inevitable he'd still be punishing himself over Goose's death all these years later. But screenwriters Ehren Kruger, Eric Warren singer and Christopher McQuarrie use this as a jumping off point to inject fresh blood into the story, returning a beaten down but still highly skilled Maverick back to his old stomping grounds, as the last remaining vestige of a bygone era. 

Disrespected and underestimated by establishment loyalists like Cain and Cyclone, he's viewed as a hotheaded liability standing in the way of evolving technology. He's warned his day is coming, an ironic statement given how the film's built on honoring the past, or more specifically, repurposing the strengths of Scott's original for modern audiences. Middle-aged Maverick is still the same daredevil, but those tactics are frowned upon and whatever remains of his career depends on Iceman keeping him afloat.

Iceman gives Maverick this assignment not as some kind of favor, but because he's the right man for the job and the pilots need his guidance to form a cohesive unit. Iceman knows Maverick's his own worst enemy and their emotional scene together draws parallels between the characters' shared history,  weaving Val Kilmer's own cancer struggle into Ice's narrative in a manner that feels inspiring rather than tasteless. What Kilmer does in place of his vocal limitations makes this brief reunion soar, with the actor saying more with his eyes and facial expressions than most actors could in words. Cruise matches him beat-for-beat and the events that follow only lend more weight to a conversation that will have more than a few fans fighting back tears.

Rather than take the predictable, unimaginative way out in having Rooster blame Maverick for his father's death, the script tackles their tension from a different angle, with the mentor determined to keep a well-intentioned promise that's no longer as relevant as he thinks. The idea he's still suffering from PTSD of sorts over his best friend's death has led him to fear history repeating itself with Rooster, creating an intriguing dynamic and tension that permeates through their scenes together.

Rooster and Hangman's feud mirrors Maverick's classic one with Iceman and largely stems from their wildly different flying philosophies and hunger to be the best. Unfortunately, Rooster hasn't yet fully harnessed his capabilities and plays it safe while Hangman's showboating arrogance endangers everyone else. A well cast, mustachioed Miles Teller seems every bit Goose's son (especially in his scenes opposite Cruise) as Glen Powell channels Harrison Ford's Han Solo with a memorably charismatic supporting turn. 

The rest of the team have easily identifiable personality traits and quirks that make them easy to root for, but aren't overdone. The pilots have a job to do and the disciplined script keeps the focus there, with some well placed character moments and Top Gun call backs to compliment it. The original's campier elements are toned down, with the iconic but undeniably silly beach volleyball sequence channeled in the form of a similar football game that does a better job moving the story forward while eliminating the cringe factor.  

The Maverick and Penny romantic subplot cited by some as a weak spot is actually far from it, serving as a blueprint for exactly how such a storyline should be handled in this kind of picture. Casting Jennifer Connelly was a masterstroke, but the writers take a throwaway reference to this unseen admiral's daughter character from the original and cleverly expand upon it, correctly assuming diehards will get onboard and the uninitiated won't feel lost. That the pair already have an established shorthand and rocky history spares us an awkward introduction or feeling out process.We know just enough. 

Connelly never makes single mom Penny a Kelly McGillis replacement, but rather the only character besides Iceman who understands what makes Maverick tick having come from a similar world. As the rare age appropriate on screen love interest for the actor, she and Cruise share an effortless chemistry, now giving the long underrated, swooned over Connelly greater exposure with that elusive blockbuster hit she's deserved for decades. She also brings something completely different out of Cruise, who's probably never been this likeably human as a romantic lead before.  

The exhilarating last act utilizes practical effects along with some seamless CGI and VFX for the awe inspiring flight scenes. It probably helps that the actors are actually inside the cockpits with the cameras, and though they're not piloting the jets, were extensively trained as if they are. While the closing mission visually and narratively recalls the destruction of the Death Star at the end of Star Wars: A New Hope, it takes a turn with Maverick and Rooster relying on each other to survive what seems like an insurmountable predicament.

Kosinki and Cruise's Mission: Impossible editor Eddie Hamilton earn credit for keeping everything tight and exciting, leaving viewers hanging off their seats as they hurl toward a rousing resolution that doesn't overstay its welcome. Claudio Miranda's amazing aerial cinematography, Han Zimmer's throwback score (incorporating elements of the original's theme), and yes, even Kenny Loggins' "Danger Zone," bolster the overall package, ticking every box possible for a legacy sequel. 

Delayed in post-production with multiple writers attached, few took Top Gun: Maverick seriously going in. But again we underestimated Cruise's superhuman ability to enforce quality control in his projects. He'll eventually have to move onto smaller, more character driven parts, but that he can make this feel like one of those is why we can wait. A seamless blend of action and plot, he takes us on the ultimate ride, proving his onscreen authenticity and understanding of what audiences want is what's always separated him from the pack. After watching it, that Days of Thunder sequel suddenly doesn't seem like such a bad idea anymore.                                                

mother!

Director: Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer, Brian Gleeson, Domhnall Gleeson, Stephen McHattie, Kristen Wiig
Running Time: 121 min.
Rating: R

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)
  
Sometimes, it only takes the first few minutes to figure out whether you'll be on a film's wavelength. From the opening scene of Darren Aronofsky's mother! and each succeeding one over the span of two hours, every single moment is compelling. There's a built-in, unnerving tension accompanying the execution of even the most menial tasks and a genuine feeling that you have no idea what will happen next. That's exciting, and for the accusations of this being the most polarizing, controversial, and challenging mainstream film in years (all true), it starts as merely a story about a couple of unwelcome houseguests. But there's this unpleasantness bubbling under the surface, and while we're not sure exactly what, most probably expected something resembling a traditional horror movie with supernatural elements. That's what the commercials and trailers hinted, as well as what we've come to expect and have been trained to spot. And while classifying it as a psychological thriller seems fairest, that description also fails to convey the magnitude of what plays out.

In creating a work of art that challenges and confronts his audience in almost sickeningly uncomfortable ways, Aronofsky backs us into a corner and makes us think our way out. It's not only 2017's best and most audacious effort, but the most accomplished work of this filmmaker's career, which is no small feat considering he's the director behind Requiem For a Dream, The Wrestler and Black Swan. This sees him truly breaking free from whatever creative shackles remained and operating on an almost entirely different level, upping his game in ways I didn't think possible. You'll know when you get to that point in the narrative whether you're willing to go along for the ride, or decide to abandon ship, as most critics and audiences already have.

The cruelest irony is that this isn't a confusing story lacking a coherent beginning, middle or end. It's everything in between that confounds, with very little of it having to do with plot. The only wrong way to watch is literally. And in Jennifer Lawrence, the director finds the ideal vessel with which to deliver it, showcasing her abilities in a manner we've never seen exhibited, or rather, inhibited, before.  At the very distinct point the movie starts riding the rails of the crazy train everyone's been talking about, I just fastened my seatbelt. "It's here," I reminded myself as the madness and insanity unfolds, relishing how rare it is in cinema to get a final act that pays off with such reckless abandon and unexpectedly thrilling consequences.

So much happens in mother! and yet it remains strangely immune to spoilers because what occurs isn't even half of what it's about. Still, a certain degree of restraint is best when describing events.  A struggling poet known simply as Him (Javier Bardem) is rebuilding his life after a fire destroyed the house he shares with his much younger wife, Mother (Lawrence). Prone to unexpected panic attacks, suspicious occurrences around the house disturb and unsettle her as she renovates, while Him suffers from the worst case of writer's block since Jack Torrance took up residence at the Overlook. Endlessly staring at a blank page, he finds his only inspiration from a rare, mysterious crystal object he keeps on a pedestal in his study.

Things change when a stranger named Man (Ed Harris) shows up at the house looking for a place to stay. Chain-smoking and prone to hysterical coughing fits, he's clearly ill, but also gives some indications his arrival isn't exactly a coincidence. Him and Man soon form a bond over the former's writing, but Mother is immediately suspicious. A day later, Man's wife Woman (Michelle Pfeiffer) arrives and the atmosphere worsens. Considerably. Before long, Mother is on the outside looking in, a spectator in her own home and marriage, with Him's behavior growing stranger and more self-obsessed, as these strangers infiltrate their lives.

A clear dynamic exists in this marriage before the houseguests from hell arrive, or more accurately, move in and take over. Him pretty much just does what he wants and Mother is expected to just go along with it, without nary a word. And mostly, she complies, out of love. But it's a love that seems unfairly balanced, as she stands by and watches Him let these strangers run roughshod over their home, basically ignoring the affections and support she provides on a daily basis. It only worsens as their presence grows more invasive, specifically in regard to Michelle Pfeiffer's Woman, whose questioning of Mother about her sex life and marriage, as well as the flagrant invasion of her personal space, has you scratching your head wondering when the latter will finally assert herself. The unexpected arrival of more family members pushes her to the breaking point.

As to why the title character is named "Mother" when she isn't one, and how that fits into the larger picture, is initially a mystery. And just as she starts putting her foot down after enduring far more than even the most patient spouse could, a single shocking event occurs that turns the story on its head, soon severing the already tenuous bond that exists between them. The lengths Him goes to in conveying an illusion of stability when the problem has clearly reached apocalyptic proportions is almost comical. As he explains away everything to placate his wife, you start wondering if this guy's for real. Could he actually be this vain and self-absorbed? If so, what's the possible explanation, and what does it have to do with these intrusive houseguests? O the mysterious crystal? The answers do eventually come, but once they do, you might regret you asked.

With her energetic presence and brash, oversized charisma, Jennifer Lawrence is already a seasoned pro at inhabiting characters who command in any room they walk into. As Mother, the actress gets to do something she's never attempted: Play the victim. A weak pushover whose only purpose seems to be providing for others, most specifically her husband, as she caters to his increasingly absurd whims. Even as the narrative clearly puts viewers in the position of identifying and sympathizing with Mother and seeing much of what happens through her eyes, it's fascinating to see Lawrence's natural playfulness and likability stripped away. Psychologically beaten down, she can't command anything since her character takes a passenger seat in her own developing nightmare. So, we start discovering what else Lawrence can do well, which is unsurprisingly everything. While she's again cast as the much younger wife of a male lead, it's the rare age gap that's acknowledged multiple times in the screenplay for purposeful effect. And not in the man's favor.

The more muted than usual Lawrence somehow finds a way to make what should be mundane, everyday activities like painting and boiling tea crackle with tension and suspicion as she grows increasingly weary of her unwanted guests. There's this slow escalation of insanity around her that explodes in the final act, the full force of which depends on her surrendering to the material and fully giving herself over to Aronofsky's vision, regardless of how disturbing and humiliating it becomes. Even if you despise where the story goes, it's tough to deny how present and gripping Lawrence is in every scene, or at least acknowledge how far outside her perceived zone she goes with the performance, adding "risk-taker" to the growing list of Jennifer Lawrence superlatives. It's also the first performance she's given that represents something bigger than only the interior life of the character she's playing, showcasing darker, quieter shades to her range we haven't been experienced in more mainstream projects that first punched her card as an award-winning star.

Bardem just might have the even tougher role, playing this damaged man who talks of the great love he has for his wife, even as his actions contradict it. He has to commit to this absolutely and does, dialing in on his character's vain self absorption in the face of a woman willing to do anything for Him. But he wants more. Whether it's adulation, admiration, or attention, it just never stops with this guy, and if you can figure Him out, you're a step closer to figuring out the film. As Man and Woman, Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer are brilliantly aggravating and deplorable, with Pfeiffer given her juiciest, most complex role in decades, especially shining in her combative scenes opposite Lawrence. In fact, she's so good (or rather deliciously bad), a strong case could be made, not only for a supporting nomination, but even more screen time. And yet, the amount she gets seems ideal, serving its function until her presence is no longer necessary. In a broader sense, the same could apply to all four characters, who are very much functional representations of something greater than they initially appear.

In this house, Aronofsky creates a world, and does it via the performances, the camera's perspective, sound and even production design. And when all hell breaks loose in the last third, you start realizing the scope and enormity of what he had in mind when creating this universe. And while much of this is tiptoeing for the sake of spoiler avoidance, let's just say it's one of the few instances where a script builds to a crescendo, then actually over-delivers on any reasonable expectations. It's disgusting, uncomfortable and there's one moment I'm convinced is the sole cause for all the animosity directed toward the film. And yet, somehow, in the end, it all makes sense.

The very last scene is just perfect, providing justification and clarification to nearly everything that came before. It's one of those great endings where you practically hear the sound of a book closing, even as its content, as well as the biblical and metaphysical questions it poses, stay with you long after the credits roll. View the film as a disintegration of a marriage, a religious allegory, a desperate plea to save us from each other, or maybe all of the above, its impact is lasting and worthy of a discussion audiences should have been having. That we're not speaks to a larger problem that Aronofsky is more than willing to throw in our faces, and deservedly so. It's all right up there on screen for intense examination, at least for those able and willing to see it through.

Pain and Gain

Director: Michael Bay
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Dwayne Johnson, Anthony Mackie, Tony Shaloub, Ed Harris, Rob Corddrey, Rebel Wilson, Ken Jeong, Bar Paly, Michael Rispoli
Running Time: 129 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

The commercials, trailers and ads for Pain and Gain would lead you to believe it's a certain type of movie aimed at a very specific audience. So naturally, it's easy to be unsure as to whether you'll be on board when Michael Bay's name appears over the opening credits as director. But you know what? It's actually pretty good. While declaring it his most interesting film runs the risk of damning with faint praise, no one has ever disputed the guy has talent and knows what he's doing. The problem has always been harnessing it. This is the closest a project has come to doing that thus far and it's easy to see why. It's over-the-top, outrageously dumb and in-your-face, while still carrying some of what you'd expect from a Bay movie. Except this one has characters worth watching in a story that's just crazy enough to be true because it actually is. It's certainly no masterpiece and, at almost two and half hours, probably could have been trimmed, but it does earn its running time if just the sheer scope and audacity of it all. Consider this his testosterone-fueled epic, albeit on a smaller budgeted, more intimate scale than we're used to getting from him. Featuring two performers who couldn't have possibly been a better fit for their roles, it's both darkly comical and pathetically tragic in all the right ways, resulting in a surprisingly fun time.

Based on 1999 series of true crime articles published in the Miami New Times, the film tells the story of dim-witted musclehead Danny Lugo (Mark Wahlberg) who upon being hired by Sun Gym, nearly triples their membership almost overnight. But despite already rolling in the cash, he wants more. Inspired by motivational speaker Johnny Wu (Ken Jeong) to become a "doer" and take what he wants in life, Danny yearns to live the American dream and amass the vast wealth achieved by Victor Kershaw (Tony Shaloub), an arrogant, sleazy client he's been training. With the help of friend and workout partner Adrian Doorbal (Anthony Mackie) and cocaine-addicted convict Paul Doyle (Dwayne Johnson), Danny sets in motion a  clumsy plan to kidnap and extort Kershaw for all he's worth. Needless to say, this doesn't exactly work out, or rather it does, just not at all in the way you'd expect. They've left a giant mess, and with a retired private eye (Ed Harris) hot on their trail, these bumbling criminals have somewhat unintentionally added torture and murder to their rap sheets.

Despite having little idea how much of the "real-life" story was retained in the screenplay and what was embellished to make a more exciting impression on screen, it's tough to criticize the direction Bay took with the material. It's too ridiculous and unbelievable to be played straight as a crime drama, yet contains enough darker elements that it wouldn't be fair to classify it entirely as an action-comedy either. More often than not it fits into the latter category, but what's most surprising is how well, and for how long, Bay straddles that line without slipping up. It's the kind of story that's the perfect fit for a big screen treatment because it contains characters who are blissfully unaware of just how delusional they are. To say that Danny has a warped perception of the "American Dream" would be an understatement, but Wahlberg makes his cluelessness likable to the point that even when he's doing the most heinous things, we're still kind of rooting for him and his pals to get away with it. Part of it could be that their target is such a jerk, but it does almost seem almost unfair that a character so stupid could even be held responsible for his own actions. At points it seems as if he doesn't even know what actions are, or at least that they carry consequences.

Unsurprisingly, the real standout is Johnson, who's given a break from headlining pure action franchises to prove again just how strong he can be when asked to turn in meaningful supporting work with a comic bent. Of course, it just so happens to be a performance that's arguably still in a pure action movie of a different sort, but it's easily his most interesting role since, yes, Southland Tales. As a born-again bible thumper seeking to avoid confrontation at any cost, Paul is the worst choice of partner imaginable to successfully help execute a kidnapping and extortion plot, providing the film with its funniest moments. The most hilarious of which comes when all three together can't successfully commit a necessary murder no matter how hard they try, resulting in the fallout that follows them for the rest of the picture. Of the three leads, Mackie has the least to do and his sub-plot involving his impotence from steroid use and a relationship with a sex-crazed nurse (Rebel Wilson) is probably (along with a third-act development better suited to a Saw film) the weakest story thread, but even that plays better than it has a right to. Shaloub is perfectly detestable as the villain while Ed Harris seems to be playing a spoof of serious Ed Harris roles as the retired investigator. He clearly knows what movie he's in and has fun with it.

While the story takes place in 1995 and strangely feels every bit like it really does, it's easy to envision it happening today. Not so much in terms of the events that go down, but the behaviors and attitudes of the three main characters, which could easily be summised by any reality show on TV right now. Watching this it's impossible no to wonder if Bay understands this or he just thought that what these guys did was really cool. Going against popular opinion, I'd wager on the former (okay, maybe a little of the latter) because it's all just too cleverly made to assume anything else. Technically, it's his best effort just in terms of the visuals and music working together to tell an actual story.

Besides the movie just flat-out looking great and featuring some really memorable shots, Steve Jablonsky's moody, electronic tinged score is one of the year's best, not garnering nearly enough attention for how well it fits the material and setting. And how can you knock any movie with a montage proudly set to Bon Jovi's "Blaze of Glory?" What Pain and Gain is, and ultimately what gives it away as a Michael Bay movie, is that it's a guy's movie through and through. Explosions, violence, women, money, working out, drugs. What sets it apart is that he actually seems to be aware of it this time and has some fun with an actual story he can turn and twist to fit his every whim. When we find out what happened to the characters' real-life counterparts at the end, there isn't much doubt what we watched, true or not, was the best possible representation of how exciting it could have been.   
      

Appaloosa, My Best Friend's Girl

Appaloosa (**1/2 out of ****)
(Director: Ed Harris, Starring: Ed Harris, Viggo Mortensen, Renee Zellweger, Jeremy Irons, Lance Henriksen, Running Time: 118 min, Rating: R)

Ed Harris directs and stars in this methodical, lumbering character study. If you’ve ever wanted to see a movie focus squarely on two characters with a complete void of personality then this one’s for you. I love the Western as a genre and was thrilled to witness its resurrection last year with 3:10 To Yuma and The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford, but with the comeback of any genre there are bound to be setbacks. This is the first. It doesn’t necessarily feel inauthentic and Harris has a good understanding of the material, but the movie spins its wheels and as a result comes off feeling more like a Lonesome Dove mini-series than a feature-length film. Still, you can tell it was made with a lot of respect and appreciation and he deserves praise for trying.

Harris is lawman Virgil Cole, who along with his longtime Deputy, Everett Hitch (Viggo Mortensen), must defend the lawless town of Appaloosa from murderous Rancher Randall Bragg (Jeremy Irons). The arrival of comely widower Allison French (Renee Zellweger) is complicated for Virgil, as he must wrestle with the foreign concept of “feelings” when she slowly emerges as the town whore. To both the film’s benefit and detriment the story doesn’t go in the direction you’d expect. Allison doesn’t exactly drive a wedge between Virgil and Everett in the way you’d think and the situation involving Braggs doesn’t have your standard resolution. The issues with Braggs are infinitely more interesting and better handled than the sub-plot with Zellweger’s Ally, which at times feels more like a needless distraction.

Harris tackles the grizzled Eastwood badass lawman type role (think High Plains Drifter) well, but while he’s a gifted actor, he’s also a draining one to watch for 2 hours for obvious reasons. Not surprisingly, Mortensen gives the film’s best performance and even though he’s relegated to the background until the final 40 minutes he still makes a strong impression. The chemistry between him and Harris is a highlight despite the fact neither character is particularly exciting. Irons wages war with his accent. The casting of Zellweger seems slightly off, but that could be more because we’re not accustomed to seeing the depiction of a traditional Western woman on screen, faults and all. To her credit, she dives into the role head first, dirtying herself up (literally and figuratively).

Appaloosa can’t help but suffer from the release of two 4-star Westerns last year. There really isn’t enough here to sustain a film that’s appropriate in scope for the genre, despite Harris’ firm direction. Visually, it isn’t that interesting either as cinematographer Dean Semler won’t be mistaken for the next Roger Deakins any day soon, as impossible as that standard is to live up to. The film doesn’t work but in the very least it’s a noble near miss. Plus, you can’t go wrong with some Tom Petty over the closing credits.

My Best Friend's Girl (**1/2 out of ****)
(Director: Howard Deutch, Starring: Dane Cook, Kate Hudson, Jason Biggs, Alec Baldwin, Running Time: 101 min., Rating: Unrated)

We’re getting to the point where Kate Hudson should start reimbursing audiences for the money they’ve wasted on her films. But as much as I’ve disapproved of her career direction this past decade and the fact that it’s never a good sign when the actors somehow give a bad performance in the movie's poster, this isn’t one of the year’s worst films like you’ve heard. Not even close.

I’m guessing most critics went extra hard on it because it starred Hudson and Dane Cook. And who could blame them? Both have amassed an astonishing track record of awfulness in just a few years. But fair is fair and there’s nothing about My Best Friend’s Girl that sets it so far below other bad romantic comedies that it should land on anyone’s worst of the year list. At times I even forgot I was supposed to hate it. Its worst offenses are problems balancing tone and an illogical, overreaching third act, which would really put it at about the same level as Knocked Up. If nothing else, it just further demonstrates how difficult it is to make mix raunchiness and romance onscreen effectively. That Judd Apatow has proven to be the only filmmaker close to capable of doing it and even he’s missed a few times proves just how tough it is. But at least this does it slightly better (or less worse) than Cook’s last crude rom-com disaster Good Luck Chuck.

Similar to Chuck this film has a gimmicky premise in which “emotional terrorist” Tank Turner (Cook) is hired by guys to take out their ex-girlfriends and give them the date from hell. The idea being that he’s such a disgusting, perverted, self-centered pig that they’ll run back into their waiting arms, appreciating what they had. The opening minutes of the film surprisingly aren’t bad in setting this up. When Tank’s best friend Dustin (Jason Biggs) starts smothering his new girlfriend and co-worker Alexis (Hudson) she justifiably wants out. More accurately, she just wants to be “friends.” His solution? Hire Tank to traumatize her. It doesn’t work. He’s met his match, as Alexis could care less what a jerk he is. The last thing she wants is another relationship anyway. Then everything gets expectedly messy when Tank starts having genuine feelings for her, threatening his friendship with Dustin. And of course we get to hear The Cars’ “My Best Friend’s Girl” a couple of times (but you knew that).

The chief problem with the film is that it’s just too mean and nasty, uncomfortably co-existing with the sweet romantic comedy elements that are struggling to come out. Director Howard Deutch just can’t make up his mind what he wants to do and Cook isn’t helping matters. He plays the obnoxious jerk perfectly (perhaps too well) but when he has to display even just a shade of likability he runs into problems. His performance is grating, but most of the time it’s supposed to be. He's better off in supporting roles and this is a definite step-down from his surprisingly solid work in Mr. Brooks and Dan in Real Life. As for Hudson, she at least shows up to work this time with her game face on and actually does share chemistry with Cook. That chemistry, however, is the repulsive kind in a movie like this. She's also about as likable as Cook, which creates a problem . Biggs still has great comic timing, even if Deutch unwisely directs him to give off a creepy, stalkerish vibe.

There is a smattering of laughs (like when Tank takes an unsuspecting date to a offensively themed pizza restaurant) but most of them from the supporting players. Alec Baldwin is hilarious as Tank’s father, a “women’s studies” professor who takes that title way too literally while Lizzy Caplan impresses as usual in another thankless roommate/best friend role. In just her few scenes she suggests how much better the film could have been if she were given the lead instead of Hudson. Had either taken on a larger role it could have been enough to take this to the next level. Diora Baird also has a small part and a little of her always goes a long way in my book.

The film completely flies off the rails and loses its head in the final act, rushing and forcing a conclusion that isn’t necessary and getting there in the most ass-backwards way possible. It does have one great moment though. A Dane Cook slow-mo entrance set to Johnny Cash’s “The Man Comes Around.” For just a brief moment Deutch accomplishes the impossible in making Cook briefly seem cool, suggesting the movie we could have had. That ends quickly. My Best Friend’s Girl is bad but it’s not THAT BAD. Still, it doesn’t say much for Hudson or Cook lately when two and a half stars is considered a major accomplishment.

From The Vault: A History of Violence

Director: David Cronenberg
Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello, Ed Harris, William Hurt, Ashton Holmes, Heidi Hayes, Stephen McHattie, Greg Bryk, Peter MacNeill
Running Time: 96 min.
Rating: R
Release Date: 2005

**** (out of ****)

Spoiler Warning! This review contains spoilers and gives away key plot points.

It's often said that certain directors are experts at "establishing a mood" in a film. Very few filmmakers have done as good a job with this in any recent film than David Cronenberg does within the first half hour to forty minutes of 2005's A History of Violence. In many ways the whole movie hinges on what he does within that time frame to draw us into the story. The Canadian filmmaker best known for his shocking horror and science fiction films (including Scanners, Dead Ringers and the underrated eXistenZ) is remarkably restrained here and that restraint makes the violence that comes later that much more horrific.

Despite its title, the film ( which is loosely adapted from the 1997 graphic novel by John Wagner) actually isn't your typically violent motion picture. It's not interested in being that. It's more interested in what causes it. Typical of Cronenberg's films, the violence we do see is graphic and brutal, but this time it doesn't eat up a tremendous amount of screen time and its placement within the context of the story is carefully chosen. This is an intelligent meditation on violence and how it can intrude on our daily lives when we least expect it and shake us to our core. In this day and age, where the depiction of violence in the media is more scrutinized than ever, it's a relief to see a film that doesn't just show violence, but explores it.

Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) is a local diner owner who lives in small town Indiana with his loving wife, Edie (Maria Bello), teenage son Jack (Ashton Holmes) and small daughter Sarah (Heidi Hayes). One evening at work he becomes a local hero when he kills two armed robbers who hold up the diner and threaten the lives of the customers and employees. The story receives some national exposure and attracts the attention of some mysterious men in black suits, who come to town to pay Tom a visit. The leader of this group is the facially disfigured Carl Fogarty (a scary Ed Harris), who's a member of Philadelphia's Irish Mafia and swears that Tom is really a man named "Joey Cusak." He claims they have a score to settle because it was "Joey" who shredded half his face with a barbed wire 20 years ago. Tom, who claims he's never seen Fogarty in his life and doesn't have a clue who this "Joey" is, enlists the help of the local sheriff (Peter MacNeill) to protect him and his family from this growing threat.

The more Tom denies he's "Joey" the more menacing a presence Fogarty becomes in him and his family's lives. He stalks his wife and daughter while they shop and drives past the diner to mess with Tom's head. Meanwhile at school, Tom's son Jack is having problems of his own as he's constantly being picked on by a school bully, but can't find the guts to fight back despite his rage growing exponentially by the day. This sub-plot, which seems inconsequential at first glance strongly reflects the theme of the film and becomes much more important later. Thus far, the story is essentially a mystery and a very effective one. Is Tom telling the truth? Is this just simply a case of mistaken identity? Or, is Tom hiding a violent, criminal past from his family and friends? Read no further if you don't want the answer.

Tom is really "Joey Cusak" and he was a member of the mob 20 years ago when he disfigured Carl Fogerty. He put that part of his life behind him (or so he thought) and started anew as Tom Stall in small town Indiana. Does the mean he's been living a lie? To Tom it doesn't because in his mind "Joey" has been dead for the past 20 years and he started over. The cleverness in the script is that Tom himself is so convinced that he's no longer that man that we, like his wife, really believe him when he tells us he has no idea why these guys have come to town.

Early on we do have some doubts about whether this guy is telling the truth but we don't want to listen to them because Mortensen plays Tom as a nice, laid back guy we'd love to have as our next door neighbor. You could actually imagine him coming over, popping open a couple of beers and sitting on your couch watching the game. However, when his diner is held up it brings something out of Tom he thought was dormant. He was in a hopeless situation and had no choice but to react the only way he could: violently. He's a hero for it, but his actions had the unfortunate consequence of digging "Joey Cusak" from the grave. When those men identify him, Tom has no choice but to defend his family, while at the same time struggle to keep his dark secret from them.

A History of Violence is ultimately about disguises. The film opens with two men (played by Stephen McHattie and Greg Bryk) calmly checking out of a motel. Cronenberg makes us think the movie will be about them, especially after we realize they've left two dead bodies in their wake. That's just a front though and one of the many disguises in the movie. We quickly shift gears into this small, idyllic Indiana town where everything in it seems to be straight out of a Norman Rockwell painting, especially the marriage between Tom and Edie. In this way, the opening of this film reminded me of David Lynch's Blue Velvet (which makes sense since Cronenberg is like Lynch's twisted cousin as a filmmaker), where we're given a perfect picture of small town America, but there's something that seems just slightly off.

We just have a feeling that something will happen. We're not sure exactly what it is, but it's coming and our stomachs sink with dread at the thought of what it may be. Cronenberg brilliantly creates that mood and unwinds the narrative slowly, allowing us to get to know and care for Tom and his family before the hold up takes place, then shocks us and springs the movie forward in unexpected ways. Like the character of Tom, Cronenberg's movie wears a disguise for it's first act.

When Edie eventually does find out Tom's secret she's obviously devasted she hasn't been married to the man she thought she was all these years. Their lives are a lie. This leads to the most controversial scene of the movie where they have rough, violent sex on the staircase. I'm sure there are many who will find that scene implausible. Why would this woman who just found out she's been lied to all these years by her husband (and also discovered he's a killer) want to sexually ravage him? The answer to that question is in an earlier scene at the beginning of the film where Edie dresses up as a cheerleader to turn Tom on. They're role-playing, except this time Tom's doing the dressing up. As "Joey." She doesn't want to have sex with Tom, but with "Joey," the mysterious and violently dangerous new man in her life. "Joey" becomes Tom's cheerleader costume and one of the many disguises Cronenberg uses to maximum effect in this film.

If this were any other film, the revelation of this gigantic secret would cause the story to deteriorate into a violent, action-adventure territory. Instead, Cronenberg uses the secret to dig deeper into the lives of the characters and what makes them tick. Possibly no one is more affected by this revelation than Tom's son Jack, a shy reserved kid who has now just been thrown into a world of violence and it changes him in ways he probably never thought possible. All of it is manifested perfectly in Ashton Holmes' incredibly subtle performance and leads to one of the best scenes in the film where he finally stands up for himself and Cronenberg puts us in an interesting position where we're not sure whether to cheer or cringe in horror.

To end it all and protect his family Tom ultimately has no choice but to "Joey's" old stomping grounds of Philadelphia to settle the score with his own brother, mob boss Richie Cusak (William Hurt in an Oscar nominated supporting role). Now before going into this film I was informed that Hurt was nominated for Best Supporting Actor despite being in the film for just a couple of scenes.

There have been instances in the past where I felt actors have come close to deserving award recognition despite enjoying just a few minutes of screen time (Rodney Dangerfield's cameo appearance in Natural Born Killers comes to mind), but doubted Hurt could make that much of an impact in so little time. I mean we're already three quarters of the way through the movie at this point. I was wrong. From the second Hurt makes his appearance he creates a character so bizarre and unlike anything you've ever seen that even if you remember nothing else about this movie, his Richie Cusak, for better or worse, will be ingrained in your conciousness forever. He doesn't just chew the scenery, he eats this movie for dinner and he only needs about 10 minutes to do it.

Even at its climax, where the movie turns into a violent, bloody showdown the focus is really on the redemption of Tom Stall. When it's all over, he doesn't go to the river to just wash the blood of his brother off his hands. He's cleansing himself of "Joey Cusak." The final shot of the film is especially brilliant and emotionally moving as Tom returns home with his place waiting for him at the dinner table. Things must go back to normal, but the Stall family knows nothing will ever really be the same again.

I had a tough time believing this was actually adapted from a graphic novel, because the story is so deep and complex. Supposedly the graphic novel deals in much greater detail with Tom's time in the mob and is more of a violent gangster story. Screenwriter Josh Olson made a great move by choosing not to go in that direction but instead examine the themes the novel suggests. In doing so he puts us in the position of the characters, wondering what we would do in a similar situation. It helps that the situation is not far-fetched in the slightest and is completely grounded in the reality Cronenberg establishes within the first half hour. I was convinced everything that happens in this film could really occur.

The performances, particularly of Mortensen and Bello as a seemingly happy all American couple, go a long way in establishing that. Bello might one of the most underrated supporting actresses working today and here she's given her most unglamorous role and convincingly portrays a loving wife who's world has been turned upside down. Mortensen, in the performance of his career, plays a cool, laid back guy yet has no problems flipping on a dime to make us believe there's a man with violent tendencies hiding just beneath the surface. Cronenberg has said in interviews that the title of the film can be interpreted in two ways. As our country's ingrained legacy of violence that we struggle against every day or a human being's capability of violence that resides in all of us. Whichever it is, you can be sure that A History of Violence is a film you'll never forget.