Showing posts with label Elizabeth Olsen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elizabeth Olsen. Show all posts

Monday, June 23, 2014

Oldboy (2013)




Director: Spike Lee
Starring: Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Olsen, Sharlto Copley, Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Imperioli, James Ransone, Max Casella, Pom Klementieff, Lance Reddick
Running Time: 104 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Watching Spike Lee's remake of Park Chan Wook's 2003 South Korean cult classic Oldboy, it occurred to me just how little I remembered about the original. Of course, there's one thing EVERYONE remembers and all eyes were on how Lee would handle or avoid the gigantic, shocking twist that constitutes the core of the story. He's really in a no-win situation. The film can't exist without it, yet if he decides to go there, critics and audiences will call for his head, accusing him of not only remaking a respected classic, but doing so pointlessly by not altering enough of it. Lee handles this thankless dilemma in the best way possible, even if any choice he made would have been wrong in the eyes of the original's rabid admirers. But if that version's so good, why am I having problems remembering it? There's the twist and the famous hammer hallway scene, all wrapped around a story that's fairly unique and daring, not to mention downright disturbing. But I haven't thought of it since. At least until now.

Being no fan of Spike Lee's and counting very few (if any) of his films amongst my favorites, this strangely ranks as one of his most satisfying outings for me. Remakes are a good idea for him since  they're completely out of his comfort zone, reining in his worst tendencies and removing some of the pressure of having his original fingerprints all over it. His creative loyalty must be to the source material rather than his own ideas, which have always been shaky and inconsistent at best.  If the original Oldboy didn't exist, I'm convinced the reception to this film would have been far different. And retaining certain elements from the original doesn't make it "safe, "as its sharp edges remain surprisingly intact. The film definitely won't be confused with your generic, run-of-the-mill sanitized Hollywood thriller, which should have been the biggest fear going in.

It's 1993 and alcoholic ad executive Joe Doucett (Josh Brolin) just lost a major potential client and is arguing with his ex-wife about how little he's been involved in their 3-year-old daughter Mia's life. After arriving in a drunken stupor at the front door of good friend Chucky's (Michael Imperioli) bar late at night, he encounters a woman with a yellow umbrella before being knocked unconscious. He awakens imprisoned in a hotel room with vodka and Chinese food, seeing on TV that he's been framed for the rape and murder of his ex-wife while Mia was put up for adoption. That's all he knows, but it's enough. He quits drinking, starts writing letters to his daughter and gets himself into fighting shape, training for the day he can escape.

Twenty years pass before Joe's let out by his mysteriously deranged captor (Sharlto Copley) whose identity and motives for imprisoning and eventually releasing him remain unknown. But it's a mystery he'll have to solve if he wants to clear his name and be reunited with daughter Mia, who only knows her missing father as a murderer. He gets help comes from Chucky and nurse Marie Sebastian (Elizabeth Olsen), whose own troubled past and weakness for helping tortured souls puts her in harm's way. The clock ticks for Joe, with his only shot at a father-daughter reunion hinging on finding out why this happened, and acclimating himself to life as a fugitive in 2013.

It's easy to forget just how strong a premise this is. While everyone can agree the film's central concept is brilliant and needn't be heavily tampered with, a great deal of suspense comes from speculating just how far Lee's willing to stray from the original film (as well as the Japanese Manga from which that's adapted) when Joe is released. That tension reaches alarming levels in one particular scene, as we're not quite sure yet whether screenwriter Mark Protosevich plans on repeating the shocking twist or going in an entirely different direction.

Without giving too much away, it's almost as if you're watching everything unfold with double awareness, seeing what's actually happening as it is, but with that sick thought in the back of your mind that it may be this other thing that the original pulled. There's legitimate doubt and the movie has fun with this, zigging and zagging in certain ways and offers up a great deal of misdirection to throw viewers off the trail. There's probably no better recent case of a remake actively engaging the audiences' knowledge (or lack thereof) of the original as part of the film experience. It's always arguable whether certain things work or don't, but you can't say it doesn't do so equally for both familiar and uninitiated viewers.

There's a twenty year imprisonment here as opposed to the fifteen year term the protagonist endures in the 2003 version and that's important only in the sense that it brings us into the present time and makes Joe's disconnect to the real world a little more pronounced. The early scenes of Joe's plight are particularly gripping, giving us an even better idea of the passage of time and hammering home key cultural touchstones via the media. It also takes full advantage of the protagonist waking up to a society that's technologically moved past him, as he's forced to adjust to iphones having taken the place of the beepers and phone booths of the early nineties. That he has no idea how to use his means of communication with his captor makes for some funny scenes, making us stop and consider a fairly recent advance that's already taken for granted.

The fight scenes are deliriously entertaining and well choreographed but I'd be lying if I said the big hallway hammer sequence comes off as well as it did in the original. It works on its own terms and Brolin is great at selling it, but there was something about the lighting and cramped corridor that made the staging of the original extra special. Lee was probably wise in not attempting to exactly duplicate it, as Gus Van Sant found out the hard way with his shower scene reenactment in 1998's Psycho. He also makes very clever, original use of flashbacks that could have felt especially tired since it's a story some are already familiar with. He actually has the characters in the present as somewhat active participants in the past events, which often makes for a striking and creepy visual. Cinematographer Sean Bobbit does a great job here, as images linger in the mind's eye long after the credits have rolled.

Brolin was the right choice to play Joe, as he expertly conveys a silent anger befitting a fairly complex character. He's also believably intimidating as a brutish tough guy, despite the quite sadness over his daughter being what stands out most in the performance. Though we know from the original  that Elizabeth Olsen's Marie will likely be important, she would have been anyway since Olsen is so captivating and capable in the role. Clearly nursing some serious emotional wounds from her past, she has her guard constantly up with this guy, yet still can't help falling in. Her involvement isn't a coincidence but just how it isn't keeps you guessing all the way, with Olsen's natural instincts as a performer further solidifying her status amongst the most talented of young actresses.

Sharlto Copley's performance is absolutely insane and next level as far as movie baddies go. There's simply no other way to put it. This is how it's done. Creepy, scary, menacing and dangerous, his character is the most original creation in the film, gloriously hitting his peak in the final scenes when the truth comes out. The screen time may be limited, but he chews up each scene like a madman.  Samuel L. Jackson's presence as the henchman doing Copley's character's bidding is less welcome, if only because it feels like a performance we've seen from him countless time before. It's not his fault he's been typecast in this badass persona but at least he's collecting his paycheck for a quality film this time, in a remake that doesn't feel like a cash-in.

A South Korean film is bound to have elements that appeal primarily to that country's audience and leave us scratching our heads, while the reverse is also true. So adapting a foreign thriller for American audiences is far from "pointless" when considering different cultures. That's true here in a script incorporating media obsession with a late act development that calls to mind something out of The Truman Show. And unless I'm mistaken, it seems we get a closer look at the inner workings behind Joe's actual imprisonment and release, in a way not totally dissimilar to the presentation of the CRS organization in The Game. This is largely one calculated game in which Joe is the playing piece and his unknown adversary controls the board. This is all Lee and Protosevich updating the material just enough to make an impact, while still preserving the creative integrity and themes of the original.  

This couldn't have turned out better, while still representing Spike Lee at the top of his game, excelling in a genre few figured he could. Supposedly, there's an unreleased 144-minute director's cut of this movie that may not see the light of day but it's difficult getting too excited knowing how strong and tight this is in its current state. That Steven Spielberg and Will Smith were originally attached to this project is perplexing, as if either would ever compromise their squeeky clean images or bank accounts by tackling it. But it's even more doubtful they'd be able to read the last few pages without fainting, calling for changes that would neuter the entire project before cameras even started rolling. Nothing Lee does here feels sanitized and the eighty or ninety something percent who haven't seen the original will be shocked out of their minds a mainstream studio released it. For the rest, its biggest crime is being a remake of Oldboy.
           

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Liberal Arts


Director: Josh Radnor
Starring: Josh Radnor, Elizabeth Olsen, Richard Jenkins, Allison Janey, John Magaro, Elizabeth Reaser, Zac Efron
Running Time: 97 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Any fears that writer/director/star Josh Radnor's Liberal Arts would hit uncomfortably close to home for me wiped away during the first half-hour when 35 year-old New York college admissions counselor Jesse Fisher (Radnor) laughs and rolls around in the grass upon returning to his alma mater in Ohio. It's a relief when the movie does eventually hit on the truth that returning to your college at any point after graduating can be awkward, uncomfortable experience that isn't the slightest bit welcoming despite how much you may have enjoyed your time there. Once college is over, it's done. The best case scenario is you take what you've learned and the experiences you've had and carry them with you for the rest of your days to positively inform your actions and decisions as an adult. That's not exactly what's happened for Jesse (Radnor) who jumps at the opportunity to return for the retirement ceremony of his second favorite professor, Peter Holberg (Richard Jenkins).

Obsessed with literature and the arts, Jesse's mind had never really left so returning is almost a formality at this point. But it won't be the same. Not by a long shot. It's to Radnor's credit that his script acknowledges that but then somewhere along the line it loses me and it starts to become a movie written by someone trying to send a message rather than stay true to the characters.We knew the message we were going to get going in and it's unquestionably the right one, but I just didn't care for the way Radnor delivered it. What starts as a highly relatable personal journey of self-discovery ends up giving too many easy answers for the more challenging questions the film intelligently asks.

At times I felt almost bludgeoned over the head with its black and white philosophizing which is a real a shame considering the more honest feelings it subtly invoked. It kind of becomes a mess in the third act, but at least it's a fascinating one that has something to say and proves that Radnor definitely has a promising filmmaking future ahead of him when (if?) How I Met Your Mother ends. His forseeable acting future could be taken up playing characters within in the same general realm of his lovelorn, super sensitive Ted Mosby but that's okay. I really like that character and consider Radnor a likable, underrated actor capable of delivering performances that may end up being even better than the really good one he gives here. Because of the rather obvious similarities between Ted and Jesse you wouldn't necessarily be wrong in calling this Ted Mosby: The Movie, and from where I sit there's nothing necessarily wrong with that either. Nor is the fact that Elisabeth Olsen's Zibby ends up being the latest addition into the "Manic Pixie Dream Girl" canon. If you look up the very definition of the term there's likely to be a picture of  Zibby right there next to it as it would be difficult to find a character that better exemplifies that infamous (and sometimes unfairly derided) movie trope. But let's be honest. Did anyone really expect Radnor to make a film without a MPDG? I'd almost be disappointed if he didn't. What I don't like are those characters being discarded by the screenplay once they've served their purpose, rendering them practically pointless aside from their role as a life message deliverer.

Certain character types exist because they work when effectively executed and the real reason the MPDG gets more flack than other more insulting stereotypes has to do with the fact that it hits a rather embarrassing nerve for guys, depicting them as insecure and needing to have their lives saved by a woman. Or rather a girl. A free-spirited one who doesn't care a single iota about any issues or flaws they may have. Like any screenwriting creation it's shaded in a certain amount of truth. And also like any, there are good and bad depictions that primarily depend on the integrity of the surrounding narrative. As far as these things go, Olsen's Libby, the 19-year-old daughter of one of Prof. Holberg's colleagues, makes for a textbook MPDG who's smart, pretty and seemingly mature beyond her years. And that's not to mention the fact she writes letters. On actual paper. A real keeper. The only drawback is that she reads Twilight, which horrifies Jesse (and me). While I don't recall that the books are never implicitly mentioned by name it's clear what they're talking about and it soon becomes this hilarious symbol of their age difference and an opportunity for Radnor to go into full Mosby mode, giving a snobby, pretentious speech about how its popularity represents America's declining tastes. It's a fun scene.

Compelling, the film burns through much of its story in the first 25 minutes only to pleasantly reveal that it's just getting started. The meat of their relationship takes place by mail, making it even harder for Jesse to stay away this time. They do seem made for each other which is why it gets so frustrating when Radnor the writer attempts to undercut that in favor of delivering his well-intentioned, but poorly realized message. While there's undeniably a lot wrong with a 35 year-old guy getting involved with a 19-year-old girl and creeping around the dorm and attending parties, Radnor underestimates how good he and Olsen are together at selling something that comes off as the complete opposite. So attempts later to turn this into an American Beauty or Lolita-like situation fall flat because certain plot developments feel overwritten. And it sure doesn't help the cause of his goal that the two of them look around the same age despite Radnor being considerably older. At points the movie is so relentless in its morality it seems like he's trying to have his cake and eat it too by depicting this magical, once-in-a-lifetime connection before telling audiences, "Oh wait, shame on YOU. It's wrong." Without spoiling too much, I'll say that Jesse does (or rather doesn't) do something I just couldn't buy. Well, I could buy it, but it felt manufactured to teach a lesson and stands in stark contrast to his actions leading up it. Then sub-plots are piled on top of it and an entire separate story is tagged on involving a bookstore clerk (played by Elizabeth Reaser) that's actually kind of insulting in its obviousness.

The movie's best scenes are on campus with Jesse and Zibby talking and just hanging out. It feels real and Olsen proves she's capable of going to the opposite end of the spectrum as the brainwashed cult follower she darkly portrayed in Martha Marcy May Marlene. As a director Radnor perfectly captures the very specific feeling of a small liberal arts school at that point in someone's life without missing a beat, as well as the wild array of supporting characters you'd encounter there. The great Richard Jenkins serves as the film's sturdy anchor with his heartfelt performance as the retiring Holberg, who's not quite sure he's ready to leave or what to do with himself once he does. His attempts to hang on as long as possible mirror Jesse's and their bond feels like a honest one. Far less successful is a sub-plot involving his old romantics professor, the cold, detached Judith Fairfield (Allison Janey) who seems to exist as a bitch on wheels plot device to provide final act shock value rather than an actual human. Surprisingly, Zac Efron is really effective in a small role as a campus stoner trying to get Jesse to embrace the spontaneity of life while John Magaro impresses as a depressed, emotionally disturbed student he takes under his wing.

Radnor supposedly based this script off a visit he made to his alma mater of Kenyon College in Ohio while promoting his directorial debut a couple of years ago and the strange feelings it invoked. I almost feel guilty not recommending it since I'm a big fan of the actor and it definitely strikes a chord but a story like this can't for a second feel overplotted and needs some room to breathe. All the scenes with he and Olsen are gold and after the first 40 minutes or so you really think this is going somewhere deep, only to just pull back and handle everything with kid gloves.As unfair as it is, I couldn't help but compare it to the all-time greatest college-set dramedy, 2000's Wonder Boys, which tackles a similar topic, but appears to do so effortlessly by showing instead of telling. Or in this case lecturing. While it all doesn't quite come together, I'd still rather watch this again than some better movies that don't screw up as interestingly. It's at least clear coming out of this that Radnor will at some point make a great film. This just wasn't it, too often coming across as overly sensitive and eager to please as its protagonist.

Sunday, August 5, 2012

Martha Marcy May Marlene


Director: Sean Durkin
Starring: Elizabeth Olsen, John Hawkes, Sarah Paulson, Hugh Dancy, Brady Corbet
Running Time: 102 min.
Rating: R

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

There's encouraging news for anyone who finds themselves indoctrinated into a cult. If you want out, you can just leave. We find that out in the bizarre opening scene of Sean Durkin's tongue-twistingly titled Martha Marcy May Marlene. In it, Martha (Elizabeth Olsen) decides she's had enough of this abusive lifestyle in New York's Catskill Mountains,"escaping" to a nearby diner to phone her sister, Lucy (Sarah Paulson). She picks Martha up and takes her to the lake house she shares in Connecticut with her husband Ted (Hugh Dancy). She neglects to mention the cult, but it's not like she has to. They'll know eventually. This opening is the most interesting sequence in a film filled with a lot of uninteresting ones, if only because the idea one could leave a cult at their own accord is a detail we've never been privy to before. So right away we know this won't be about Scientology. That movie doesn't come out for another month anyway. As for the rest of the film's details? They're less surprising.

This film's a strange case since it's easy pointing out what didn't quite work, but much tougher coming up with solutions that could have improved it. Its subject matter, psychology and seventies-style aesthetic should have made this a terrifying barn burner, but instead it doesn't seem to tell us anything we didn't already know. As awful as it is to say that a film featuring rape, murder, robbery and brainwashing offers up very few revelations about what's already widely assumed about cults, it's true. Nothing new here. The same could be said of the protagonist's psychological unraveling. Cutting between flashbacks and present day to simulate Martha's fractured psyche, we what her life was like in the cult as she's introduced to its enigmatic leader Patrick (John Hawkes) and taken in by his promises of a self-sufficient lifestyle. In the creepiest, most arresting scene, he serenades her with "Marcy's Song," and insists she go by the name Marcy May. Her sexual initiation is brutal.

Hawkes is one of our greatest character actors so it only makes sense he would tear into this role with gusto and he does. To a point. But I couldn't help but wish he had more screen time so he could cast an even larger shadow. His scenes are brilliant but feels like a teaser for something that could have been explored further. I understand the low-key, slow-burn approach, but eventually you have to pull the trigger and Durkin's failure to do that doesn't give Hawkes the meaty material he needs. He doesn't need to immediately serve Kool-Aid or go on a killing spree but something extreme or surprising certainly seemed called for when dealing with this kind of material. It doesn't help that the mostly intriguing cult flashback scenes is forced to share time with the clumsier present-day storyline.

Martha's sister and brother-in-law are depicted as complete dopes who somehow fail to notice a mentally ill person desperately needing help is living under their roof until it's almost literally too late. As if sleeping on the floor, swimming in the nude, and having panic attacks aren't enough to send up red flags. It's unreasonable to expect them to know the exact details of her situation, but instead of hearing her cries for help, they're yelling at her for being selfish. When Martha tells her sister Lucy she'd make a terrible mother, it feels like one of the few moments of clarity in the entire picture. If she can't even recognize such a blatantly obvious mental problem with her own sister, what does that mean for her potential parenting skills?

Elizabeth Olsen (younger sister of Mary-Kate and Ashley) delivers a borderline Oscar-worthy performance as Martha, even if the screenplay seems to beat the same drum throughout. It's an effective portrayal of someone who seems to be battling paranoia, post traumatic stress disorder, and schizophrenia all at once and is losing. Martha, as do we at points during the story, contemplate which life was worse for her. Abuse became her new normal, inflicted by someone who preys on the young and vulnerable. And now that it's over, real world problems begin. Is Durkin implying that being a slave to society is less preferable than being a cult member?  Olsen's definitely a real find, and of all my issues with this, she'd never be listed among them. What works does so because of her quiet realism, but it's also easy to see how this came and went unnoticed at awards time. The material just wasn't there to support it, and when the film's taken as a whole, it's somewhat forgettable and unimaginative. Taken in pieces though, it's tougher to shake. Especially the final scene. It does succeed in making you think. resulting in a film that's worth another watch, but has a personality as fractured as its title character's