Jack Reacher: The Cinematic Version of Forgettable Airport Fiction

Director Christopher McQuarrie adapts the Lee Child novel One Shot and delivers an entertaining, if decidedly unoriginal film.  While Jack Reacher is thrilling and offers some great performances, the plot is two parts A Few Good Men, one part Bourne Identity, and five parts every other crime thriller on the shelf.

Premise: After initially trusting an ex-army sniper guilty of an unthinkable crime, elusive military investigator Jack Reacher comes to believe he has been framed.  Result: An exciting, enjoyable yet predictable, relatively unoriginal picture that struggles to deliver anything remotely fresh or new.

The film centers on a blatant, horrific murder spree that claims the lives of five, seemingly innocent victims.  Barr (Joseph Sikora) is accused of the crime, as a sniper from the war, while audiences are keenly aware that Charlie (Jai Courtney) is the actual killer.  But after being placed with other inmates, Barr is beaten into a comma, and is unreachable, the first of many “inconveniences.”

District Attorney Rodin (Richard Jenkins) and detective Emerson (David Oyelowo) are nevertheless attempting to button up the case against Barr, conscious or otherwise with only Rodin’s daughter Helen (Rosamund Pike), standing in their way as Barr’s attorney.  But suddenly, summoned by media reports on the crime, Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) appears ready to do everything in his power to help bury the soldier, convinced of his guilt based on a similar massacre in Iraq.

Using her infinite powers of persuasion and child-like innocence, Helen manages to convince Reacher to investigate the crime, while in the process learning a thing or two about dime-store-mystery solving herself.  The rest of the film plays out almost exactly as we would expect, ripped from the airport-fiction template and generated effortlessly for mass consumption.

While an initial altercation with Sandy (Alexia Fast) and Jeb (Josh Helman) proves to slightly defy the mold, everything else falls into place: victims are investigated, crayon-scrolled clues and coincidences are uncovered, super-human ninja combat moves are employed, a few laughs are had, a fairly underwhelming conspiracy is revealed, and a dastardly villain is implicated in The Zec (Werner Herzog).  There is even an old crony in Cash (Robert Duvall) thrown in for good measure.

Ultimately, the film is fun to watch despite all this.  Cruise and Pike are good in their lead roles, making us care about their efforts and their roles, even if they were designed as nothing more than home-spun literary opiate, as a character soma designed to lull observers into blissful, undisturbed intellectual slumber.

Courtney is great as the muscle, making us believe, once more, than Russians or Rusian-like villains, will do anything for money.  Fast is an irrelevant character in Sandy we somehow come to care about, and so applause should not be spared for her.  And Duvall makes us laugh as he does and smile and whatever else in a way an aging, curmudgeon-y actor often does (except Clint Eastwood, of course, who may have jumped the cranky shark).

The true disappointment in characters that ultimately billboards the drawback in the film can be found in Herzog’s character.  Herzog is fantastic as The Zec, crafting a villain so palpably creepy as to somehow belong in the annals of Bond or Batman villains.  His initial scene involving his fingers is traumatizingly delicious and sets us up to believe that there is a Darkness there we do not know or understand, but somehow we will come to experience it in all its groundbreaking glory.

Nope.  Fooled ya!  Nothing of the sort happens and instead audiences will be left holding the proverbial bag, scratching their heads infinitely, wondering how they ever mistook a cardboard character cutout for a true villain they so desperately longed for.

And so, in the end, this is the grand audience lesson: we have fun, we root for Reacher and Helen, we are exhilarated by his MacGyver-like ability to evade traps, we congratulate ourselves on somehow predicting every twist and turn scenes and scenes before they take place, and we are somewhat satisfied by the never-in-doubt resolution.

And now it’s time for tea and a nap.  And maybe dream about Jack Reacher and awaken later and wonder if it was all a quant dream.  And then not care to think of it again.

Rating: 6 – A mediocre Prosecco that a cute bartender served you

 

The Cabin in the Woods: A Completely Unexpected, Reinvented Fun Something-Like-Horror Film!

Although Drew Goddard may be relatively new to directing, his involvement with Lost and Cloverfield alone make expectations for The Cabin in the Woods quite high.  And fortunately, through a completely post-modern, reinvention of the horror genre, complete with a tongue-in-cheek, smart self-awareness, Cabin does everything but disappoint.

Premise: Five innocent friends go for a break at a remote cabin in the woods, where they get more than they bargained for. Result: A brilliant horror-comedy twist that updates the genre and gives us hope for the future.

It only takes a few moments to realize that Cabin is going to be different than other horror films.   Goddard does an amazing job of destabilizing audience expectations instantly with a juxtaposition within the introductory frames of an ominous, ancient ritual played to a backdrop of equally menacing score with the sudden hand off to Sitterson (Richard Jenkins) and Hadley (Bradley Whitford) who putt along in their golf cart down a tunnel in a lab some place, prepping for some cruel experiment the way only mad scientists crossed with Dilbert can. And the Raimi-esque title shot to close out the sequence is just the final nudge audiences will need to realize they have walked into a completely different film than they thought.

Fortunately, and for once, the bait-and-switch is actually to the advantage of the fooled.  Cabin morphs instantly into one of the funnier and more frightening films of the decade, perfectly blending the sweet and savory of cinematic flavorings.  And audiences will be in on the joke quickly as well.  Each character is perfectly constructed both as horror cliché and as stand-up comedian, accenting both the foreboding of events to come and the noticeable hilarity of it all.

Enter Dana (Kristen Connolly) and Jules (Anna Hutchison) who have planned a trip to some remote cabin some place deep in the woods that Jules’ boyfriend, hunk and sweetling Curt (Chris Hemsworth), has invited them to.  There is no real back story here except to say that Curt’s cousin has recently acquired the cabin and that they all need a getaway.  Oh, and Dana is coming off a recent, painful breakup with her professor and the weekend is but a thinly veiled attempt to hook her up with McSteamy Jr., Holden (Jesse Williams). 

Of course, all this cliché is handled with aplomb, as the film is clearly aware of the flimsy nature of this set up; but the cut-aways to Sitterson/Hadley, their controlled lab and the covert-CIA nature of it all ensure audiences that everything has been pre-ordained. Oh, and add Marty (Fran Kranz) for ingenious stoner-comic relief, and you have yourself a deeply amusing and workable ignition.

As the film progresses, Goddard crafts scene after scene with the titillating formula of equal parts terror and laughter. While there is clearly the terrifying harbinger, Mordecai (Tim De Zarn), who plays his part perfectly as the creepy Hills-Have-Eyes-esque inbred gas station attendant, his frightening role is completely, and hysterically underplayed, by a speaker-phone gag and narration by our faithful puppeteers.  It all comes together wonderfully, with all the right hints of humorous foreshadowing and self-awareness.

The remainder of the film is a rollercoaster ride of terrifying scenes followed closely by brilliant satire.  The film completely understands the role it is playing as entertainer and manages to give you the best of both worlds.  As horrifying events take place on screen, audiences will be jerked from left to right, feeing one emotion, then another, then a completely distinct third in rotational sequence.  The pacing of the film, the jokes, and the monsters, all add to this cinematic crucible.

While the film ultimately falls someplace between horror and comedy, it is safe to say that it is a top caliber contestant in the horror-film-dark-comedy genre, like Drag Me to Hell and the Evil Dead films have been before.  Nevertheless, there is something far more modern here, more interesting than even these films delivered.  Here, Cabin offers us a story made better by how it is told, by the perpetual wink from its creators, and by the completely unpredictable nature of all the twists and turns we think we expect.  Too few are films that know audiences so well and can get away with fooling them so effectively.

The acting in the film is spot on.  Connolly, Hutchison, Helmsworth and Williams all quite effectively play their parts as puppets in the game, and manage to shift along character spectra effectively, when the unnatural controls of their environment manipulate them to do so.  However, Kranz, Jenkins and Whitford are the true stars here, delivering some astounding comedic timing that keeps the film fresh and exhilarating. Every time they speak, audiences will be drawn to them like puppies to kibble, eagerly and patiently anticipating their next treat.  And the perfectly orchestrated surprise by a special guest star at the end of the film really brings Cabin full circle.

The only drawbacks to Cabin are that it is far less horror than might have been desired.  Clearly, this was the purpose and what we are given is likely better than what we expected; but for strict horror buffs without the appreciation for a post-modern twist, this may miss the mark.  Additionally, the ending chaotic sequences are completely preposterous.  While on some level audiences may be too distracted by their own enjoyment to note it at the time, the resolution is brought about by an event that seems too simplistic, even for the tongue-in-cheek nature of this film.  But as the only event in the film likely to leave a bad after taste, audiences will likely take it and ask for another.

Overall, therefore, The Cabin in the Woods is a delightful nightmare, mixing all the right ingredients at all the right servings to give us a film we never knew we wanted.  But after we have tasted it, there’s no going back.

Rating: 8 – An expensive red wine and juicy steak

Friends with Benefits: A Fresh Look at an Old Story (and Half Naked People!)

Director Will Gluck (Easy A) has forged a strong humorous comedy with Friends with Benefits.  By effectively using the flawless comedic timing and brilliant chemistry of his two stars, Timberlake and Kunis, the overall depth of his cast, and a strong script, Gluck is able to take his success from Easy A and move beyond.

Premise: Recently dumped Dylan and Jamie are desperate to avoid the pitfalls of heartbreak again but soon discover however that adding the act of sex to their friendship can be even more complicated. Result:  A playful and enjoyable film that manages to seem fresh despite a thoroughly clichéd premise.

Considering the luke warm response from audiences given to No Strings Attached, the mediocre, misguided Kutcher-Portman Rom-Com of similar ilk, the future did not look bright for FWB.  However, Gluck has been able to produce a fun and often unique spin on an already familiar formula.  Considering the premise was far from groundbreaking, it is a credit to Gluck and his cast that the film came off feeling anything but stale. 

The film begins with a series of painfully awkward breakups where Dylan (Timberlake) and Jamie (Kunis) are thrown into a tailspin.  Their misery is short-lived, however, since fate appears to have plans for these two other than solitary misery.  Jamie, a relentless Executive Headhunter has finally convinced Dylan to interview for a role in NY, far from his home in LA.  Their strange first encounter, with Jamie trapped atop a luggage carousel, only cements the chemistry between them: both are looking for some unknown change and somehow both are aware that the other might just be that change.

Naturally, none of this is spoken.  Instead, after Dylan takes the risk and moves to New York, the two begin a solid friendship based on mutual, yet indirect flirtation.  Then suddenly, one night after many beers, the two decide to let nature take its course and agree to a fling with no emotional connections of any kind.  Insert a few flash mobs into the mix as well as a surprise encounter from Jamie’s flakey mother, and we have ourselves an entertaining film. 

Their first sexual encounter is as sexy and intriguing as it is awkward and graphic.  Nevertheless, this sets off a chain reaction we have seen time and time before: the benefits component of the “Friends with Benefits” relationship always seems to become the dominant factor, taking up not only much of their activities but also screen time (at one point there was so much sex that audiences may wonder if a film was in danger of breaking out of this porno!) However, this all ends rather abruptly when Jamie stumbles onto a handsome, charming children’s oncologist who sets her dream of finding Prince Charming into motion.

While the beginning of the film is fun and charming, it is simply a more detailed and endearing version of other such tales; where this film turns into more is in the second half, where the two begin to experience emotions they neither welcomed nor expected.  After Jamie’s fairytale relationship turns into a nightmare, and her eccentric, “free-spirited” mother Lorna (Patricia Clarkson) flakes out one time too many, Dylan invites Jamie to his former home on the West Coast to visit his family. It is here that the dynamic of the story truly changes.

Dylans’ family is immediately taken by the beautiful Jamie, and Jamie, who had previously made her family life an open book to Dylan (her mother interrupts a sexual encounter where hilarity ensued) it is she who now has the opportunity to understand him.  She meets his sister Annie (Jenna Elfman) and nephew Sam (Nolan Gould) who are living with his father (played by Richard Jenkins) who in the early stages of Alzheimer’s has an affinity to remove his pants in public.

The true power of this story is that is harnesses the power of confusion quite well.  These two certainly care for each other and yet there is a sense, in some way that both need something else, on some level to be happy.  Or perhaps, in some dark way, happiness is only the dream, not the objective.

There’s nothing groundbreaking about Friends with Benefits but it manages to become a thoroughly enjoyable film nonetheless.  The chemistry between Timberlake and Kunis is unmistakable and transforms this potential cliché into a warm, funny, and memorable comedy.  Audiences will want to laugh along with the characters and root for them; they bring complex emotions to the story and the events are both silly as well as emotionally complex.  The resolution in the film is also as satisfying as it is amusing.

Overall, the acting in this film is also quite strong: Kunis and Timberlake are both believable and appealing in their roles.  Elfman and Jenkins offer strong alternatives to the fantasy the two stars live in by bringing them firmly back to the real world, and in doing so grounding the film itself.  Clarkson, for her role is often hysterical, nailing a role that in some ways is completely over the top by really embracing the madness of it and letting it come out on screen.  The result is often a scene stealer. 

Woody Harrelson, on the other hand, was either completely miscast in his role as the gay mentor/confidant/something-or-other or the role itself should have been left to die on the editing room floor. Everything about this character is annoying and unworkable.  While I applaud the film’s attempt to create a character that supposedly bucks convention, this character fully ruins the tried-and-true formula of the gay best friend. With dozens of painful, pointless gay puns leaping from his mouth at every turn, he has the effect of stealing scenes and not giving them back, no matter how hard the audiences pleads. At one point he exclaims (in reference to owning a boat), “I live in Jersey and I ain’t taking no ferry…unless it’s to dinner and a show. Bam!”  I’m not making this up people!

Nevertheless, FWB is a fun, interesting, emotional comedy that helps revive the tired Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus dynamic through smart writing, strong acting, calculated direction for a sum that is worth more than just these parts. In the end, this film is worth watching, even if just for the flash mobs.

Rating: 7 – A refreshing Champagne that a cute bartender comp’d you!

Dear John: Pretty People Make a Pretty Dull Movie

Dear John is the latest installment in a long line of Nicholas Sparks’ tributes to the angst of Love (I simply can’t bring myself to watch The Love Song with Miley Cyrus). Sparks’ story, combined with good acting and good direction, makes for a passable film, but nowhere near the level of past greats like The Notebook.

Premise: A romantic drama about a soldier who falls for a conservative college student while he’s home on leave.  Result: A passable film with a few tear jerker moments and pretty faces, but hardly memorable.

This movie had all the makings of a classic: based on a best-selling Nicholas Sparks novel, gorgeous and talent actors in Channing Tatum and Amanda Seyfried (we are jealous when they are talented and hot, aren’t we, come on, admit it!), and good direction from Lasse Hallström.  Even the supporting cast is strong with Henry Thomas and Scott Porter in the mix and especially Richard Jenkins as Tatum’s autistic father.  But classic, unfortunately, Dear John will never be.

Based on the accepted term for break up letters made famous by GIs and their estranged significant others in WWII, this film continues the trend.  John (Tatum) meets Savannah (Seyfried) one summer while he is on leave and she is off from school.  They instantly connect and spend a life-changing fortnight together (brought to us in a montage of random scenes) and then she returns to school and he returns to the military.  But they are in love and so they decide to write to one another.  But not just a text message or email here and there – they tell each other everything through letters and so continue their love from afar.

Intermingled in this plotline are two other somewhat coincidentally connected plots: John’s relationship with his clearly autistic Father played out through his Father’s obsession with coins and Savannah’s friendship with her neighbor and his autistic son.  Soon it becomes clear that this movie wants to be many different movies and each of the plots mentioned could have been stand alone films if delivered differently.  But here, we are offered three plots, all of which are meant to coexist and compliment, but in the end, steal just enough airtime and meaning from one another to render each of them meager versions of what could have been.

Autism, despite playing prominently in two of the plotlines, never fully gives us the deep emotional connection we expect from it.  The relationship between Father and Son in some ways is the most powerful plot in this film, despite receiving lower billing, as there are several emotional scenes; most notable is the unspoken, but still understood, realization that John’s Father’s obsession with coins is based on his love for his son, understanding that despite his disability, through coins, they can relate.

By contrast, the John-Savannah relationship rockets violently from poignant to preposterous.  We can empathize with the central problem: they are apart and it is unclear when they can be reunited.  But suddenly, she falls for her neighbor Tim and marries him out of nowhere.  I can’t stop counting the ways this is absurd: first of all honey, you got Channing Tatum…and you give him up for Henry Thomas?  What am I missing here?  Was there a Love Potion involved?  Sold into Slavery?  Give me something here people!  Why would a smart, attractive girl agree to marry this creepy older guy who already has an autistic son?  Out of some duty?  Her answser: “I didn’t know what to do!”  My answer: Get it together lady and suck it up!  I’ve been waiting for Channing Tatun for 29 years and counting and you can’t wait a few more months!!  Someone stop the insanity, please!

Her un- or poorly foreshadowed marriage of old neighbor guy is just the most obvious shallow plot event in a deeper sea of mentioned but faceless references.  There is mention of building this house for homeless people to show how pious and wonderful Savannah is, but it disappears from the film after a clichéd kissing in the rain scene.  And her dream of owning a summer camp for autistic children called “Camp Horse Sense” is written off with a few lines leaving us wondering why we heard of it in the first place.  In fact, the whole horse sense concept (an attempt at some post modern description of autistic people) is practically sketched on a napkin for all the depth it was given yet somehow found its way into the film.

Overall, this film was passable as a love-angst story. It thankfully did not make love easy, as many films of this type do, doing the genre and the audience a great disservice; however, this film is perhaps guilty of almost making love too hard, needing to graft together loosely connected plot twists to manufacture reality.  In the end, we may just want to stick with reality.

Rating: 5 – A luke-warm Pinot Grigio