The Trial of the Chicago 7

Director: Aaron Sorkin
Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Alex Sharp, Sacha Baron Cohen, Jeremy Strong, John Carroll Lynch, Noah Robbins, Daniel Flaherty, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, Kelvin Harrison Jr., Mark Rylance, Ben Shenkman, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, J.C. MacKenzie, Frank Langella, Michael Keaton 
Running Time: 130 min.
Rating: R 

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

If it's become customary to refer to any controversial or contested trial that captivates the public's imagination as a "circus," 1969's trial of a group of seven anti-Vietnam protesters charged with conspiracy and crossing state lines with the intention of inciting a riot at the Democratic National Convention feels like the starting point. That Netflix's The Trial of the Chicago 7 is written and directed by Aaron Sorkin pretty much insures that we won't be subjected to a dry, biographical history lesson recounting the timeline of events surrounding this pivotal event. But there's this feeling that even if he did take that more conventional approach, the material would still be inescapably compelling and entertaining enough on its own merits. But this is Sorkin we're talking about so it's not like anyone is expecting the writer behind The Social Network and The West Wing to phone it in. And sure enough, he doesn't.

Better recognized for having other filmmakers adapt his sometimes polarizing perspectives, there was a question mark surrounding how Sorkin's decisions behind the camera would affect this material given that this is only the Oscar-winning screenwriter's second directorial feature. So while we'll never know how his script could have turned out in other hands, it's tough to care when the version we do get leaves this much of an impression. With an all-star cast at his disposal, he manages to give this multi-faceted, politically and ethically complicated true story the dramatic heft it deserves while expertly balancing many of its comedic, absurdist moments. And there's no doubt that this trial is absurd on every possible level, made that much more remarkable by the fact that much of what we see did actually happen, if you give or take some details and grant the usual degree of creative license.

It's August 1968 when Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) president Tom Hayden (Eddie Redmayne) and community organizer Rennie Davis (Alex Sharp), Youth International Party (Yippie) founders Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen) and Jerry Rubin (Jeremy Strong), along with Vietnam mobilization leader (MOBE) David Dellinger (John Carroll Lynch) and anti-war activists Lee Weiner (Noah Robbins) and John Froines (Daniel Flaherty) protest at the Democratic Convention in Chicago, kicking off a chain of events that results in violent rioting. Five months later, all of them, in addition to an eighth defendant, Black Panther party co-founder Bobby Seale (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II), are charged and eventually put on trial, with the Attorney General appointing young, idealstic lawyer Richard Schultz (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and veteran litigator Tom Foran (J.C. MacKenzie) as prosecutors for the case. 

With the extremely prejudiced Judge Julius Hoffman (Frank Langella) on the bench, defense attorneys William Kunstler (Mark Rylance) and Leonard Weinglass (Ben Shankman) attempt to represent their rather uncontrollable clients, most notably the disruptive Abbie Hoffman and self-professed non-client Seale, who forgoes legal counsel to instead receive advice from Illinois Black Panther chapter chairman Fred Hampton (Kelvin Harrison Jr.) in court. With the events of that summer coming into clearer view through key witness testimony, the proceedings soon careen out of control, with Judge Hoffman's controversial, biased rulings making it impossible for the defendants to receive a fair trial, exposing the flaws within the government, judicial system, and further opening the wounds of political and racial unrest throughout the country. 

As far as the nation's most ridiculous trials go, this one's right up there, as the film starts in an almost jarringly scattershot montage style, introducing us to the key principle players in court, while interspersing often uproariously comical legal scenes with the fateful events that took place in Chicago. Tonally, this isn't the easiest balancing act, but Sorkin masters it, establishing all of their out-sized personalities and motivations, with Cohen's Abbie Hoffman and Strong's Jerry Rubin being the most radicalized of the group, easily getting under the quick-tempered, frustratingly illogical judge's skin. An early highlight sees Judge Hoffman constantly interrupting Schultz's opening statement to reiterate that there's "no relation" between he and the defendant. If ever there was a mix-up no one would ever make, it's that. 

This entire film really belongs to an award-worthy Langella, who just nails the staggering incompetence of a man who makes Judge Lance Ito look like RBG. Senile, racist and mind-blowingly ignorant, his actions are hilariously inept until it's obvious the stakes have gotten too high and, we're left to process the immense consequences of this eventual verdict, along with all the potential ramifications surrounding that. It's funny until it isn't, and that line's very visible once it's crossed. Much of the turmoil concerns the eighth defendent, Bobby Seals, who besides probably not even deserving of being there, is shut down in escalatingly humiliating ways by the judge, reaching a fever pitch toward the trial's end. You almost lose track of how many charges of contempt are laid down, especially on Mark Rylance's defense attorney, who eventually has enough. 

Everyone's had enough, with some faring better than others at hiding it. The two bedrocks who seem incapable of breaking are Redmayne's logically level-headed Tom Hayden and JGL's Schultz, the latter of whom isn't ignorant to the shenanigans unfolding while still retaining his loyalty to the law. A park encounter midway through with him and Hoffman and Rubin truly reveals what type of a person he is, conistent with his character in court and a reminder that boths sides are being professionally and personally victimized by this sham of a trial, regardless of how much weight the charges carry. There's also a brief, but great performance from Michael Keaton as former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who may or may not turn out to be the star witness the defense is banking on.

The flashbacks to the actual riots are powerfully filmed by Sorkin, especially revealing in terms of what it says about Hayden, who is intentionally portrayed as kind of a milquetoast character up to that point. This changes in a major way toward the end, leading into an over-the-top, but still immensely satisfying resolution that seems completely called for whether or not that's how things exactly unfolded in reality. It works for this film, which is really all that matters. 

The elephant in the room is that the timing couldn't be appropriate or strangely uncomfortable, reminding us just how little has actually changed in the decades since. It's no longer a question of whether something like this could happen again, or even worse. It has and is. That thought never really leaves you as these events unfold, holding up a mirror to a very specific time and place in our culture and political climate that still very much resonates. It's an unpredictably wild trip, and even if you know how it all pans out, it's difficult to still not become enraptured in the proceedings and eventual fallout for these characters. Of course, so much of that impact stems from the fact that it's wrestling with issues still haven't been fully resolved over half a century later.

7500

Director: Patrick Vollrath
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Omid Memar, Aylin Tezel, Carlo Kitzlinger, Murathan Muslu, Aurélie Thépaut, Paul Wollin
Runing Time: 92 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)
 
After a four year hiatus, Joseph Gordon-Levitt returns to the screen in Amazon Studios' self-contained hijacking thriller, 7500, a well put together, highly competent action excursion made in a similar vein to United 93. Putting on no false pretenses, writer and first-time feature director Patrick Vollrath makes it clear early he's under no illusions that this will in any way be a mainstream air disaster movie meant to "entertain" audiences with fantastic shootouts, incredible CGI, or villains being sucked into a plane's engine. We already have Liam Neeson movies for that. In his feature directorial debut, Vollrath instead gains points for both honesty and consistency, entering a pact to show a methodical, almost documentary-like account of every pilot and passenger's worst nightmare, without violating common sense. That's harder than it seems, and some more impatient viewers probably won't be along for the ride, which is a shame since the exceptionally tight screenplay builds to a sort of claustrophobic chaos that recalls other single location exercises like Phone Booth, Buried, Frozen and ATM. But mostly to its advantage, this takes itself a little more seriously.

You may as well title this, Cockpit, as all the action that takes place over its running time occurs within that constricted location, with a co-pilot suddenly forced to make life or death decisions when trapped in worst case scenario. There's initially a low-key rythem to the proceedings, but once the inciting event occurs and the focus shifts to JGL having to pull off a fairly challenging role with intelligence and believability, it becomes a pressure cooker. It isn't necessarily full of twists or turns, but is instead a well-paced, efficiently made pot boiler that makes logical sense, proving to be the ideal comeback vehicle for its star, while hopefully serving as a warm-up for another upcoming round of great performances in higher profile projects for him. Due to his work and a tight script, it all comes together surprisingly well, making for a tense 91 minutes.

Co-pilot Tobias Ellis (Gordon-Levitt) is preparing to embark on a flight from Berlin to Paris with pilot Captain Michael Lutzmann (Carlo Kitzinger), with both exchanging pleasantries while doing their checks before take-off. Tobias' girlfriend, Gökce (Aylin Tezel) is one of the flight attendants on board, as well as the mother of their son, and after a brief debate about which school he should attend, they're airborne. Once in flight, the cockpit is infiltrated by terrorist hijackers, who stab Lutzmann to death, while seriously injuring Tobias, who manages to fight them off long enough to lock two out of the cockpit while tying up their unconcious partner in the jumpseat.

After unsuccessfully attempting to revive the pilot as the terrorists bang violently on the cockpit door to get in, Tobias gets in touch with ground control, who inform him he'll need to make an emergency landing and warn not open that door for any reason, even as the hijackers threaten to execute hostages if he doesn't. With the PA system serving as his only conduit to the cabin, he must instruct the passengers while negotiating for their lives with the youngest terrorist, Vedat (Omid Memar), with whom he begins to form a connection. But they want control of the plane, and will stop at nothing to insure Tobias doesn't safely land it. 

The opening close circuit airport footage of the suspicious men who will eventually be revealed as the hijackers announces right up front the kind of film Vollrath intends to make. And he mostly does just that, emphasizing the real-life stakes of the situation with a real-time, stripped down approach free of the usual bells and whistles you'd find in a cheesy thriller. It's much appreciated, especially when dealing with the early interplay between Tobias and Lutzmann, who both seem like friendly, competent pilots who respectfully converse like normal professionals, their focus remaining entirely on getting to their destination. No one's drunk, popping pills, having an affair, going through a divorce, or secretly working with the terrorists, as we've come to expect from action scripts of this sort. With just enough to summise these are decent, hard-working men with families and no more, the hijacking feels even more like like a genuine interruption of their everyday lives, without any other plot device getting in the way of the trauma at hand. And other than fleeting glimpses on the cockpit's monitor, we don't actually see the passengers or cabin, conveying the attack as more immediate and personal for the pilots.

For a while it feels very real, especially when Tobias has to make some serious ethical decisions when the lives of the passengers and flight crew are threatened. Of course, his girlfriend is one of them, and when she's inevitably introduced into the equation the movie starts to go a little more over-the-top. But JGL keeps it grounded as an everyman who's understandably overwhelmed and scared, but clearly determined to do the right thing to get everyone out of this. He rarely wavers on exactly what that is, while remaining flexible enough to make adjustments to that game plan along the way. Everything taking place within only a few feet of space only serves to heighten the claustrophobia within the cockpit as it becomes clear that, despite the many lives in peril, it all rides on Tobias' actions and reactions. 

While movie's synopsis heavily emphasizes the commonalities Tobias discovers he shares with one of his hijackers, it's at best an overstated aspect of the story and at worst a cautious, preemptive apology for depicting foreign terrorists. It's almost as if out of guilt, Vollrath attempt to elicit an enormous amount of sympathy for one of them. He's well-played by Omid Memar in an appropriately panicked performance that adds a lot of juice to the third act as he battles his conscience and fear, but a transparent attempt at trying to show that terrorists are "just like us" is beneath a film as smart as this. That and that old trick of convincing the hijacker they're refueling the plane for their escape are about the only reminders of a popcorn-style crowd pleaser.

So steeped in his commitment to docu-style realism, we don't put it past Vollrath to kill off his protagonist, whom Gordon-Levitt plays with enough desperation and single-minded focus to sell the idea of him saving the lives of these passengers at the expense of his own. But the presentation of the young, frightened hijacker does pretty much foreshadow an ending that occurs exactly how and where it should, heightening the feeling that what we're watching takes place in real time. There's a sense of relief and satisfaction for viewers when that door finally opens, and what could have easily been another routine action entry overperforms, providing a solid template for how this kind of thriller can be executed under the most disciplined of circumstances.    

Snowden

Director: Oliver Stone
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Shailene Woodley, Melissa Leo, Zachary Quinto, Tom Wilkinson, Scott Eastwood, Logan Marshall-Green, Timothy Olyphant, Ben Schnetzer, LaKeith Lee Stanfield,
Rhys Ifans, Nicolas Cage
Running Time: 134 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

At what cost? That question runs through Oliver Stone's Snowden, and the controversial figure around which his film revolves, government whistleblower Edward Snowden, who in 2013 infamously leaked to the media classified information on mass surveillance being conducted by the National Security Agency. Such a hot-button topic would seem ideal for Stone, the maverick director and Vietnam vet who's made a career of tackling socially and politically charged material with an "in your face" style in films like JFK, Natural Born Killers and Nixon. But that Oliver Stone is gone. Already showing signs of it with his relatively fair, if even somewhat sympathetic, treatment of President George W. Bush in 2008's underrated W., Stone's interest in pushing buttons has diminished considerably in recent years. On one hand, it's a shame since it's never been more necessary, but on another, it's easy to argue he's earned the right and can't be expected to keep repeating himself. A straightforward but exceptionally well made biopic, Snowden represents more of this new, slicker, mainstream Stone uninterested in courting "controversy."

What this does contain is ideas and a sense of urgency surrounding an issue that shouldn't really be all that controversial on paper. It's pretty simple and boils down to whether you feel the moral price of our security is worth the cost of giving up a certain amount of our constitutional freedom. But where you stand on that issue may determine not only to your personal feelings on Snowden and his actions, but perhaps even which side of the political fence you fall. In that sense, it's touchy, and the film does a compelling job dramatizing both sides of that ethical dilemma, even in scenes you wouldn't expect. It also contains a romantic subplot that doesn't feel like one, less a throwaway than a natural and pertinent extension of the main plot, featuring characters whose futures we care about despite our familiarity with the outcome.

As tame as Stone's become, anyone expecting complete impartiality won't get it, with the screenplay clearly showing an allegiance to Snowden, played by a scarily well cast Joseph Gordon-Levitt as kind of a tragic antihero to be revered and celebrated for his sacrifices. Make of Stone's stance what you will, but anyone that shocked or even offended the government has these capabilities probably have their heads buried in the sand. Snowden wasn't telling us anything we really shouldn't have assumed already. The real question was whether he had the right to do it and the potentially dangerous precedent that's set when someone does.

Based on two non-fiction books covering the events, the film picks up in 2013, with Ed Snowden (Gordon-Levitt) hauled up in a Hong Kong hotel room secretly meeting with documentarian and Citizenfour director Laura Poitras (Melissa Leo) and journalists Glen Greenwald (Zachary Quinto) and Ewen MacAskell (Tom Wilkinson). Preparing to spill his guts to them while simultaneously releasing of the NSA's top secret surveillance data to the media, flashbacks paint a complicated picture of Snowden, an antisocial conservative who finds himself working for the cyberwarfare arm of the CIA after being discharged from the Army.

Snowden picks up the intricacies quickly, becoming a star student of  Deputy Director Corbin O'Brian (Rhys Ifans) before moving on to the NSA and making some disturbing discoveries about how the government is acquiring data and potentially violating citizens' rights. As his disillusionment grows, the only constant is free-spirited girlfriend Lindsay Mills (Shailene Woodley), an Obama-supporting liberal who tolerates his opposing political beliefs up to the point where even he starts to doubt them, the stress of his job eventually threatening his health and that of their relationship. Armed with incriminating evidence that can shake the U.S. government to its core, Snowden makes a fateful decision, insuring that his life will never be the same again.

A lot of information is dispensed about Snowden's background and what there is to glean of his personality, which can best be described as "robotic." It's an adjective he's even assigned to himself, as he often comes across as someone suffering from some kind of anti-social disorder, demonstrating behaviors that don't seem all that dissimilar from Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network. While lacking that character's worst narcissistic tendencies, Snowden's intelligence is undeniably his worst enemy at times, as well as his most dangerous weapon. Holding political beliefs in direct opposition to what he eventually does, his time in the CIA and NSA trenches establish him as an important cog in the government's machine, his cyber skills essential in their burgeoning electronic surveillance program. But as his climbs the ranks, the more he sees, and the more his anxiety and guilt grow.

This isn't an easy role to play as far as real-life public figures go, or even otherwise, as in the place of a distinctive personality, Snowden is imbued with a rote, mechanical sense of duty that's eventually shaken. Lowering an already deep voice a few octaves lower, JGL has the flat affect and emotionless verbal delivery down pat and looks enough like his subject, but where he really excels in capturing Snowden's inner struggle. The government's actions contradict everything he signed on for but risking the comfort and security his occupation provides Lindsay and himself in the name of "doing what's right" may not be worth the price.

It's a credit to Stone and Kieran Fitzgerld's screenplay that Edward's relationship with Lindsay isn't treated as an afterthought with the latter having thoughts, complaints and opinions worth listening to and fighting about, as an impressive Woodley confidently sidesteps the trap that too often marginalizes girlfriend characters in male-driven biopics. Strong in a role she seems ideal for, audiences will undoubtedly draw parallels between the actress and the idealistic hippie she portrays. The presentation of Snowden as a selfish, thoughtless boyfriend consumed by his job could be viewed as the director's conscious effort to pacify potential critics of the character's fairly reverent treatment throughout. Or it could just simply be true.       

The action doesn't necessarily move at a breakneck pace and we aren't marveling at the editing as we would with Stone's classic 80's and 90's offerings. And while crisply photographed by Academy Award-winning cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle, you'd be hard-pressed to find supporters championing it for a spot in the top tier of the director's best looking films. It speaks volumes that even Nicolas Cage's virtual cameo (as a U.S. Intelligence official) isn't crazy at all, perfectly serving its function like most of the other moving parts in the story. And that's completely fine. Stone trusts the extraordinary subject do most of the work, recounting events presumably as they happened with little space for editorializing.

Toward its third act, it fully evolves into this gripping thriller, culminating in a jarring transition that melds real life and movies in a way you've never quite seen before in a biopic, making you appreciate the lead performance that much more. Controversy isn't everything when it can be just as effective taking a logically straightforward approach to telling an exceptional story. With Snowden it rings especially true, as the scariest part of it all is just how flawed and relatable the protagonist is, offering up the very real possibility that anyone placed into similar circumstances are capable of making the choices he did.
                   

Don Jon

Director: Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Scarlett Johansson, Julianne Moore, Tony Danza, Glenne Headly, Brie Larson, Rob Brown, Jeremy Luke
Running Time: 90 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

There's a point in Don Jon when the womanizing title character is roped into taking his date to a formulaic romantic comedy starring Anne Hathaway and Channing Tatum. It's especially ironic considering this film could have easily turned into one of those in less capable hands than Joseph Gordon-Levitt's, whose directorial/screenwriting debut (and the first feature under his HitRecord production banner) has some clever, surprising things to say about sex and relationships, at least by Hollywood standards. The conclusion it comes to and the paces he takes to get there proves he could have as much potential behind the camera as in front of it, which is no small praise. While the genre and topic it covers would definitely seem to be a strange choice for the actor better known for dark, gritty dramas, the story confounds expectations, in addition to providing plenty of laughs. And in doing that, he also manages to write himself a role that's as big a departure as anything he's recently done as an actor.

In his own words, New Jersey native Jon Martello cares about only a few things: "my body, my pad, my ride, my family, my church, my boys, my girls, my porn." If he were to rank them in order of preference, that last one would come in pretty high. Despite having a very active sex life, Jon's addiction to online pornography is out of control, with his most controversial claim being that he could never get the pleasure out of sex that he does from masturbating to porn. Through voiceovers and some really clever editing, he explains in detail exactly why. It's only when out clubbing with his friends and rating girls that he encounters Barbara Sugarman (Scarlett Johansson), who isn't surrendering to his charms without a fight. And even when she does, seems determined to reform him, forcing Jon to work for it and play the long game to win her over

It's clear early Barbara isn't just another one of his conquests, as she holds an unflinchingly traditional view of relationships. She even convinces him to enroll in school, where he meets Esther (Julianne Moore) a kooky, highly emotional middle-aged woman who can't seem to leave him alone. Now finally with a girlfriend that earns the approval of his doting mother Angela (Glenne Headley) and sports-obsessed, profanity spewing father, Jon Sr. (Tony Danza!), he has to hope she'll be able to overloook his escalating porn addiction, which is threatening to destroy their relationship.

Don Jon exposes a lot of uncomfortable truths about how men and women behave in relationships, and why, despite the best of intentions, they frequently fail to make it work. This is essentially about two characters in a fantasy, with the addition of a third, who seems crazy but is actually the only one clued into reality. Aside from some of the porn footage interspersed throughout the picture to depict the extent of Jon's addiction, the full-fledged nudity is actually kept at a minimum, which had to be intentional given that this isn't what this is about. Initially we hear some pretty crazy things via Jon's voiceover that most other movies (especially mainstream rom-coms) wouldn't even touch. And we see it and hear it in graphic detail, which is kind of disturbing since it hits on some uncomfortable truths neither gender would publicly admit to. Some of it is crude and unfair, but a lot of it just simply stems from the title character's inability to connect with women on any level but the physical. And according to him, he isn't even finding enough fulfillment in that area either.

Whether it's porn online or a girlfriend, sex for Jon is a one-sided, masturbatory exercise in getting himself off and there's nothing even Barbara can do to change that. She's just as deluded and into herself as he is, extracting from him what she needs to attain the perfect, unrealistic life depicted in the goofy romantic comedies she loves. Operating under the false guise of class and stability, she thinks Jon's job is to provide it to her, with no questions asked. That in exchange for sex is why this relationship is bad news from the get-go. It makes sense she'd be repulsed by his porn addiction and he'd be repulsed by her freaking out over discovering it. Neither character is particularly likable in the least, but they are complex, with both actors giving the audience a window to their motivations.

JGL writes himself a role that reminds us that before all the dramatic acclaim, he was (and still is) a gifted comic presence. He infuses Jon with considerably more substance than the character's misogynist musclehead persona initially suggests while Johansson has the tough task of playing someone who's integrity is first underestimated then greatly overestimated by the end of the picture. For some reason, I was surprised at every turn with what happened with Julianne Moore's Esther and her ultimate purpose in the story. It's an odd part, yet she has every bit of it covered without missing a beat, with a role more significant and interesting than anything the trailers and commercials hinted at. Moore, the pro she is, finds a way to make it even more intriguing than that by slowly revealing this crazy, nosy, disheveled woman as someone wise and worth paying attention to.  

Reunited with his Angels in the Outfield co-star, the great Tony Danza steals scenes as Jon's overexcited dad, even more impressed with the hotness level of his son's new girlfriend than the score in whatever game he's watching during dinner. It's a treat anytime the too frequently underseen sitcom hero, boxer, teacher, author and former talk show host appears in anything, so it's a relief when Danza's let completely loose to entertain like only he can, providing most of the film's biggest laughs. And in a nearly wordless, dialogue-free performance, Brie Larson's face may be buried in her phone texting as Jon's sister, Monica, but conveys more with an occasional eye roll or sideways glance than most other actresses would with pages of dialogue. She knows exactly what's happening and we know when she does eventually speak, it'll be important. Compare this to most other rom-coms, which do have characters text throughout the entire film. But not as a joke or commentary. They really have no clue what's going on.

It isn't often that you have no idea where a rom-com is going but this one caught me completely off guard with its u-turn midway through. What starts out looking like it's going to be an extended episode of The Jersey Shore gives way to something more profound, as its clear JGL is using these character types for a reason. The movie is wiser and funnier than it lets on, leaving much of the work to the audience in figuring out how. While this isn't as strong a film, it does make an unlikely companion piece to (500) Days of Summer, hitting a few of the same notes, but in a more graphic way that doesn't go down quite as easily. Both are about two characters living in relationship fantasy land. While Don Jon still seems like a strange choice for JGL's directorial debut, there's no question he makes very tricky material work when it has no business to. There are many ways this could have turned into a disaster but he saves it, delivering something that's increasingly rare: A smart romantic comedy.   
           

Lincoln

Director: Steven Spielberg
Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, David Strathairn, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, Hal Holbrook, John Hawkes, Jackie Earle Haley, Lee Pace, Tim Blake Nelson, Dane DeHaan, Joseph Cross, Gloria Reuben
Running Time: 150 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

A talky slog through a very specific point in American history, Steven Spielberg's Lincoln probably would have been better served with the title, The Passing of the 13th Amendment or maybe even Team of Rivals, the Doris Kearns Goodwin biography on which it's partially based. Then again, advertising and marketing still wouldn't fix most of the problems associated with a film that makes the 16th President a supporting player in what feels like the world's longest episode of The West Wing.  Where it earns points is in impeccable period accuracy and an Oscar-winning performance from Daniel Day-Lewis that's every bit as impressive as you'd expect and then some. History buffs will eat this up, even if we're left with the nagging feeling that, barring a few notable exceptions, Spielberg doesn't give us anything that couldn't be gleaned from doing some reading.

As much as many reject standard, by-the-numbers biopics on political figures, I couldn't help but think that approach would have actually been welcome here, as the choice to only depict Lincoln's last four months in office (and of his life) seem to be almost too narrow a focus. And yet, that was easily the most interesting period so Spielberg's caught between a rock and a hard place. He responds with his most un-Spielbergian effort yet, completely abandoning the sentimentality usually associated with his work in favor of a straight, emotionless recitation of history. In that sense, the film is a welcome departure, as he makes the wise decision to get out of his own way.  Other than an attempted portrayal of Lincoln as a saintly, Gandhi-like figure (that's mostly transcended by Lewis' riveting turn) there's little that would indicate it's even a Spielberg picture. You'd figure that would be a good thing. Instead, it creates an unusual dichotomy that results in a mild letdown. Albeit a really well-made one. 

The film primarily focuses on President Lincoln's attempts in 1865 to obtain passage for the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery in the House of Representatives. To do this he not only needs the necessary minimum of 20 votes from the Democrats but also, without exception, the full support of the Republicans. It's not as easy as it seems and much of the verbal sparring scripted by Tony Kushner centers around the president's political maneuvering, which is often controversial. Of course, we know he eventually comes out with the win, only to weeks later lose his life to an assassin's bullet, but Spielberg shows the resistance he faced pulling that monumental victory off. Most of those battles involve an unlikely ally in Republican Congressman Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones), who gets to to deliver some of the film's sharpest insults, proving that politics was just as dirty then as it is now. But for all who are in favor of the amendment's passage, there are just as many who aren't. Namely outspoken Democratic Congressman Fernando Wood (Lee Pace), and even the emotional First Lady, Mary Todd Lincoln (Sally Field), whom the President has to constantly placate due to her wild mood swings and fears of their returning son Robert Todd's (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) desire to join the Union Army.

It's a strange complaint to level against a Spielberg film that it isn't emotionally manipulative enough, but oddly, that's the case here. It's a political procedural devoid of manufactured drama, and even as someone who usually appreciates that approach in other genres, it's dry and talky to the point that I sometimes found myself losing patience and just zoning out. A key factor as to why (aside from the material's sheer denseness) is that it just isn't visually interesting. Cinematographer Janusz Kaminski has collaborated with Spielberg many times in the past with enormously successful results, but three quarters of the film is shot in dark, dingy corridors and musty rooms. At times it's almost too dark to even see what's happening, which maybe doesn't matter since, most of the time, not a lot is.  For example, there's exactly one shot of the White House, which is unusual, because if any historical period presented a golden opportunity for sweeping visual grandeur on screen it was this one. Instead, the whole thing feels kind of claustrophobic with most the film confined to offices and courtrooms.

Luckily, we still have Daniel-Day Lewis, who inhabits every scene, telling stories and providing valuable insight into Lincoln's politics and morals. It almost seems as if every revelation that comes forth about the man is contained entirely in his performance. Everything else, we pretty much knew already. He's the reason to see this. The voice, the look, the tone of speaking. There are so many points where you're taken aback by the way he delivers a line and forced to ask yourself, "Lincoln said THAT? Really?" At some points it's actually funny to hear the things that come out of his mouth because we've grown so accustomed to history dictating to us the mythic terms under which he's supposed to be viewed. But Day-Lewis humanizes him, which might end up being the film's greatest success. One of the most memorable moments comes at the start when he's interacting with a pair of Union soldiers reciting to him the Gettysburg Address. It's a transformative performance in search of a better movie that focuses entirely on Lincoln rather than the nuts and bolts of the political process.

Make no mistake that this is all about the 13th Amendment, with non of the other sub-plots even getting off the ground. Unforgivably, a mustachioed Joseph Gordon-Levitt is wasted as Robert Todd Lincoln, while little is explored regarding the President's marriage aside from a shrieking Sally Field making it perfectly clear that the Mary Todd was a real basketcase and the polar opposite of her calm, serene husband. Of the many supporting players, it's really Jones who chews into his role as stubborn Thaddeus Stevens with grumpy gusto, stealing nearly every scene he's in. Top to bottom, it's a loaded cast, with David Strathairn, Michael Stuhlbarg, John Hawkes, Hal Holbrook, Jackie Earle Haley, Tim Blake Nelson, Lukas Haas, Dane DeHaan, Jared Harris, Adam Driver, Walter Goggins and Bruce McGill all contributing in some form or another in wide variety of small and larger parts. More fun than the actual film might be trying to spot and recognize them all. Especially James Spader, who's strangely hilarious as an determined Republican party member lobbying for the amendment's passage.

It's easy to fault Spielberg for continuing a half-hour longer than what would have been the perfect end point or criticize him for a one-sided whitewashing of history, virtually ignoring (with the exception of Gloria Reuben's character) the African-American side of this issue. Both of those are true, but what really bothered me was how he treated, or didn't treat, the assassination. If Spielberg didn't want to show it (supposedly because he thought it would be tasteless, which is a cop-out, but his call), that's fine. But you can't choose not to show it and still fully acknowledge it. If he was going to show it, then he should have. If not, then he shouldn't have. You can't have it both ways. Not with something like that. Instead he does this silly bait-and-switch that ends up drawing more attention to the assassination than if he'd actually reenacted it in all its horror. You could actually argue he fulfills his fear of it being tasteless just by pulling this unnecessary stunt.

Spielberg's one of only a few filmmakers today who can reasonably be considered a "brand."  The accusation that at this point he's just cashing paychecks and trying to collect Oscars isn't entirely disproven with this effort, but the film is surprisingly restrained and refined, representing at least one of his purest, most honest outings in a while. Unfortunately those very same qualities also make it kind of a chore to sit through. Perhaps it's a little too restrained and in need of some of that magic Ben Affleck was able to create with Argo. While some criticized that for "Hollywoodizing" a historical event, there's no denying his approach worked, giving the material a much-needed emotional spin that captivated audiences. In contrast, Lincoln feels more like a homework assignment. One in which students would actually be more excited to read the book.       

Looper

Director: Rian Johnson
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, Paul Dano, Noah Segan, Piper Perabo, Jeff Daniels, Pierce Gagnon
Running Time: 118 min.
Rating: R

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

It's customary when talking about a time travel movie to bring up as many previous time travel movies as possible that the film you're reviewing was influenced or inspired by. But no such references need to be made when discussing Rian Johnson's completely original, one-of-a-kind Looper, the new benchmark subsequent entries in the genre will be trying to copy in the years ahead. It's no secret that I've been looking forward to this more than anything else released in the past year, and because of the talent involved and the genre it falls in, I'd be lying if I said it didn't have shorter distance to travel in receiving high praise. But at the end of the day it still had to deliver and nothing could have prepared me for how it did.

Nearly the entire first hour had me wondering how anyone could come up with an idea like this, much less be able to execute on it. The second, more methodical hour is spent trying to figure out the puzzle of how it will develop and eventually end. And there wasn't a minute of either where I wasn't on the edge of my seat.  More amazingly, Johnson does this without necessarily having to concern himself, the characters, or audiences with the intricacies or complications of the plot. Rarely has such a high concept been presented so smoothly, allowing us to quickly get to the meat of the story, which is a dark morality struggle between two men who are exactly the same person in every way but age, yet also entirely different. It's all set against the backdrop of a future that looks and feels so alarmingly authentic it's downright scary. All the other movies released this year, sci-fi or otherwise, can be shown the door. It's that good and relentless, with expert writing, directing and acting carrying it straight through to its brilliantly realized conclusion. 

The year is 2044 and America's economy is in collapse as the organized crime rate soars. Thirty years later in 2074, time travel will be invented, but not legalized, only available on the black market for crooks looking to dispose of bodies since tracking technology has made it impossible. They send the intended target back in time to 2044, where someone called a "looper" is waiting, blunderbuss in hand, to kill them and collect their silver payout. But a looper's services must eventually be terminated and when that day comes they're sent back to be killed by their past self. It's referred to as "closing the loop" and failing to do, or even hesitating, could hold disastrous consequences for both.

Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) a skilled, but drug addicted looper in Kansas who's working for Abe (Jeff Daniels), a kingpin sent from the future to oversee operations.When his friend Seth (Paul Dano) fails to close his own loop he gives Joe some disturbing news from the future, just as as he's looking forward to a comfy thirty year retirement. There's just one thing left for him to do: Kill his future self so he can close his loop and cash out. But Future Joe (Bruce Willis) isn't about to to make it easy for him as a cat-and-mouse game unfolds between the two, with the crime syndicate hunting them both. Caught in the middle is a young mother named Sara (Emily Blunt) and her little boy Cid (Pierce Gagnon), who may be more important to the future than they know.

Just about the only concern I had going into this was the decision to have JGL wear facial prosthetics to more closely resemble a younger version of Bruce Willis. Scenes from the trailers and commercials did little to alleviate those worries, as it appeared out of context to be distracting, given that the two actors could never closely resemble one another no matter how much make-up work is done. What I didn't count on when the film got underway was how little this issue would matter. There's nothing to say other than you just completely forget about it and accept without thinking that these two men are present and future versions of the same person. That's only partially due to the make-up, as the praise should primarily go to Johnson and his two leads for never letting us doubt for a second that these two are the same person. It also helps that they're not. Each have completely different goals and personalities, as they should since they've been forced into a situation where they're sworn enemies.

Surprisingly, Willis doesn't show up until a good 40 minutes in, but when he does, Johnson has all the cards lined up so we accept him in the role immediately and without question. In one of the film's most thrilling sequence, we see a montage depicting the evolution from Young Joe into Old Joe and the events that eventually send him back to meet his younger self. It could have been such a mess, but Johnson gets it done in under 10 minutes, visually mapping it all out with no dialogue. But the real turning point comes when the two Joes come face to face during a diner conversation. There's almost a father-son dynamic at work between them, as the older, more experienced Joe tries to lecture his younger counterpart, who he sees as really just a young punk who hasn't lived yet. Unfortunately, Old Joe's clock is running out and the only person truly in control of his destiny is sitting across the table from him. From that point on everything you think you thought this movie was going to be gets completely turned on its head as this whole thing ends up being much bigger than both of them.

Johnson takes a huge risk in the second half of the picture, taking a story that started as one thing and turning into something else by bravely shifting the narrative's focus. In that sense, the real star of Looper ends up being the unusual structure with the entire last hour essentially taking place entirely on a farmhouse.  It really does almost feel like two different movies, but in the best way possible way, with each half answering the film's mysteries. Without spoiling too much, most of it focuses on this mother and the child she must protect when Young Joe arrives on her farm. What she has to protect him from and how she has to do it should be enough to make viewers' brains explode, yet Johnson somehow makes it completely comprehensible. It's complicated, heady stuff that shouldn't necessarily be easy to follow but strangely not a minute goes by where we don't know what's happening or feel lost. Not nearly enough praise is being heaped on JGL who accomplishes the impossible in believably pulling off a young Bruce Willis. While it's tempting to single out the voice inflection and imitative aspects of the performance (and they are spot-on), his biggest acting coup is guiding us through Joe's journey without us even noticing them. It's very much Young Joe's story as he must give up his hedonistic ways to step up and take responsibility for not just his actions, but his future self's. 

For Willis, this is basically the most functional supporting role he's ever had and his China montage scenes, as well as those opposite JGL in the diner, easily ranks among his most exciting work. Old Joe is a man on a mission and the unrelentingly dark places that mission ends up taking him are surprising, even to him. But the entire second half of the movie belongs to a revelatory Emily Blunt and 5 year-old Pierce Gagnon, who gives a child performance that has to be seen to be believed, and even then, you still might not believe it. Blunt's role as Sara is shrouded in secrecy from the start. We're not sure what her purpose is or how large or important the part will be and the thrill is in witnessing how she answers those questions as the film heads into the final stretch. It's such a tricky, complex part and she just kills it, conveying the desperation and sadness of this woman trying to trying to protect a child who's unusually difficult to protect.

Johnson also gets a superb performance out of young Gagnon, who's unsettling work here deserves to join the pantheon of great creepy child performances. We've seen this type of role before and it's a story element we're familiar with yet it feels completely fresh and terrifying with the emotion he brings to table. Reunited with his Lookout co-star, a bearded Jeff Daniels is given a rare villainous role and his scenes as crime lord Abe crackle with intensity precisely because he subtly and quietly plays him counter to what we'd expect. Dano and Noah Egan each ooze a pathetic desperation and incompetence as Joe's fellow loopers while Piper Perabo keeps the oldest profession alive in the future with her role as his hooker girlfriend Suzie, who's basically a symbol of the life he's about to leave behind.

This isn't one of those action movies with some sci-fi thrown in. It's hard science fiction with big ideas, containing a concept is so original that it's hard to believe it wasn't adapted from a short story in some lost classic sci-fi novel by Ray Bradbury or Philip K. Dick. The clues were there that Rian Johnson was more than capable of creating an entire universe from scratch with Brick and The Brothers Bloom but even the incredible promise displayed in his first two efforts couldn't have forecast he was capable of something like this, his darkest film yet.

This dystopian future is one we've never seen before, avoiding falling into the trap of so many other filmmakers who misstep by trying to depict a society that's too "futuristic" or has little relevance to our present. He wisely doesn't go too far, crafting a world that feels both retro and contemporary at the same time, yet also one with an unmistakable look and feel that seems unlikely to be laughed at when the film is revisited years down the line. It's far enough from our present to see it's the future, yet not removed enough to see aspects still linger. The glimpses we get of it, in conception, production, set and costume design are not only wondrous to witness, but frighteningly credible when taken on their own terms.

Obviously a major achievement on every creative level, what's most impressive is how Johnson spins such a complicated story with such a clear, concise precision. As it head into the final act, I ran what seemed like five to ten scenarios through my head as to how it could end. Of course, all of them were wrong. Looper saves its best trick for last, somehow still finding a way to close its own loop.               

The Dark Knight Rises

Director: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Anne Hathaway, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Marion Cotillard, Morgan Freeman, Matthew Modine, Nestor Carbonell, Juno Temple, Ben Mendelsohn, Brett Cullen
Running Time: 165 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

So, here we are again. It's been four years since the release of The Dark Knight, but it definitely seems much longer. Re-watching it again recently I was surprised how poorly it's held up and how on target my original complaints were. They only loom larger now. Poor editing choices, pacing problems, cringe-worthy dialogue, a poorly written love interest and a third act mess. And it was still pretty great. Much it saved, or at least greatly covered, by the late Heath Ledger's unforgettable Oscar-winning performance. It really was the rare case of one actor rescuing an entire film and a lesson in the danger of heightened expectations.

Now, with the arrival of The Dark Knight Rises comes the closing chapter in Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy, and another instance where it's difficult to approach a Batman film without seeing it through the prism of a real-life tragedy. At least for a while. We can only hope that doesn't last, because very little of what occurs in this final installment bares little resemblance to a reality we know. And what a relief. This is escapism at its finest. It's not only by far the strongest film in the series, but Nolan's grand-scale masterpiece and the movie everyone insists its predecessor is. He takes the gloves off, raising the stakes and escalating the mayhem. Knowing this is the end frees him up to anything, and boy does he take full advantage.

A palpable sense of fear and tension comes from sensing everything's up for grabs and anything can happen. And it mostly does. There seems to be no rules, but within that framework Nolan still manages to create something structurally sound and airtight, free of filler and flaws. Nearly three hours breeze by without a minute wasted. Of course, there's no performance like Ledger's, but there shouldn't be. In fact, it wouldn't even fit here. What's delivered instead is a more ambitious threat both terrifyingly physical and deliberately planned, as well as two tour-de-force supporting turns that steal the film outright. The results on screen don't lie. But the real story isn't how much better this is than Nolan's previous Batman outings, or anything else in the genre. It's that it isn't even close.

Revealing anything is probably giving away too much, so it's best to tread lightly when discussing the plot, which is as multi-layered as The Dark Knight, but more focused, with much of its thematic content calling back to Batman Begins. Eight years have passed since Batman took the fall for District Attorney Harvey Dent's death and a crippled, bearded, Howard Hughes-like Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) remains secluded in his mansion, even as trusted butler Alfred (Michael Caine) unsuccessfully attempts to coax him out of seclusion. Wayne Enterprises is crumbling after a failed investment in Miranda Tate's (Marion Cotillard) energy project while Commissioner Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) grows tired of living the lie that inspired the Dent Act, a bill that's cleaned up crime and restored peace to Gotham City. At least temporarily.

Enter Bane (Tom Hardy), a masked mercenary with an intricate, carefully orchestrated plan to gain control of the city and instigate a revolution, restoring power to the people. With support from Gordon and most of the Gotham Police, including rookie detective John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), Batman/Bruce Wayne is drawn out of retirement. But he must also contend with the arrival of cat burglar Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), whose own motivations may or may not include helping him.  

From the exciting opening hijack scene revealing Bane, the film grabs hold and doesn't let go. Sounding like a Scottish Darth Vader, talking and breathing heavily through his life-sustaining gas mask, he's a horrifying presence as much for his oratory delivery as his freakish, hulking physique. All the complaints about his voice being unintelligible are unfounded and the few times I did had to concentrate on what he was saying was well worth it since its so hypnotically creepy. You actually look forward to his soliloquies about the troubles of Gotham and hang on every word, which is a good thing considering he lectures a lot.  Beyond that, the physicality Tom Hardy brings to the role is astounding, making his fights with Batman the most intense the series has seen. There's a feeling he could literally die at this man's hands. Brilliantly skirting the line between comic book adversary and reality inspired cult leader, he's true enough to be believable in both worlds, but successfully functions as both in Nolan's.

Bane's motivations aren't outright political or socioeconomic, nor are his actions (most notably an attack on Gotham's stock exchange) meant as some kind of endorsement or condemnation of the Occupy movement. The film isn't a social commentary. It's about Batman. And this may be the first Batman film that really is. Or rather, it's more about Bruce Wayne. The line between the two is fuzzier than ever in this installment, if not eliminated entirely. As a result Nolan plays fast and loose with Batman's identity, finally freed from the constrictions of having to "hide it," making Bale's performance more compelling as a result. The two personas are so inseparable that when a major character finally pieces the two together he feels out of the loop and the last to get the memo. Bale spends his least amount of time in the Bat suit, which feels right and means more when he's eventually back in it. That gravely voice is still there, but for some reason it bothered me less this time, either just because he isn't under the cowl as much or there's too much else going on to care. The movie is literally it's title, and that focus results in Bale's best work in the role yet.

Gotham City is also for the first time becomes a living, breathing character and fleshed out as much more than merely an action setting. This is a story that feels epic in scale, more so when Bane's plan starts to come to fruition and we head into the exhilarating final act, which contains a pair of shocking, game-changing twists. The city is literally at war with itself but the movie never feels like its playing in standard action territory because these sequences are seamlessly presented with minimal CGI, and the story stakes feel so high. Unlike The Dark Knight, nearly all of that action takes place in broad daylight so we can actually see what's happening and the camera isn't shaking, which makes for a notable improvement in presentation.  It might also mark the first time a nuclear bomb is used in a movie in a way that doesn't feel contrived or ridiculous.

Nolan's script opens up the entire city and pushes every important supporting character to center stage alongside Batman. It could have easily felt like an Inception reunion with so many cast members from that film on board, but it doesn't because each is plugged into wildly different supporting roles that help piece together the ambitious narrative. Morgan Freeman's Lucius Fox probably has the least to do this time around while Michael Caine gets some of his most emotional moments in as Alfred. Despite being laid up in a hospital bed for nearly half the film, Oldman still manages to be as much of a force as Jim Gordon, this time eaten up with regret. And taking the requisite Eric Roberts/Tom Berenger veteran character comeback role in a Nolan movie, Matthew Modine turns in exceptionally solid work as a clueless, but power-hungry Deputy Commissioner Foley. 

If the Two-Face material felt shoehorned into the last act of the last film, than this one represents the most successful integration of two villains yet, if you want to classify Selina Kyle as a villain. Bane doesn't care about the haves or the have nots, the one percenters, or the rich getting richer, but Selina does and let's Bruce Wayne know about it. Yes, it's true she isn't referred to as "Catwoman"  by anyone during the course of the film which makes perfect sense since it wouldn't fly in this context. Of all the villains in the pantheon, Nolan was supposedly most resistant to incorporating this character into his grittier, more grounded universe, and it's hard to blame him. Michelle Pfeiffer's performance in Batman Returns, falsely held up as the gold standard, may have been appropriate for that film, but the interpretation is campy beyond belief, and that's coming from someone who loves the classic 60's TV series.

As the trailers have hinted, Anne Hathaway absolutely knocks it out of the park, delivering the definitive interpretation of the character by making her a believable human being with real motivations. Devastatingly sexy and lethally dangerous, Selina's damaged goods who might have past the point of redemption and I loved how the usually super-expressive Hathaway's eyes just seem to go dead. There's legitimate doubt which side she's on that lasts until practically the final scene, and is only enhanced by Hathaway playing Selina as if she might not know either. And I love the catsuit, which actually seems like a functional uniform for her job rather than a costume. She's also given just the right amount of screen time to make the necessary impact. Much like Ledger, in hindsight it seems impossible anyone would think she was miscast or another actress could have done this better. And I've thought it too. We couldn't have been more wrong.

Marion Cotillard's Miranda Tate is thankfully no Rachel Dawes, and along with Selina Kyle, finally disproves the allegation that Nolan is incapable of writing strong female characters.Calling Hathaway's performance the picture's strongest is high praise, especially considering Joseph Gordon-Levitt almost walks away with it. Despite what you may have heard, his part as Gotham cop John Blake is so huge in both camera time and importance that you may as well consider him a co-lead alongside Bale. As the only hopeful, idealistic cop left amidst a sea of corruption, he seems to understand Bruce Wayne in ways no one else can, and Levitt plays him as the ultimate good guy, struggling to hold on to his values even as his city collapses around him. The movie's as much about him as it is Batman.

There comes this point in the picture when Nolan does something we didn't think he'd ever do, that he swore he'd never do, and even Christian Bale said he better not even try. But somehow he pulls it off, and without us even realizing he did until it's over. It's surprising just how powerful this ending is. Talk about sticking the landing. It feels like the cherry on top of a sundae, bringing the saga circle and confirming that Nolan hasn't been overpraised for his resuscitation of a franchise that was left for dead before 2005's Batman Begins. Even when the execution had holes, his overall vision for the trilogy was airtight. So now the strongest film gets a somewhat divisive reaction. Why?  Because Ledger's not in it?

The Dark Knight Rises, besides actually being fun, feels like The Empire Strikes Back of the series, fulfilling all its lofty ambitions while still leaving us wanting more. Nolan could easily continue, but he's right to go out on top. Saving the best for last, he's come the closest to shaking the stigma associated with comic book movies by using its origins as a jumping-off point to something bigger. His work's done, but the beauty of the Batman franchise has always been how open it is to wildly different interpretations. Just pity the poor director who has to follow this one.

50/50

Director: Jonathan Levine
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen, Anna Kendrick, Bryce Dallas Howard, Angelica Huston
Running Time: 100 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)
 
Cancer movies are tough. That could help explain why there's so few of them, and why so few are comedies. It's not exactly the easiest topic to navigate, nor one that'll have audiences rushing out in droves to see it, no matter how skillfully it's handled. Go for the comedy and risk coming off tasteless and tone-deaf. Go for the  drama and risk being sappy and sentimental. You're walking a tightrope. The general advice has always been for screenwriters to just steer clear of the dreaded "C word" altogether, so you'd figure a comedic drama exploring the issue would really be a recipe for a disaster.And that's not even taking into account how you end it. The last thing anyone wants to see on screen is someone dying from cancer, yet you can't have them pull through either because that's pandering to the masses with a "feel good" ending that may not be true to life.That's why it's such a surprise Jonathan Levine's cancer dramedy 50/50 works so well.  Intelligently written and skillfully performed, it succeeds by picking a tone and committing to it the entire way without wavering. It just simply decides to be honest, punctuating it with the right kind of realistic humor.  

Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a 27-year-old Seattle public radio editor who's just been diagnosed with an extremely rare form of spinal cancer. After coldly being delivered the 50/50 survival prognosis he must inform those closest to him of the news, all of whom react differently. His best friend and co-worker Kyle (Seth Rogen) sees the diagnosis as a golden opportunity for both of them to party and pick up women at bars. His girlfriend Rachael (Bryce Dallas Howard) insincerely swears to stay by his side as if she's trying to convince herself. His mother Diane (Anjelica Huston) is in hysterics, calling every hour and threatening to move in, all while still caring for Adam's Alzheimer's afflicted father. In coping with the situation Adam befriends chemo patients Alan (Philip Baker Hall) and Mitch (Matt Frewer) and schedules weekly sessions with painfully inexperienced therapist Katharine (Anna Kendrick) who reveals he's only her third patient ever. As Adam starts opening up and sharing his feelings about the diagnosis, the two begin to take more than a professional interest in one another as he struggles to battle his illness.

Of the movies have tackled the topic of cancer before, most have chosen to incorporate it as plot point or sub-plot, never the main course, perhaps in fear that it's just too difficult or uncomfortable a topic to broach over a nearly two-hour time span on screen. What then usually happens is that it feels tasteless, thrown in where it has no place and used as a ploy to evoke sentimentality. Here the cancer is the story and it's written by Will Reiser, a friend of Seth Rogen's who was really diagnosed with a malignant spinal tumor and the screenplay's unusual in how it seems to hold nothing back, but still finds ways to be hilarious. Stranger still is Levine's gift at presenting the material in such an honest, matter-of-fact way that we don't feel the slightest bit awkward laughing along with what happens since the characters are also. It'll be tempting for many to say the film gets a lot of tiny details right but without experiencing something like this firsthand or know someone who has, that's too big a declaration to make. More accurately, it feels true by not sugarcoating any of the grimmer aspects, but still recognizing it's still okay to mock the absurdity of it all. Every situation can be absurd, it's just most movies lack the guts to go there, and when they do, the tone feels off. That isn't an issue here.

However you may feel about Seth Rogen as an actor there's no doubting he can say just about anything and get away with it. He's often hit or miss but this is one of the few times everything he says hits the mark and gets huge laughs at just the right moments. Only everyday schlub Rogen could make Kyle's attempts at using Adam's condition to try to get them both laid seem almost sweetly inoffensive and get away with a Patrick Swayze cancer joke. If Jack Black or Will Ferrell tried any of this they'd come off as creeps so his contribution shouldn't be overlooked. It helps he and Levitt have such great chemistry together that you actually believe these two have been best friends all their lives. As for JGL, it's fairly astonishing how well he meets both the physical (he actually did shave his head on screen in one take) and emotional requirements of a role that was originally supposed to be played by James MacAvoy (really?) until he dropped out just before filming. Levitt plays Adam as a great guy who got a raw deal, which, as simple as it seems, is sometimes what happens. There's nothing about what he does that seems overly sympathetic or attempts to pull on the heartstrings, which isn't a surprise since he's proven long himself an actor incapable of giving a dishonest performance if he tried. 

A mark of a smart script is often that the secondary characters are depicted with precision and given realistic motivations. It takes a certain type of person to stick with someone through a cancer diagnosis and it's clear almost immediately that Adam's girlfriend Rachael isn't that person, but without giving too much away it's interesting how Bryce Dallas Howard's complicated performance makes it about more than just that. It's not easy having to play who many will rightfully consider "the bitch" of the movie, but she transcends that, making her an almost pitiable character. I believed someone would do what she did and exactly how she did it. Anna Kendrick's Katharine isn't what she appears to be at first either, her analytical, by the books approach to Adam's situation eventually giving way to her real desire to just go ahead and let him spill his guts. Since she excels at playing characters who use their intelligence as a defense mechanism, at times it feels as if Katharine's holding as much back as he is.

There are no surprises to be found on the way to the finale or when we get there, nor does the film necessarily reinvent the wheel in any department The surprises are in how deftly it handles a topic that's been botched by so many inferior efforts before it and avoids insulting the audiences' intelligence. And the saddest part is that no matter how smart and entertaining I tell someone it is they still won't see it because it's about cancer and I can't really blame them, even if they're missing out on the rare good one. It's one of those chronically uncomfortable topics that people go to the movies to escape so it's difficult to wrap our heads around the idea that a movie exploring it could be both brutally honest and life affirming, rarely succumbing to your typical disease movie sappiness by knowing it's a comedy first. Reading its synopsis, 50/50 would seem to be the least likely audience pleaser you could find, but luckily the results on screen prove otherwise.

Inception

 

Director: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Ken Watanabe, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy, Tom Berenger, Michael Caine, Dileep Rao, Pete Postlethwaite, Lukas Haas
Running Time: 148 min.
Rating: PG-13  

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

In Inception writer/director Christopher Nolan presents ideas so intriguing it seems almost impossible for him to completely deliver on them. Yet somehow he mostly does. When you arrive late to a hyped-up film after everyone has already seen and discussed it, spoilers are practically unavoidable (as are certain expectations) but now after finally viewing it, I'm confused as to what could even be spoiled. Anyone who hasn't seen it likely wouldn't understand what you were trying to tell them anyway. It's not so much that the plot is hard to follow, but rather it's just a lot to process at once and the undivided attention required nearly mandates a second viewing. That's not something audiences like hearing, but in this case it's really true.  Once you get past that it's pretty cut and dry and even the much-debated final scene isn't really all that debatable. If you think about it, how else could it end? The fun in watching and re-watching Inception is to admire the ways Nolan puts all the puzzle pieces in place for us to arrive there. While it goes without saying this is a meticulously crafted science fiction think piece on every level, I still can't help but think Nolan again falls slightly short of delivering an all-out masterpiece. But that's probably just me being greedy. This is about as close as it gets.

The story, every bit as ambitious as you've heard, centers around Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), a dream extraction specialist who with the help of his right-hand man, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) enters the unconscious minds of his targets while they're asleep, invading their dreams and extracting valuable information for his corporate clients. Unfortunately many of Cobb's recent missions have failed, as the painful memory of his late wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard) infiltrates all his dreams, haunting him in the form of a subconscious projection. His only chance to return home" to the U.S. and reunite with his children comes in the form of an offer from Japanese businessman Saito (Ken Watanabe) who wants Cobb to deliver the near-impossible in "inception," or the planting of an idea in someone's dreams. The mark is Robert Fischer, Jr. (Cillian Murphy) and the objective is to subconsciously give him the idea of breaking up his terminally ill father's (Pete Postlethwaite) energy empire. To do this he assembles a team to join him, Arthur and Saito consisting of dream architect Ariadne (Ellen Page), expert "forger" Eames (Tom Hardy) who can impersonate anyone in a dream and sedation specialist Yusef (Dileep Rao). The latter must determine the best method to put everyone under long enough to travel an unprecedented three levels deep (a dream within a dream within a dream) to perform the inception and then somehow safely bring them back. Of course, complications arise.    

The best scenes in Inception come early when we're teased with all the excitement and potential possibilities the central concept has to offer and learn the very specific rules of the world the characters inhabit, which reflect our own preconceived notions and questions about dreaming. How do you come out of it? How do you KNOW you're out of it? Or in your own and not someone else's? How much time passes? What if you free fall? What if you die? The answers aren't what you'd expect and that second question is the foundation on which the film is built. And that isn't even to speak of the idea of planting a concept in someone's subconscious and all the potential ramifications of that, which are explored, shown and discussed in intricate detail, amazingly without ever slowing the narrative of the plot. How "the smallest seed of an idea can grow" in the mind is really the genesis for the entire story and Cobb's tortured, complex relationship with his late wife Mal is where the film gets its emotional and intellectual kick. As many have already pointed out, this main sub-plot bares much more than a striking similarity to another DiCaprio thriller from this past year, Shutter Island. Exactly how I can't reveal but even knowing a lot going in I was still surprised just how many details the two stories had in common.

Despite featuring one of the most talented ensemble casts in years, this isn't an actor's showcase, but rather an idea showcase where the actors fill certain utility roles that drive the story. No single performer runs away with the film as Heath Ledger did in The Dark Knight. That opportunity just doesn't exist in something this plot driven, but if I had to choose, DiCaprio and Cotillard come the closest to doing it, since they have the deepest, most complex roles, and in the case of DiCaprio, the most important. He's probably given better performances but I can't ever remember him seeming as in command on screen as he is here, as Cobb alternates between leading fearlessly and completely losing his grip on reality. It would be a shame if this performance and the one he gave in Shutter Island cancel each other out in the minds of some because of their similarities since they're actually very different. DiCaprio is so consistent in a non-showy way in everything that many probably take for granted just how good an actor he can be. The memorably haunting Cotillard has the even the tougher role since scene-by-scene she has to adjust and act in whatever way the protagonist chooses to view her. Her character's essentially a fake projection, but she has to play her real.

Of the other supporting players, Joseph-Gordon Levitt (in maybe his highest profile role to date) was an inspired choice to play Cobb's point man since the actor always kind of seemed like a younger version of DiCaprio in terms of his acting style so watching them work onscreen together for the first time is fascinating. Unsurprisingly, JGL skillfully fleshes out what could have easily been a forgettable role in the hands of a lesser performer, and excels at intelligibly delivering a lot of expository dialogue. Some will undoubtedly criticize the casting of Ellen Page (whose contribution was about a thousand times larger than I expected) but for a change it's nice to see her playing a character who doesn't just think she's smart, but actually is. As our entry point into the story, she shares the film's most memorable sequence (the awe inspiring street folding scene), which serves as a lesson in dream building for her and a primer on the film's concepts for us. Tom Hardy has a smaller role as the forger but brings a lot to it, adding his quick wit and dry humor at unexpected moments. The always reliable Michael Caine has what amounts to little more than a cameo as Cobb's father-in-law and plays it as only he can while Tom Berenger (!) effectively fills the Eric Roberts "WTF is HE doing here?" spot as a sleazy business executive.

On an initial viewing the main job of Cobb's team seems like some of the same organized crime filler Nolan discarded bigger ideas for in The Dark Knight but a second, closer look reveals the corporate espionage plot to be an important cog in the machine that powers the entire plot and its themes. There's tons of action (my favorite: the third act Ice Station Zebra-inspired snow fortress shootout) but the script does an excellent job of always making it feel like there's something at stake despite all of this action taking place in a dream world. There are real world consequences to everything these characters do and we feel the weight of them throughout. This isn't in any way comparable to garbage like The Matrix which used its "ideas" as an excuse to pummel the audience with cutting-edge technology. Here's a screenplay that's actually about what it purports to be about all the way through and when CGI is used sparingly, it's for the right reasons, calling attention only to the story unfolding in front of us (the now infamous zero gravity hotel corridor scene being the best example).

The potential connection between our dreams, reality and existence (and where each begins and ends) is the driving force that propels the psychological journey of the film's tortured protagonist, as well as our own fascination with the entire concept of dreaming. The is one of the few science fiction screenplays where it actually seems as if a fair amount of of actual research was required to write it and it's a high compliment to Nolan that he bothers to invest a premise this fanciful with realistic, concrete details. It's becomes a completely different film on a second viewing and may just play differently each succeeding time after.  It's also tighter edited, more focused and considerably less sloppy than The Dark Knight was. In a genre where it's often easier to copy then create, Nolan creates. Any way you choose to spin it, Inception is a huge achievement likely to loom larger each time you watch.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

Director: Stephen Sommers
Starring: Channing Tatum, Marlon Wayans, Rachel Nichols, Ray Park, Christopher Eccleston, Sienna Miller, Lee Byung-hun, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Dennis Quaid
Running Time: 118 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★ 1/2 (out of ★★★★)

It isn't often I approach a movie in the mindset of a whiny fanboy but in the case of G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, I feel entitled. As a childhood fan who watched the cartoon, collected all the figures and knew every character, I both eagerly anticipated and dreaded this big screen interpretation. Ever since the project was announced I had my suspicions of it and based just on the trailers and early promotional materials, severely questioned the direction the project was going in. In fact, I was so certain a cinematic disaster was on the horizon that I even promised a letter of apology to director Stephen Sommers if he could somehow pull this off. He doesn't, but this "re-imagining" of my beloved franchise is far from a bastardization and comes dangerously close to working, getting a few key elements right (the pitch-perfect rendering of some major characters), but unfortunately others dreadfully wrong (an embarrassing performance from a veteran actor).

While I can't get on board with the decision to aim the film at 10-year-olds and the script is nearly a sham, the movie does strangely capture at least some part of what made G.I. Joe special. What that part is I'm almost afraid to admit, but the movie is fully aware of its goofy charms and mostly succeeds in what it's trying to do. If something like this raked in the money that Transformers: ROTF did this past summer I'd at least understand. I wouldn't necessarily agree, but I'd understand. It almost accomplishes everything that the other Hasbro adaptation failed at doing, and perhaps partially due to low expectations, is much better than I expected.

On one hand my familiarity with the source material helps, but on another it doesn't because I'd helplessly hold the film to a standard it could probably never meet, even under the best of circumstances. I took the small victories where I could get them with this one and wondered whether my opinion would have been any different if this didn't carry the "G.I. Joe" name tag and all the childhood memories accompanying it. In a way, the movie never really had a fighting chance, which is a shame because there are some good things here and it'll likely be more fun for uninitiated, less demanding audience members.

After a centuries old flashback sequence, the movie opens in the not-so-distant future where weapons expert and head of the M.A.R.S. program, James McCullen (Christopher Eccleston) has created nano-technology warheads he's selling to NATO. In charge of transporting the weapons are U.S. Army soldiers Duke (Channing Tatum) and Ripcord (Marlon Wayans), who find themselves under attack from Cobra forces hell-bent on intercepting them. They're led by Anastasia DeCobray a.k.a. The Baroness (Sienna Miller) who shares a personal history with Duke that's never quite as interesting as the movie wants it to be. Duke and Ripcord are rescued by General Hawk (Dennis Quaid, beyond awful) and acclimated into his G.I. Joe secret ops team. They'll team with the black-masked ninja Snakes Eyes (Ray Park), leather-clad Scarlett (Rachel Nichols), and the authoritative Heavy Duty (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje) to do battle with McCullen, The Baroness and their Cobras, consisting of Snake Eyes' childhood nemesis Storm Shadow (Lee Byung-hun), the diabolical Zartan (Arnold Vosloo) and the deformed "Doctor" (Joseph-Gordon Levitt) who will go on to become Cobra Commander.

Surprisingly, many of the performances are adequate...with one HUGE exception. From the first moment he appears onscreen as General Hawk (laughably in the form of a Princess Leia type hologram) Dennis Quaid has this expression on his face asking, "WHERE'S MY PAYCHECK?" He looks embarrassed and physically uncomfortable even though there really isn't anything he should feel humiliated about, aside from maybe his costume. The movie isn't THAT bad (at least when he's not onscreen) and there shouldn't be THAT much shame involved for appearing in it. In a film full of clunky dialogue it always seems to sound clunkiest when it's delivered by the befuddled Quaid who flatly recites his line readings without the slightest bit of confidence or conviction, and a permanently blank expression etched on his face. He's done great work in the past which is why it scares me so much that he's capable of giving a performance worthy of a Razzie Award. Things don't improve much for him in the second half either when he's called upon to do virtually the same thing, except in a wheelchair. When the leader of your dangerous secret special ops unit can't be taken the slightest bit seriously it creates a major problem for the story.

On the flips side of that is Sienna Miller as The Baroness, who captures everything fans could have imagined that character to be on the big screen and then some. She's treated as a huge deal by the screenplay not only because she's a pivotal character in the franchise's mythology, but Miller's take on her warrants that attention. Unfortunately, a decision is made in the final act that's a complete betrayal of the character's methodology and it's no fault of Miller's that she can't do anything for the forced and sometimes ill-placed flashback scenes to her pre-Cobra days as Ana. Besides taking great liberties with the G.I. Joe folklore (which I actually didn't mind) many of the film's backstories, as entertaining and informative as they sometimes are, don't do a whole lot to flesh out the characters and play almost like a cheap soap opera. The one that plays best involves the origin of the Doctor but the studio kind of shot itself in the foot before the film was released by revealing the identity of Cobra Commander.

Despite Joseph-Gordon-Levitt being hidden under layers of makeup and a mask and impressively doing a deeper, more serious variation on Chris Latta's voice from the '80's cartoon, the revelation of who he is and his relationship to Ana is telegraphed very early on. A smarter script would have worked harder to conceal the information and paid it off as a big twist. At least it would have been a better twist than the lukewarm cliffhanger we're given in the film's final minutes, even if the intended audience for this likely couldn't care less. His transformation, as well as McCullen's into the infamous Destro, strangely felt very sudden instead of something that was brewing the entire film. And I don't even know what to say about Eccleston's bizarre, high-pitched attempt at a sinister Scottish accent.

Of all the performers, Miller and Levitt have the strongest grasp on the material they were given and the material benefits because of it. They showed up to play, not phone it in like Quaid who keeps finding ways to make the screenplay seem stupider than it is, which is no small chore. Luckily, the same can't be said for Lee Byung-hun as Storm Shadow, whose longstanding feud with the Snake Eyes (fitted in a really silly looking mask) is one of the more successful backstories conjured up for the film. The decision to have all the characters in essentially the same uniforms wasn't a great call in terms of distinguishing them but it isn't the horror I expected when I first saw the promotional posters. Tatum, Wayans and Nichols do a fair enough job giving each of their characters distinctive personalities that it doesn't become an issue. So while their casting looked suspect on paper, all three carry their load just fine with a fun, if predictable interplay developing between Ripcord and Scarlett.

My worries about the CGI sequences were mostly unfounded. That's not to say they're necessarily that well done or believable looking but they accomplish what's necessary for this kind of popcorn movie. I have to admit my eyes were glued to the screen and many of the fight scenes and chase sequences (especially one with the Joes speeding through Paris in their "accelerator suits") are compulsively watchable despite of their cheesiness. Given the tone of the movie, I can't think of another way they could have done this and it be as effective. Even though the final act goes on slightly too long and devolves into an air assault on the senses, the movie, at its best, contain elements reminiscent of Star Wars. There's holograms, a weird sibling dynamic, a face-off that recalls the lightsaber battle in The Phantom Menace, a Vader-like transformation and the Cobra vipers are basically interchangeable with storm troopers. It's a credit to Sommers that it feels more like an homage than a rip-off.

That this is even a close close call for me is miraculous considering all the ingredients were in place for this to be a complete disaster and completely tarnish the brand. I wasn't necessarily left looking forward to another installment but the franchise does have some potential moving forward if they continue to develop already existing characters and add intriguing new ones. There's at least a framework to build on, even if I have doubts the filmmakers are actually interested in exploring it. We all knew the juvenile direction they'd go in and to an extent it worked well as that, but anyone who thinks it didn't have the potential to be more is kidding themselves. This is a mixed bag that will please younger fans while reminding older ones of the fun they had playing with the toys and the movie they imagined could eventually come of it. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra only suffers from not being that movie.

(500) Days of Summer

Director: Marc Webb
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel, Chloe Grace Moretz, Geoffrey Arend, Matthew Gray Gubler, Clark Gregg, Minka Kelly
Running Time: 95 Min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOW

"This is the story of boy meets girl. The boy, Tom Hansen of Margate, New Jersey, grew up believing he'd never truly be happy until the day he met the one. This belief stemmed from early exposure to sad British pop music, and a total misreading of the movie, The Graduate."

So begins the opening narration of the anti-romantic comedy (500) Days of Summer, a movie that exposes some harsh truths and breaks a lot of rules we're not used to seeing broken in its genre. Starring two of the most talented young actors working today, I couldn't have guessed there would be so much to discuss when it's over that their onscreen pairing would be the LAST THING I'd feel like talking about. Forget about the film merely being worth the price of admission, I'd pay just to listen to two people have a conversation about it. When it's over it leaves you thinking hard and hits close to home with certain portions connecting more with some than others. That's to to be expected when its subject is the gradual disintegration of a relationship over the span of 500 days. The film's tag line reads: "This is NOT a love story." And in making that declaration it joins an exclusive club of movies frequently featuring an unlucky-at-love male protagonist struggling with relationships, often against the backdrop of a memorably hip soundtrack. Almost Famous, Say Anything, High Fidelity, Rushmore, Garden State, Annie Hall, and The Graduate all come to mind as examples of coming-of age dramas masquerading as romantic comedies. This is that...but in a way, it isn't. We have a main character who's extremely likable, but not not fully clued into reality, allowing himself to become the doormat for a cold, detached female antagonist. While couples will likely be arguing for hours as to who's really more at fault, the hilariously biting "dedication" that opens the picture indicates that the filmmakers are sure of their stance and at least have a wicked sense of humor about it.

Tom Hansen (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a hopeless romantic whose job as a greeting card writer in Los Angeles couldn't possibly be a better fit since you get the impression he's the kind of person who actually believes the sentiments he's writing. But like many twenty-somethings, he feels as if he's just punching the clock. He went to school to become an architect but things didn't work out, as they sometimes don't. His entire world is turned upside-down when his boss' (Clark Gregg) new assistant, Summer Finn (Zooey Deschanel) arrives on the scene from Michigan and within the first few seconds of seeing her, he instantly knows she's "THE ONE". And he doesn't think he has a chance. Sadly, he's proven right, just not in the way he expects. The movie makes no bones about the fact that this won't end well for him. After some initial awkward posturing, they kind of fall into a relationship, if you can even call it that, since he's far more emotionally invested in it than her. The cynical Summer is Tom's opposite. She doesn't believe in soul mates or even the very notion of love and let's Tom know this from the start. She just wants to have a good time. No strings attached. Nothing serious. No commitment. On the surface he seems fine with it, but of course he isn't.

The story isn't necessarily told as out of order as you've been lead to believe from the ads and commercials. It opens at the end of the relationship and through flashbacks we're given the chronology of events that lead to the break-up. A counter shows up letting us know where we are in the course of Tom's 500 days so it's mostly a pretty straightforward narrative. The device works because it enables us to see bits and pieces of their time together before finally putting together the entire puzzle of what went wrong. We only have a general idea of the ending but this enables us to discover along with Tom the "how" and the "why." It isn't just a gimmick. In a particularly clever sequence toward end of the film Tom describes in excruciating detail all of Summer's most notable traits. The qualities that represented beautiful perfection to him earlier morph into ugly, disgusting flaws as the relationship heads past the rescue point and we're predisposed to side with him, being that the story's told from his somewhat slanted perspective.

First-time director Marc Webb (working from an unusually observant script by screenwriters Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber) employ many more devices (such as split screen, voice-overs, title cards, and musical numbers), none of which are groundbreaking, but feel like they are since we've rarely seen them utilized as brazenly in a romantic comedy since Annie Hall. The voice-over narration (provided by Richard McGonagle) recalls the detached objectivity underlining 2006's Little Children and though it's used more sparingly here, it's no less effective. Having first carved a niche for himself directing Regina Spektor music videos, Webb's playing favorites with the soundtrack selections, but it's understandable since few songs could fit the story as well (especially the brilliant use of Spektor's "Us" over the opening credits). Many have already complained that this is just another one of those "hipster" movies by the way the characters dress and the name-dropping of indie bands, most notably The Smiths. But the fact is many young people do dress like this and listen to that type of music. And some don't. Who cares? Regardless, these two did and I believed it. More importantly, it's actually key to the story, informing the decisions the protagonist makes.

Besides falling prey to mislabeling this as another quirky indie comedy, another misconception surrounding the film is that there's a gender reversal going on in the dynamic between the two (implicitly hinted at during a pivotal early scene), when it's actually our preconceived notions developed from watching other movies that's challenged. I'm willing to bet there are a lot more guys out there like Tom who do secretly want a commitment and are looking for "THE ONE," but just aren't allowed to show it. Similarly, there are probably just as many Summers who have no desire for a serious relationship and just searching for a good time. And, of course, the reverse is true as well. We've been weened on an unhealthy dose of dumb romantic comedies and stereotypical gender roles for so long that we've had it in our heads how male and female characters are supposed to behave. In that sense, this story re-invents the wheel by simply acknowledging our behavior can sometimes conflict with expectations.

The two leads share what you could almost call a negative chemistry with her being the vessel through which he channels his dreams and goals, attempting to make up for his own self-perceived shortcomings. He's doing all the work in the relationship and even during the good times you see how hard he tries to keep this thing afloat, a sure sign of trouble. It's almost exasperating to watch. He's not exactly in the "friend zone" but he isn't that far off and isn't even close to where he needs to be with her. In the biggest shocker for me, I actually had problems seeing what Tom saw in Summer, which is downright bizarre considering the insanely likable actress playing her. But maybe that's the point. Only Tom's supposed to see it. It's almost as if you took all of Zooey's characters from her previous movies and removed their soulfulness and sensitivity. Her usual quirkiness is dialed way down, as it needed to be for this part. Categorizing Summer as cold and detached isn't far off the mark. At one point she's labeled remarkably "average," but possessing an unmistakable aura that draws you in. And that isn't far off the mark either. In other words, she's an enigma of sorts, and the more we learn about her, the more complicated and inconsistent she seems. Obviously, the toughest part of the character to rationalize is that she isn't a bad person trying to hurt Tom, and that's easier to digest because of the protagonist's own insecurity issues. And the actress chosen to play her.

Casting Zooey Deschanel works on a couple of different levels, but mostly because many guys watching are guilty of holding the actress to same impossible ideal Tom holds Summer. At first, you think Zooey's stretching to play the role because it's so far from what she's done before. But is she? Chances are this character (flaws and all) comes closer to the real person playing her than any of the "Manic Pixie Dream Girls" her many male fans have assumed the actress must be like. Is it actually possible she isn't nearly as zany, flaky, quirky and extroverted as we suspected? That she was really a lot working harder than we thought in all her OTHER roles? This film presents that theory, and it's a good one, painting her previous work in a different light. While I can't go as far as to say she's "playing herself," there's probably more truth in that statement than obsessed Zooey admirers would ever want to believe or admit. Webb likely knew that and selected her as Summer because she'd sting the most. The director uses Zooey's most endearing qualities as a guided missile, aimed directly at the male audiences she's captivated throughout her career. Rarely is our perception of a character so influenced by our knowledge of the actress playing her.

What JGL projects perfectly as Tom is fake confidence. On the outside he seems to be well adjusted and have his act completely together, but on the inside turmoil brews. A pro at playing tortured characters in hard hitting dramas like Brick and The Lookout, Levitt is equally adept at doing the same in a looser way here, while also displaying the comedic chops we remember him having as a child actor. Tom doesn't act like a loser but thinks he's one and by holding Summer on an unattainable pedestal she becomes just as unattainable as he believes her to be, self-fulfilling his own negative prophecy. Of course the viewer can plainly see he's neurotic and wrong, so we wait anxiously for him to catch up to us, which doesn't occur until the final scenes, but by then it's too late (at least for him and Summer). When he punches a jerk hitting on her in the bar it's not to protect her honor as he convinces himself, but because this guy's cutting insult ("HE'S your boyfriend?"). brings his feelings of unworthiness to the surface. Hardly an act of chivalry, you'd see why she's not impressed.

Tom's wise-beyond-her-years 11 year-old little sister (played by a scene-stealing Chloe Grace Moretz) gives sound advice at just the right moments, which would be too cutesy if not for the ironic fact that she has a more realistic grasp on relationships than he does. It's an obvious gimmick, but still serving the themes of the story. When she informs him that just because he and Summer share the same bizarre interests it doesn't make her his soul mate, it's the kind of truthful observation likely to make a lot of guys watching cringe as uncomfortably as he does. His occupation is also key to the plot, as this is the rare film where workplace scenes are handled intelligently. Tom has a fair, understanding boss and cool co-workers willing to help him out. Plus, who wouldn't want to write greeting cards? Why he's unhappy at all, much less having a Jerry Maguire- like office meltdown in the third act (maybe the only scene that feels overly scripted) is clearer when considering it has nothing to do with what he's doing with his life, but what he isn't. Toiling away at a job he doesn't like while projecting his dream of becoming an architect (as well as all his other baggage) onto this one girl, who he hopes will solve all his problems. Ironically, she has just as much baggage, and has gone to the opposite extreme in closing herself off to feeling anything at all.

Summer isn't let off the hook, nor are female audiences approaching this as a date movie or "chick flick." If guys are predisposed to root for Tom because they can relate in some way, girls are equally likely to side with him after years of watching lesser romantic comedies telling them they should root for the geek, underdog, or "nice guy." This film dissects that myth, then blows it to bits. In the third act when Summer's actions arguably cross the line into pure selfishness (just enough, but not too much), it gives permission to females watching to abandon Summer's view and (falsely?) convince themselves they would never in a million years do what she did. You could argue all day and night whether she was engaged before inviting him to the party or it happened during it, and whether her invitation was cruelly insensitive or not, but the end result remains the same. That's why the most memorable character just might be someone we never even see or meet--Summer's mystery fiancee. It's a credit to the writing that even though we don't know his name, what he looks like or even the slightest thing about him, we can still try to guess, and ponder the troublesome possibility he could be someone similar to the guy Tom punched out in the bar.

Far from just gloom and doom, the film excels at capturing that initial feeling when you're first falling for someone and every emotion seems heightened. The morning after Tom beds Summer the funniest, most uplifting scene of the film comes in the form of a Hall & Oates musical number complete with an animated bluebird. Levitt makes the scene soar, making us want to reach through the screen and high-five Tom. There are moments in the movie you think (hope?) along with the protagonist that this could work, like their trip to Ikea where both at least seem to appear to be on the same page at the same time. But they weren't. As a memorable split-screen sequence in the film depicts, this entire situation revolved around EXPECTATIONS and REALITY, with the latter coldly winning out.

It's fitting in a movie that's as much about how we watch movies as it is about a failed relationship, that the key to this one centers around the ending of The Graduate, or rather Tom's "misreading" of it (at least as far as it's possible for someone to misinterpret an open-ended film). A one-sided, reductive reading is probably the better description, as Summer's tragic interpretation could just as easily be categorized as too extreme in the other direction. Yet another example of how the characters' attachment to pop culture isn't just there for window dressing, and in Tom's case, may unhealthily be influencing how he views life. It's the impetus for the break-up but I won't spoil the scene other than to say that nearly everyone will read it differently. And like The Graduate, how someone chooses to see it will probably say more about them than the film. Tom's ending is vaguely hopeful as the idea of fate is touched on, but unlike other movies in the genre, this one's more interested in exploring why people would believe in it than just merely acknowledging its possible existence. Summer may or may not have been "THE ONE" if there is such a thing but the closing minutes hint she probably entered his life as the catalyst for something bigger.

In somewhat of a breakthrough, the script doesn't take sides, presenting a free-thinking female lead who's an agent of action rather than a prize to be won. It acknowledges neither character is blameless, with Levitt and Deschanel's performances filling them with too much complexity for you to completely dislike either. Both have their issues, but at the same time actually seem real, making the same mistakes we would. He didn't get the message, while she was careless with his feelings, but the screenplay cleverly disallows us from viewing the film through the same one-sided prism Tom saw The Graduate. It isn't just about a failed relationship and there's a universality in recognizing that everyone's a "Tom" or a "Summer," or at least a combination of both.. That's not noteworthy until you consider this is supposed to be a romantic comedy. And how many of those ever provoke deep analysis or reveal life truths? Besides being a terrific coming-of age film that breaks formula, (500) Days of Summer also exposes how movies can reflect back at us whatever we want to see.