Grief is a process. Psychology books and personal experience will tell you that. Perhaps not all of us experience someone being ripped from our lives in an instant, but the process is always the same. Why then, is it so challenging to watch 9-year-old Oskar (Thomas Horn), whose father (Tom Hanks) dies in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, endure this all-too-familiar pain? It should be moving to see a young albeit peculiar child come to terms with this in his own way.

“Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” attempts to play powerful cinematic music with extremely sensitive strings. The story is steeped in trauma and mourning, so the obvious danger would likely be creating a film that’s too heavy or suffocating, but this story has moments of quirk, sincerity and even adventure. The trouble is that not until the end does the film ever let go of what Oskar calls “the Worst Day”—his code for 9/11. It haunts the entire movie, and while that can certainly be justified, it throws us out of sync with the characters, who all seem to experience the fiercest of emotions when we aren’t ready for them.

The biggest problem is Oskar. It has nothing to do with the young Horn’s performance, but everything to do with how Oscar winner Eric Roth was forced to adapt him for the screen. I have not read Jonathan Safran Foer’s novel, but my guess is given the abundant use of narration in the movie, Oskar tells the story in the first person. Considering we are forced to follow and identify with a 9-year-old with Asperger’s and probably some form of autism, understanding and relating to this character is crucial, yet maddeningly difficult.

Understandably through no fault of his own, Oskar treats his mother (Sandra Bullock) poorly, swears at his apartment building doorman (John Goodman), throws temper tantrums, lies and despite his curiosity and adventurous spirit, uses deduction in place of logic. He’s a nightmare of a main character, and his constant relapses as the film flashes back to 9/11 butt in every time you start to warm up to him.

Director Stephen Daldry has experience working with troubled boys (“Billy Elliot”), but he doesn’t appear to do enough to help us sympathize, which could be the result of roadblocks in the script. Given that Oskar holds secrets even from the audience until close to the end, most of which deal with revisiting 9/11, it’s hard to feel bad for him. He’s just a strange kid afraid to move on, which isn’t exactly revelatory.

Oskar’s pursuit of finding what a mysterious key found in his father’s closet belongs to is supposed to be the start of an adventure, but one that never really blossoms. The closest it ever gets is the 30 minutes in which Oskar befriends The Renter (Max von Sydow), an old man choosing to be mute that lives with Oskar’s grandmother in a nearby building. He accompanies Oskar on his journey and challenges him to overcome his fears, and makes for an interesting compliment to the ever-gabbing child. If you had to nominate “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” for an Academy Award, it would be for von Sydow, so in that sense perhaps he deserves recognition.

All the colorful characters you would expect Oskar to meet as he tries to find every single person with the last name Black living in New York City exist in voice-over snippets. From a quick outside glance, the story would likely be about a child going on an adventure expecting to find a meaningful answer and learning that the journey was the entire point, but it somehow ends up way more convoluted.

“Extremely Loud’s” Best Picture nomination is extremely unwarranted. Despite the talent on and behind the camera, the product as a whole is messy and most importantly, unable to connect emotionally with its audience. Certainly some people will connect with a moment or two and really appreciate the film’s emotional fearlessness, but anyone versed in Oscar-caliber drama knows this doesn’t fit the bill despite all the venerated talent that put this movie on Oscar radars everywhere when it first came together.

Maybe it’s that abundant talent that makes the film’s shortcomings all the more difficult to bear, but the more you think about it, the more you realize this kind of a perspective on September 11 — from the eyes of such a challenging protagonist — probably doomed it from the start. The craftsmanship, the acting and some of the raw moments in the story make the film nothing to scoff at, but the impact of it all, which is the heart of this kind of drama, doesn’t come across as it should.

2.5/5 Stars

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close
Directed by Stephen Daldry
Written by Eric Roth, Jonathan Safran Foer (novel)
Starring: Thomas Horn, Sandra Bullock, Tom Hanks, Max von Sydow

The two most lovable stoners in movie history return in “A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas,” which somehow continues the series’ impressive balancing act of clever humor, crude jokes, stoner gags and heart.

When you look at the franchise’s three biggest stars — John Cho, Kal Penn and Neil Patrick Harris — it becomes clearer why the movies work. All three of them have gone on to be successful in all manner of films and television shows, a testament to their acting ability. If they had been written and portrayed as shallow, obnoxious stoners, this Christmas special would’ve been direct-to-DVD and recast with no-name actors.

This third adventure takes place six years after “Escape from Guantanamo Bay,” and our dear friends have stopped talking to each other because Harold has grown up and Kumar has not. Their paths collide once more, however, when a package for Harold arrives at Kumar’s apartment. He courteously brings it to Harold’s new house, where they reconnect and discover it’s a giant joint, and they accidentally burn down Harold’s father-in-law’s (Danny Trejo) beloved Christmas tree.

The search to replace the Christmas tree before midnight mass is on, and it takes the duo and their replacement best friends Todd (Thomas Lennon) and Adrian (Amir Blumenfeld) on less of a wild journey in terms of geography and general weirdness, but one with plenty of wacked-out sequences from claymation drug trips to NPH’s recollection of his time in heaven to an R-rated riff on a classic “A Christmas Story” gag.

With all the 3D pandering and psychedelic trips (every drug imaginable gets play time), “A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas” was meant to be experienced on the big screen (or a 3D LED set), but its meta jabs at the medium help ease the multitude of slow-motion shots that hurt the pacing of the movie when viewed in 2D.

As a fan of the series who is not a fan of the marijuana (in the using sense), several scenes remind the sober viewers we’re not high enough to watch this movie, but enough of the jokes are clever as opposed to simply balls-out. I’ve always found that the hallmark of the franchise is never that each installment is a laugh fest, but that it stays grounded while occasionally funnier than you’d guess it would be. This is of course thanks to Penn and Cho, whose chemistry continues to be the bread and butter of the series. That, and the reliably delightful appearance of Harris.

In spite of the many examples the film puts forward that give us an opportunity to shrug it off as immature and stupid, it finds ways of being charming. How you can find yourself rooting for a waffle-making robot not included in the film for any logical reason is testament to what Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg have created.

3.5/5 Stars

• A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas
• Directed by Todd Strauss-Schulson
• Written by John Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg
• Starring: John Cho, Kal Penn, Neil Patrick Harris

So often the most powerful card in a brooding character study ends up the one never played. The mystery lying behind the on-screen display of social perversion, which in the case of “Martha Marcy May Marlene” comes as a manipulative cult, can drive intense interest just through sheer curiosity as to what possible force in this universe could drive such queer behavior.

Our only window to that explanation is lead actress Elizabeth Olsen. The younger sister of twin child stars quickly distances herself as a talent to be reckoned with. She plays a young woman who has successfully run away from a cult in upstate New York and attempts to re-assimilate with her sister (Sarah Paulson) and her husband (Hugh Dancy) in their wealthy Connecticut summer home.

Writer/director Sean Durkin constructs some pristine transitions between Martha’s present rehabilitation and the key revealing moments of her troubled two years as Marcy May. In doing so he flawlessly conveys her psychological trauma and injects suspense (however temporary) into the narrative.

Durkin opts for long takes and minimal camera movement, which provides a sense of authenticity. This might seem counterintuitive, as a “documentary feel” can most often be attributed to shaky-cam, but it allows us to really observe and study Olsen’s character (as well as her acting).

True to the schizophrenic nature of the title, we get a number of different shades from Olsen’s performance. We see her as a sweet young woman, a rebel, afraid, in control, angry, sad —all of the above. Then of course there’s the stoic, emotionless side that we see plenty of throughout the film. Olsen owns all of these, despite that Martha never undergoes an arc or journey as a character due to the constant flashbacks. Rather it’s we the viewer who goes on that journey from uninformed to somewhat enlightened.

It’s not nearly as transformative a process as Durkin would have us believe, as all along we assume the traumatic nature of Martha’s time with Patrick (John Hawkes) and the many young men and women on the farm. The real rub comes from an understanding that their way of life has some convincing selling points, but in methodology it is no less devoid of evil than what’s considered normal.

The intrigue posed by this psychology study drives the tempo, as Durkin stylistically (outside of the transitions) does us no favors in changing the film’s pace through dramatic incident until the last 20 minutes or so, and even that has a certain subtlety to it. Still, he demonstrates visual adeptness with a camera and keeps our curiosity active throughout.

Although missing the kind of revelation that makes these kinds of dramatic thrillers unforgettable, “Martha Marcy May Marlene” showcases top-notch craftsmanship and a leading performance that rarely fails to captivate.

4/5 Stars

Martha Marcy May Marlene
Written and Directed by Sean Durkin
Starring: Elizabeth Olsen, Sarah Paulson, John Hawkes, Hugh Dancy

Timely and familiar: these are the two qualities “Tower Heist” has going for it. Heist films have a reputation for good fun, and when said heist is pulled off by average or incompetent folks like these, all the better, as the characters become even easier to like. Add that they’re stealing from a millionaire who has defrauded hardworking people and you have a pitch-perfect modern battle of the 99 percent versus the one.

Director Brett Ratner sticks to the basics with “Tower Heist” and makes it work, plain and simple. Ben Stiller takes his seat at the head of the table of relatable guys and Eddie Murphy plops down next to him as the crooked thief version of his Donkey character from “Shrek.” Add Matthew Broderick, Casey Affleck, Gabourey Sidibe and Michael Pena as out-of-type supporting characters and you have a bumbling group of lovable fools.

All these (except Murphy) work for Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda) in his multi-million dollar luxury apartment building. When Shaw is arrested and they all learn their pensions (which Shaw managed) were essentially gone, their love of him, namely Stiller’s Josh Kovacs, turns to anger. After an FBI agent (Tea Leoni) tips them off that Shaw’s likely hiding a multimillion-dollar safety net somewhere in the building, Kovacs rallies a group of them together to find and steal the cash and hires Murphy’s character Slide to teach them the tricks of grand larceny.

The first portion of the film builds up these characters, their devotion to their work and their love of Shaw. It’s not a particularly funny chunk of the film, but coming from Ratner, it’s a thumbs up when you can say he appears not to try too hard (though that’s not the case throughout, however). The humor enters the picture as these guys learn how to be crooks. A sequence at the mall when Slide challenges them to steal $50 worth of merchandise in 15 minutes to prove they’re in for real stands out as one of the more clever.

Enter the heist act and the film dives off the silly cliff. Rather than get overly complicated in showing how they manage to get their way inside the tower, the film plays up the stupidity of security guards and other antics. Those expecting a really technical, exciting and realistic heist will find themselves, in a sense, defrauded. The script bets on its ludicrous nature and amusing characters to charm a smile on your face.

The real laugh-out-loud moments are scarce, but the minor characters add to our desire to see this plan succeed, no matter how *not* fool-proof it is. They keep our attention and make for some digestible entertainment. Talents like Affleck and Broderick relegating themselves to minor parts add a unique depth to the supporting roles that somewhat cancels out many of the predictable Murphy moments one would expect from a Ratner-directed feature.

“Tower Heist” also possesses some creativity that’s rare for a multi-writer script. Over the top it might be, but most sequences show you something you haven’t seen before despite the fact that the story’s skeleton gives you only things you’ve seen before. The result is a nice balance that makes for a watchable heist comedy.

3/5 Stars

Tower Heist
Directed by Brett Ratner
Written by Ted Griffin, Jeff Nathanson, Adam Cooper, Bill Collage
Starring: Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy, Casey Affleck, Matthew Broderick, Tea Leoni

Animated sequels have yet to disprove that timeless adage about movie sequels, but they’re giving it a real go. DreamWorks Animation hasn’t always gotten the formula right (the “Shrek” movies got worse and worse), but even “Madagascar 2: Escape 2 Africa” had entertainment to offer. “Kung Fu Panda 2” marks the studio’s third try at extending a franchise, and from a production quality standpoint its their best effort to do so.

No, “Kung Fu Panda 2” doesn’t outdo the original, especially not in terms of humor, but it improves on the visual mastery of the first, which was strong to begin with. The action sequences in particular still have no rival to this series. Director Jennifer Yuh stays true to the winning combination of action, character development and heart that made the 2008 original a success.

The story works well, but its predictability holds the film back. The original offered a lot of surprises in telling the story of a fat and lazy panda who learned he could be great if he put his mind to it. In this movie, Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman) tasks Po (Jack Black) with another seemingly impossible mission, one in which the film’s narrated introduction sequence already foreshadows his success. Sure, kids won’t know the difference, but it zaps the film of any excitement for the rest of us.

The story takes Po, the now infamous Dragon Warrior, to Gongman City, where the three kung fu masters that protect the city have been ousted by the villainous peacock Lord Shen (Gary Oldman). Shen was exiled by his parents — who once ruled China — because he had a fondness for turning fireworks into dangerous projectiles. Years later, he uses these cannons to uphold his new reign, because not even kung fu can stop them. We’ll see about that.

The strong voice cast returns for the sequel and delivers. Black has simply become Po at this point he does it so well, and characters such as Tigress (Angelina Jolie) and Po’s father Mr. Ping (James Hong) get more of a spotlight, albeit at the expense of everyone else. Oldman makes a terrific addition as the cocky peacock; he demonstrates some lovely dashes of insanity and Shen’s facial expressions match it perfectly.

On all accounts, the production value of this series has gone up in this installment. The film moves at a good clip and the action sequences have no shortage of wowing moments. Shen’s fighting style is something to behold and the storyboarding of the film’s first sequence when the Furious Five defend their home from Shen’s wolves does not lack for ingenuity to say the least.

Also at work in the film is a subplot involving where Po came from, as one must imagine he is not literally the son of a noodle-cooking goose. The answer to this mystery becomes clear from the moment the question surfaces.

All the other aspects of the movie satisfy, but Jonathan Aibel and Glenn Berger’s story possesses no creative energy. The choice to go with it was safe. Rather than venture too outside the box, “Kung Fu Panda 2” takes the cookie-cutter route. It looks good and it is good, but it doesn’t meet the standard raised by its predecessor. Fortunately its dedication to character and heart make it stand taller than your average CGI-animated effort.

3.5/5 Stars

Kung Fu Panda 2
Directed by Jennifer Yuh
Written by Jonathan Aibel and Glenn Berger
Starring: (voics) Jack Black, Angelina Jolie, Gary Oldman, Dustin Hoffman

Coming-of-age stories come in all forms, though one would expect a New York City drug dealer at the height of hip-hop in the mid ’90s to have already experienced a loss of innocence. For Luke Shapiro (Josh Peck), however, dealing pot is just a summer job, and for all his street cred, he’s a lonely dude unexperienced in the ways of love.

Jonathan Levine’s “The Wackness” tells that typical story of a last summer before college, but clichés don’t run wild thanks to a re-calibrated the moral compass. Something’s off with each of his three main characters; they’re not the most likable or at the least morally sound, which provides a challenge for the actors in terms of generating sympathy.

Sir Ben Kingsley seems to really enjoy that challenge. He plays Dr. Squires, Luke’s shrink whom Luke pays in pot. Unconventional doesn’t quite describe Squires; everything about Kingsley’s performance feels unpredictable and spontaneous, but deeply rooted in a mid-life crisis. He projects a desire to be in Luke’s place in the way he offers advice, which sometimes is misguided and sometimes spot-on. Both, however, share loneliness at different stages in life and therefore become friends.

As much as Dr. Squires urges Luke to sow his oats, however, he also wants Luke to stay away from his step daughter Stephanie (Olivia Thirlby) for unclear but certainly hypocritical reasons. A popular girl with inattentive parents, Stephanie’s well-versed in many things, including boys, but she takes interest in Luke’s charms. Their relationship doesn’t necessarily feel right in the fairy tale sense, but it does feel true-to-life because more often than not, there’s a discrepancy in the amount of life experience two people have, especially at 18.

This dictates the essence of Levine’s message, though one wrapped in a complicated shell built of excessive drug use and morally misguided activities. For Levine, coming of age is about accumulating experience, both positive and negative, the “dopeness” and the “wackness” as Stephanie tells Luke. The challenge is finding the right perspective, not unlike the perspective with which we need to view some of the characters and their questionable activities in order to appreciate the film.

4/5 Stars

The Wackness
Written and Directed by Jonathan Levine
Starring: Josh Peck, Olivia Thirlby, Ben Kingsley

They say “time is money,” and so it seems filmmaker Andrew Niccol took them too seriously. “In Time” imagines a dystopia in which humans have been genetically modified to stop aging at 25 and at that point receive a year to live as indicated by timers on their forearms. The only way they can prolong their life is by acquiring more time. As a result, the poor live day to day and the rich can live forever.

“In Time” is Niccol’s most extensive imagining of an alternative future. He steeped “The Truman Show” and “Gattaca” in something tangible (reality entertainment, genetic engineering). Those films emphasize the science; “In Time” emphasizes the fiction.

This high concept goes higher then most, and it ends up running the show. The idea of tying your internal body clock to your wallet would create such a drastic overhaul of society (think of the economic, social and emotional after effects and the way they would be intertwined) that Niccol’s script becomes slave to explanation and simply feeling out what life is like for these characters. It’s a cool exploration if you love this kind of science fiction, but because Niccol indulges all these facets of what their life is like, the core story suffers.

I am always the first to admit my bias for high-concept dystopian sci fi, so these nerd-tastic indulgences make a film entertaining enough for the likes of me and certainly others, but I also have a soft spot for good storytelling (imagine that). So it’s a problem that Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) serves as a vehicle for the story’s substance rather than being a part of said substance.

Will lives in the one of the poorest time zones (socio-economic classes remain strictly divided) and works in a factory so that he and his mother (Olivia Wilde) can survive each day. But a trip to a bar one night changes his life when he meets a man named Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer) who has more than a century.

After Will saves Hamilton from a “Minuteman” (code for “gangster”) named Fortis (Alex Pettyfer), the two exchange some philosophical words and Will wakes up the next day to find that Hamilton has transferred all but five minutes to Will. Knowing that kind of time is dangerous in his zone, he makes plans to flee for wealthy country and plots how he can make the most of his recently acquired time/capital.

Will has a lot of options of what to do with his newfound wealth, so one has to wonder how “upset the system” becomes one of them. Hamilton does impart some knowledge of the system’s unfairness before offing himself, but Will’s journey from blue-collar guy who just cares about family to Robin Hood-like action hero with vengeance in his heart never quite comes across. Slipping in tidbits about Will’s father halfway through the movie don’t count either. Chalk all this up to the beginning, which spends more time establishing the rules of this universe than Will’s character. We’re smitten with this at the time, but it costs the film later on.

As emotionless as the story gets, “In Time” still boasts some extremely clever moments and examples of effective filmmaking. Niccol has spent a great deal of time (coincidentally) thinking up this universe, that much is clear. A poker game has Will betting his life down to seconds and on countless occasions you will find yourself understanding the stakes involved as life clocks dwindle. When Will has little time left, the film gets extremely tense, and when he has centuries, you’ll find yourself unusually more relaxed. The issue is that as much as Niccol has spent time drawing up the parameters of his world in impressive fashion, he doesn’t understand the way it inhibits him from telling a good overall story.

Much of the film consists of cat-and-mouse chases after Will kidnaps Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried), the daughter of a man with time to spare (to say the least). He’s pursued by a timekeeper (an law enforcement officer tasked with keeping the system in place) named Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy), easily the film’s best character. Murphy transcends the dutiful villain archetype with his performance. Seyfried starts strong as Sylvia, but as her character arc gives way to Stockholm Syndrome, she loses her flair—and so does the film.

“In Time” creates an unparalleled dystopia in terms of sheer complexity, but it boxes out any chance for emotional depth. The “Robin Hood” meets “Bonnie & Clyde” meets a Jane Austen novel love story (set in the future) hardly connects to the “fight the system” motif for which Niccol aims. Having them hold hands every time they run somewhere (and they run a lot) doesn’t make it better. Timberlake and Seyfried possess many strong characteristics, but Niccol shortchanges them. For all the interesting questions and philosophy that this “time is money” scenario poses, the rest simply doesn’t measure up.

2.5/5 Stars

In Time

Written and Directed by Andrew Niccol

Starring: Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried, Cillian Murphy, Alex Pettyfer

Few of us can truly grasp the economic fundamentals of the 2008 stock market crash—how it happened, why it happened. Most of what we understand are the after effects, the human consequences. Rookie filmmaker J.C. Chandor’s “Margin Call” attempts to merge those two understandings: the economics and the executive-level decision-making with the real-life impact and gravity of the situation on those with the power to make big choices.  

“Margin Call” is not as sophisticated as you might think. For one, on at least three occasions a character requests that someone explain something to them in laymen’s terms. Normally, such convenient and patronizing dialog would be disastrous, but as the film progresses and we continue to observe how the decisions of few affect the lives of many, the choice begins to make sense: you don’t need to be a math and science wiz to call the shots.

The film opens with layoffs at an investment firm in 2008. Stanley Tucci’s character is among the victims of a rather succinct and soulless dismissal, but on his way out of the building, he hands a young analyst named Peter Sullivan (Zachary Quinto) a disc drive with the verbal addendum “be careful.” Sullivan tinkers with the information late that night when he discovers a pattern suggesting disastrous losses for the firm in the coming days.

Chandor’s script follows the journey of this piece of information as it climbs the ranks of the company and more and more decision-makers enter the process of determining what to do with it. It goes from Sullivan and his co-worker (Penn Badgley) to a trader on Sullivan’s floor (Paul Bettany), then to the trading head on the floor (Kevin Spacey) and then to a pair of senior-level executives (Simon Baker and Demi Moore) before reaching the CEO (Jeremy Irons). Each assesses and reassesses the situation before making a decision with ripple effects down the chain of command and then passing it to the next highest official.

The message is clear: the few in power outweigh the many. The bigger the problem gets, the harsher the decisions. Spacey’s character appears to be the stubborn bad guy toward the beginning, but he transforms into someone we pity by the end because of the way the higher-ups handle the situation. These changes in our character perception come swiftly and without making much of a peep, and in the control of some stellar actors, it’s more than a new filmmaker could ask for.

The trouble with “Margin Call” comes from an inability to connect with a wide, everyman audience. By and large, the problems and dire situations of the film are white-collar dilemmas: rich people trying to figure out how to stay rich. Without some other kind of connection to the material, which could be as simple as an interest in markets and investments, it becomes hard to care about the characters or the problems they’re dealing with. In spite of all the dialogue for dummies, much of what exactly is happening remains esoteric.

The human connection comes too little too late for “Margin Call,” though not in every sense. We do not see the impact of the film’s events on the everyman until late in the game, when the realization hits that the traders of the firm must respond to orders from the top that will have a very trivial impact on their careers, and at the same time even more folks are at risk of losing their jobs. However, the conflict on screen is person-to-person, and the characters wrestle with all kinds of issues regarding their livelihood, the greater good and the welfare of the company. The film doesn’t lack for humanity, it just lacks for gravity.

Quinto, Bettany, Spacey, Tucci, Baker, Moore and Irons assure a certain standard for “Margin Call.” They help put strong faces on talking heads arguing about issues far beyond the common person’s understanding. It’s not indecipherable gibberish or anything, but we can’t learn and understand the logic at the rate at which it’s explained, which means we can’t process the emotions that come with it. Regardless, the actors crucially help us to realize the impact of the circumstances and consequently the language we struggle to understand.

“Margin Call” offers a rare experience, a peek into the cold truth of the financial world that forgoes the imposition of your usual characterizations for businesspeople: cutthroat execs, poor obedient peons, etc. The short time frame of the film’s events helps give it a documentary feel minus a handheld camera or any found footage labels. The portrait is genuine, but debatably accessible.

3.5/5 Stars

Margin Call
Written and Directed by J.C. Chandor
Starring: Zachary Quinto, Paul Bettany, Kevin Spacey, Jeremy Irons

Terrence Malick can’t count himself among the most popular directors working today, but he can certainly count himself among the most respected. His work tends to follow suit, and “The Tree of Life” is no exception. This meditation on life, death, God and the origin of the universe can be described as nothing short of visually masterful, but as well as Malick commands everything within his frame, he has a lot of trouble commanding his audience’s attention span.

Not that he cares — or should. Malick is cinema’s finest poet, and poetry has always been an art form belonging to the artist. We are not meant to understand “The Tree of Life,” but to be affected by it, struck by it in some way. The general public won’t take kindly to this, but anyone with an eye for expert filmmaking has to tip the hat to Malick’s latest.

“The Tree of Life” tells a non-linear story using a series of short visual sequences. Jack (Hunter McCracken as a boy, Sean Penn as a man) grew up in Texas in the ‘50s to a kind and spirited mother (Jessica Chastain) and a tough-love father (Brad Pitt). Although we know Jack loses his brother at the age of 19, this has little bearing on the rest of the plot, though it complicates older Jack’s perspective and informs the rest of our experience with the film. We then see the universe in action (including dinosaurs), followed by Jack’s life growing up.

The film ultimately becomes about Jack forgiving his father for making him “choose” between his parents, for the psychological damage done to him because of his father’s strict rules and rough life lessons. We see this in scenes best described as fleeting memories accompanied by voiceovers of the characters’ one-sided conversations with God.

As we all do in less cinematic ways, Malick wrestles here with faith and with our place in the world as individuals. Rarely, however, does he manage to make a concise point about any of this. Also, the film’s emotional impact comes only from the way we see Pitt’s character treat his children and how it damages Jack. There’s a disconnect then between what the film is about and how it leaves its deepest impression.

Pitt and Chastain give excellent performances despite the fact that “Tree of Life” is not a film about performances, at least not in the traditional sense. As much as they must be able to act, they must also be able to soak up the camera and bask in the expert lighting. That’s what it takes to be in a Malick film. McCracken also impresses considering how little he’s given to say.

Not enough can be said about the beauty of this film. Malick’s camera takes on a life of its own, moving fluidly throughout scenes and only pausing to capture something remarkable, usually with regards to light. Surely if he devoted these skills to more traditional storytelling he’d be among the most celebrated filmmakers alive.

It’s easy to dismiss “The Tree of Life” as pretentious. Unquestionably we expect certain things from film that we don’t expect from poetry; we value accessibility in our moviegoing experiences and “The Tree of Life” offers little of that. At the same time, it has valuable things to say and does so with a visual power rivaled by little else.

3.5/5 Stars

The Tree of Life
Written and Directed by Terrence Malick
Starring: Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain, Hunter McCracken, Sean Penn

Global pandemics make for captivating science-fiction fodder — especially when the infected turn into raging zombies — but let’s say it was a tad more realistic. Let’s say that H1N1 had been as bad as we were prepared for and people were dying left and right. “Contagion” imagines that scenario through the extensive research of writer Scott Z. Burns, while director Steven Soderbergh shows us in grim fashion what it would look like if it all went down.

“Contagion” plays predominantly as a procedural, though to its credit, it’s not devoid of heart or humanity. The entertainment and strength of the film, however, come from the rhythm and pacing. The story jumps to and from various perspectives in the outbreak from the family of the virus’ first victim trying to weather the storm (Matt Damon and Anna Jacoby-Herron) to the folks at the CDC (Kate Winslet and Laurence Fishburne) calling the shots and trying to assess the scale of the outbreak. There’s also an influential blogger (Jude Law), an epidemiologist (Marion Cotillard) and a scientist researching a cure (Jennifer Ehle). To a significant extent, the film relies on its audience’s natural curiosity as to how this epidemic scenario would play out in real life, particularly behind the scenes.

Those who could care less probably will, and “Contagion” will seem rather purposeless. The many side plots offer some unique insights into how we might react in such a situation and put a face and a soul to everything, but admittedly the only thing the film builds toward is whether or not a cure can be found in time to avoid decimation of the human race. And if that were to be the scripted ending, well that would probably dampen the mood a bit.

Pacing is everything in “Contagion.” Soderbergh gets things going right out of the gate, but after the first hour the side plots start to build up and cause it to drag; a fair trade off if you ask me, seeing as if the film got any more scientific it could’ve been a documentary.

In addition to ample movement, Soderbergh lays on the germophobia. Anyone with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder will be set back a few years in therapy after this one. Just wash your hands people. Seriously. The moral of this story doesn’t get much simpler than that.

Nobody puts together a cast quite like Soderbergh. From “Traffic” to “Ocean’s Eleven,” his films have never lacked for names. Although it’s hard to say how necessary they were for a film primarily interested in dazzling the intellect, “Contagion” possesses a greater sense of gravitas as a result. Certainly having big names playing the brains at the top helps you to take them seriously, especially Kate Winslet, who gives the film’s best performance as a person from the CDC charged with figuring out how the disease spread and how it might be contained.

The centerpiece of the film, however, is without a doubt Burns’ meticulous script and Soderbergh’s ability to turn it into a grounded story with strong characters. This writer/director relationship proved fruitful in 2009′s “The Informant!” and delivers again here. Soderbergh has always done great work tackling films that involve substantive editing to make sense and flow properly and they almost always do, this film included. Cliff Martinez, who scored Soderbergh’s first feature, “Sex, Lies and Videotape,” and has worked with him numerous times since, provides that effective modern synth score that does wonders for ratcheting up tension.

What will go most under-appreciated about “Contagion” is the way it reveals the selfish nature of our survival instinct, yet without scolding it. Every surviving character does something in his or her self interest, yet somehow they all play a role in trying to achieve the end goal of global immunization. It’s a nice touch to add the message that just because we tend to look out for number one doesn’t mean we can’t progress together or help other people too.

“Contagion” isn’t the paragon of modern thrillers, but it keeps a firm grip on the audience’s attention. If nothing else, if the Department of Health and Human Services ever needs it, it’s a heck of a film to stir the general public into being more mindful about the spread of disease.

4/5 Stars

Contagion
Directed by Steven Soderbergh
Written by Scott Z. Burns
Starring: Matt Damon, Laurence Fishburne, Jude Law, Kate Winslet

Samurai films tend to lean toward either overly talkative and boring or hyper-stylized to the point that credibility comes into question. Striking that middle ground, however, can lead to greatness, or rather — great honor. Takashi Miike’s “13 Assassins” might not match the great Akira Kurosawa films, but boy does it come close, and it does so with themes and blades of equal sharpness.

If swords-and-sandals flick “300″ had been less concerned about abs and Gerard Butler screaming war hyperbole, it would have looked and felt like this film. Anyone who hails Zack Snyder’s 2006 film as a masterpiece should pull up a seat with this film for two-plus hours and see how it’s really done.

Both the aforementioned film to which comparison is inescapable and “13 Assassins” tell a story about how the number of men indicated in their titles fought against an army numerous times the size. In this film, the reasons for fighting a battle most certain to result in death are less glossy and brash, as well as guided by some consideration for historical relevance.

The story takes place at nearly the end of feudal era Japan, when samurai have become nothing but show thanks to a lengthy time of peace. Yet one lord seems to undermine this peace with acts of cold-blooded violence: the shogun’s half brother, Lord Naritsugu (Gorô Inagaki). It is expected, however, that when he returns from Edo, he will have a place on the shogun’s council and have political influence to go with with warmongering ways. After a respected samurai commits harakiri in protest, the elder of the shogun council charges a samurai named Shinzaemon (Kôji Yakusho) with putting together a squad of samurai to kill Naritsugu before there’s widespread unrest.

The beginning of the film shows us Naritsugu’s cold and horrifying ways with enough brutal imagery to make anyone want to pick up a sword against this guy. The story then continues with the assembling of the 12 assassins (the 13th comes later) and their strategy for accomplishing the task. Yet on the other side is Hanbei Kitou (Masachika Ichimura), the samurai sworn to obey and protect Naritsugu who must develop counter-strategy to foil Shinzaemon, an old classmate of his from the dojo.

The game of strategy boils toward a 45-minute climactic battle in which the 13 assassins use everything from trickery to explosives to straight-up sword hackery against an army of 200 men from Naritsugu’s clan. The delivery of these sequences rivals any modern action film, and that includes battle cries, little humorous lines tossed in for fun and especially creativity. One samurai takes out 30-plus guys in a narrow corridor that he prepped ahead of time with several swords carefully stationed throughout.

But most impressively, “13 Assassins” never loses sight of what its whole conflict is about. The plot doesn’t exist merely as a formula guaranteed to produce an unforgettable culminating battle. Throughout the entire film, characters are questioning the values passed down to them for hundreds of years of honor and duty. Having essentially stood their whole lives as symbols of a fading age, they take on this quest in search of finally fulfilling that purpose of total commitment and servitude, yet this battle will teach them what it truly means.

Essentially, this is not the same movie if set in another time or another place, which sets it apart as a truly great action film. As replicable as a story of a small band of skilled warriors taking on the impossible is (it possesses a great number of similarities to what’s considered the best of its kind, Kurosawa’s “Seven Samurai,” for one), writers Kaneo Ikegami and Daisuke Tengan give “13 Assassins” its own thumbprint with the context.

Miike then delivers the full impact of all the tones from pure syrupy action to dark, shocking drama. He knows exactly how to take a high-tension scene to a whole other level by creating a full spectrum of what we see versus what is kept from us, especially in terms of violence. As soon as he wants to export those talents to Hollywood, someone better answer. We could use more action films like “13 Assassins.”

4.5/5 Stars

13 Assassins
Directed by Takashi Miike
Written by Kaneo Ikegami, Daisuke Tengan
Starring: Kôji Yakusho, Takayuki Yamada, Masachika Ichimura, Gorô Inagaki

Actor-turned-director Thomas McCarthy came off as a natural in his first two features as a director: 2003’s “The Station Agent” and 2007’s “The Visitor.” That put a fat old earmark on latest effort “Win Win.”

All three films demonstrate an understanding of human motivation and how more often than not, things do not turn out as we plan. The conflicts in his films are extraordinary in the most down-to-earth sense of the word: unusual people and unusual circumstance can enter our lives at a moment’s notice and through handling that hardship we become better people.

“Win Win” encompasses all of these notions and into a tighter, even more Hollywood-like package than McCarthy’s previous films. Paul Giamatti stars as Mike Flaherty, an attorney whose practice is struggling, so he spends late afternoons coaching a high school wrestling team. When he learns of a way he can earn money by claiming guardianship of one of his clients with dementia and placing him in an assisted living facility, he pulls the trigger despite knowing the old man (Burt Young) would prefer to live on his own.

The decision proves a real win-win — until teenager Kyle (Alex Shaffer) enters the picture. Kyle hitched a ride from Columbus to New Jersey to stay with the old man, his grandfather, after his mother (Melanie Lynskey) checked into drug rehab. Mike and his wife, Jackie (Amy Ryan), take Kyle in because seeing as he can’t live at the assisted living facility or alone in his grandfather’s house. Kyle, as it turns out, was also a top wrestler in the state of Ohio, and he joins the team.

Mike finds a way to make it so that once again, everyone wins, but then Kyle’s mom shows up and throws it all into turmoil, putting Mike in a bind and bringing out Kyle’s angry side.

Giamatti does some of his best work as Mike. Giamatti is most often drawn to playing unlikable characters or ones with glaring flaws and while Mike fits that bill, it’s much more understated. Mike bends the rules in one instance, an instance upon which everything that happens next is built. Of course after it all piles up, McCarthy pulls the plug and Mike’s true character is tested.

So “Win Win” doesn’t offer any surprises or truly unique insights into morality. Instead, it plays out one of the many kinds of universal human dilemmas that people face every day. Then it reminds us how we should treat others and rectify situations in which we’ve done wrong. McCarthy is just being honest with us, and the drama and the acting reflect that.

In terms of the wrestling element, one could see it as metaphor for perseverance, but its primary function in the film is to give characters Mike and Kyle an outlet. It helps Mike deal with stress and it allows Kyle to channel his hardships in a healthy way. It didn’t have to be wrestling, but wrestling was really the perfect choice.

“Win Win” feels like a film true to its title. It can get a bit slow, but it would be unfair to refer to its pseudo-remarkable nature as “being too realistic.” It strikes a nice balance of conflict, enough to stay engaging yet certainly nothing over the top or melodramatic. Considering the number of films that tip the scales one way or another in that regard, “Win Win” deserves acclaim simply for being neutral.

4/5 Stars

Win Win
Written and Directed by Thomas McCarthy
Starring: Paul Giamatti, Amy Ryan, Alex Shaffer, Melanie Lynskey

Paul Rudd gets a lot of love from moviegoers, just not enough love. It’s not a wayward assessment to say that other than (arguably) Steve Carell, Rudd is the best actor doing comedy right now, in the sense that he could do so much, but he sticks to the joyful life of comedy. Thankfully he’s darn good at it.

Rudd plays the comedy everyman (“Role Models,” “I Love You, Man,” “Dinner for Schmucks”) as good if not better than anybody in today’s comedies, yet no one’s surprised when he takes a role like that of Ned in “Our Idiot Brother” and hits a home run with it. That’s because he’s always taking risks and offering something different when he’s not the lead. “Our Idiot Brother” gives us the best of both Rudd-worlds.

Jesse Peretz’s film also exists in an uncomfortable middle ground between modern comedy and indie family dramedy, which would explain why it has been met with mixed criticism. It succeeds mostly when looked at as a simple comedy with honest truths and strong performances.

Ned is a pretty complex idiot. Peretz built the character and Rudd builds his performance around his “benefit of the doubt” world view, and it makes Ned different from that dumb character you’ve seen before, though certainly pieces of his personality will feel familiar. His dumbness is quite believable, which says a lot considering the film opens with him selling pot to a uniformed police officer. Perhaps the difference is that he doesn’t sell right away, he gives it to him, but the officer can’t make the arrest unless he sells it, yet he manages to convince him to ask for money in return. Whole other idiocy ball game.

The comedy has a fairytale structure as Ned must rotate between living with his three sisters: Miranda (Elizabeth Banks) the strong-willed independent journalist, Natalie (Zooey Deschanel) the spontaneous lesbian stand-up comic and Liz (Emily Mortimer) the hardened mother of two with an emotionally unavailable husband (Steve Coogan). With a reluctant sense of obligation, they all give him things to do and of course a place to sleep.

So it goes that Ned finds a way of making their lives more difficult either through ignorance or some other means and they harshly overreact and blame Ned because they’re all kind of selfish. You can see it all unfolding, but Rudd has such charisma and these actresses are no slouches. Deschanel and Rashida Jones might not make the most convincing lesbians, but the film never falls apart thanks to poor characters. Without them, it would be hard to look past the obvious conventions, but they and the general high jinks Ned finds himself in keep you smiling.

There’s a definite comfort in this family redemption story no matter how many times you see it. What makes “Our Idiot Brother” different is that character fullness. Instead of writing in one-liner jokes, Evgenia Peretz and David Schisgall focus more on humorous situations. Although not wildly original, the actors step in and give them that fun genuineness that makes you want to see things roll out how they do, even if you know exactly how it’ll happen.

The optimism Ned preaches guides the rest of it from there. The scenarios feel less contrived and more like sincere approaches to the question of how someone who’s so honest and looking to appease yet so ignorant of consequences would cause himself problems. His sisters’ reactions might be overblown, but the conclusion ends up quite sweet. Those who don’t corner the film into comedy or indie comedy/drama will find it hard not to be won over by this film and especially Mr. Rudd.

3.5/5 Stars

Our Idiot Brother
Directed by Jesse Peretz
Written by Jesse Peretz, Evgenia Peretz and David Schisgall
Starring: Paul Rudd, Elizabeth Banks, Zooey Deschanel, Emily Mortimer

Our ultimate expectations of a romance film are hypocritical. On one hand, we expect a grounded film: real people in real relationships with real feelings doing not necessarily sane but at least rational things in the name of love. On the other hand, we relish in fairytale depictions of love and the idea that true love finds a way and other poetic notions such as soul mates. “Crazy, Stupid, Love” fights this battle longer and to more extreme degrees than anything before it. Those with the fairytale soft-spot will take to it instantly, but even those who tip their scales in favor of believable romance will find something that resonates.

Heartfelt and natural performances from a range of excellent actors yanks this out of the rom-com nebula and into something seemingly more tangible. With talents lesser than Steve Carell, Julianne Moore, Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone, this would not only be a rom-com, but also the flamboyant marshall of the rom-com parade. Although powerless against the cliché moments and improbable romantic gestures of Dan Fogelman’s script, they add incredible emotional realism to his smaller, more intimate moments.

Carell stars as Cal Weaver who in the opening seconds learns that his wife, Emily (Moore), wants a divorce. After throwing himself from their car when learning she had an affair with David Linhagen (Kevin Bacon), he goes home and prematurely squeals the news to his babysitter, high schooler Jessica (Analeigh Tipton), who happens to have a crush on him. His 13-year-old son, Robbie (Jonah Bobo), also overhears — and he’s got a crush on Jessica.

Once again, with generic rom-com mainstays in place, bringing a sense of realism to this convenient and nearly farcical romantic chaos would’ve been almost impossible. Carell has his character on lockdown, blending his “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” and “Dan in Real Life” characters into an earnest yet loony portrait of a middle-aged man learning to float after his lifelong stability gives out on him. Moore deftly navigates the territory of a woman in midlife crisis who’s emotionally unsatisfied but completely unsure how to handle it. In contrast, Robbie is so completely far from a typical 13-year-old boy it’s insulting. If his relentless pursuit of Jessica ever finally clicks in any form of the word, it’s not until the very end and the fact that it basically works at that point is nothing short of magic.

Then there’s Jacob (Gosling), the handsome (I’m underselling him) womanizer who takes a dejected Carell under his wing and teaches him the ways (“Karate Kid” references abounding) of the bar pick up. He’s such a smooth natural in his role he could pick up someone watching this movie despite their knowledge of being played. Jacob’s backstory (why he’s at this bar every night picking up women) ends up a casualty, which was really a big mistake, but Gosling has such a strong way with transparency that we believe all Jacob says or does. There’s no doubt that he actually feels something for Hannah (Stone), even if it materializes way faster than it should.

Quickness and exaggeration are two of the chief factors of “Crazy, Stupid, Love” that threaten to derail it in the eyes of those looking for grounding to their romance. Cal’s gut reaction to his wife’s divorce request, not trying to rectify the situation instead of bailing for the bar, seems hasty. After learning well from Jacob and becoming a ladies’ man himself, his attempts to get Emily back don’t gel, perhaps because they come at the ushering of his unrealistic 13-year-old son. Especially when the film reaches it’s big revealing climax, the rash reactions and failures to communicate get really frustrating.

“Crazy, Stupid, Love” dashes willy-nilly between moments of emotional realism and romantic exaggeration and realistic humor and comedic exaggeration, enough to make your head spin. After all, this was directed by Glen Ficarra and John Requa, the team behind “Bad Santa” and “I Love You, Phillip Morris,” both of which go extreme and dark places for laughs yet try to stay human.

So how does it all — for the most part — ever manage to unscramble? The performances are truly the key, but the film’s success comes down these intimate, down-to-earth moments throughout, like when Emily calls Cal without knowing he can see her from the backyard. These quieter moments give the actors a chance to shine and Fogelman’s dialog has some real bright spots too. These moments help build support for the characters, a support and general liking that mostly doesn’t tear apart throughout the absurd and unrealistic moments. It’s a completely wild ride between two drastically different approaches to romance, but considering that all the contrast and paradox only bolsters the title “Crazy, Stupid, Love,” it has to be considered a success.

3.5/5 Stars

Crazy, Stupid, Love
Directed by Glen Ficarra and John Requa
Written by Dan Fogelman
Starring: Steve Carell, Julianne Moore, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone

She might have been a rom-com darling for most of her career, but there’s no mistaking now that Cameron Diaz is a natural bad girl. Sure, part of it might have to do with survival of the fittest; raunchy R-rated comedies are the new cool kid in class and those who can’t play that game will find themselves jobless. But Diaz might have even upped her stock with her performance in “Bad Teacher,” a movie that’s unapologetically crude if not to the fault of absurdity. Nevertheless, foul-mouthed middle school teacher Elizabeth Halsey makes for an amusing character study (no worries, you can skate by on the cliff notes).

Writers Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky have essentially taken the laundry list of what qualities constitute a good teacher and ensured that Elizabeth embodies or does the opposite. To top it off (no pun intended), her motivation throughout the entire film is to raise enough money to afford breast implants, or as her character would be more apt to say, “a new pair of tits,” so that she might be able to woo the attractive and wealthy new substitute (Justin Timberlake).

Entire films have been built from shallower foundations, but for those bothered by issues of plausibility, “Bad Teacher” will be offensive in more ways than the many it already intended. How someone of Elizabeth’s nature ever got a teaching position in the first place will be the one question that crosses the mind of every viewer at some point during the film. Once you get past that whole in logic, it becomes easier to appreciate the way “Bad Teacher” allows us a chance to imagine what the world’s worst teacher would be like.

Elizabeth is about to finish her first (and only) year at John Adams Middle School somewhere in Illinois and wed the “man of her dreams” only he and his mother are on to the fact that she only wants him for the money. Her plan having failed, she returns to “JAMS” as a means of keeping herself (and her poor lifestyle) afloat. Her return reignites the gym teacher’s (Jason Segel) advances and a rivalry with her polar opposite, the spunky learning-lover Amy Squirrel (Lucy Punch). Other than Diaz, Punch is the only one who seems aware of how absurd the film is and consequently she pushes it further with her delightfully quirky performance.

The depths to which both Elizabeth and Amy will stoop to get what they want or ruin the other have no limit. Their schemes are cleverly concocted, though they’re along the lines of your typical high jinks. Putting aside that their entire story relies on an unusually large suspension of disbelief, Eisenberg and Stupnitsky show a knack for writing easily digested crowd-pleasers. The array of other supporting characters could be described as either run-of-the-mill or perfectly adequate. Timberlake makes few waves as a socially oblivious dork who as it turns out has a passion for dry-humping and John Michael Higgins delivers exactly what’s expected of him: acting like John Michael Higgins. Phyllis Smith brings her “The Office” character over to this film with a measure of success, but only those unfamiliar with her will be impressed.

The small ounce of a “good message” comes with a slight lowering of Elizabeth’s superficial expectations after her grand plan unfurls. The natural thought here would be to completely ignore any sort of moral responsibility to end on a warm and fuzzy note considering all previous material dismisses it anyway. Yet some sort of Hollywood obligation must have nagged for awhile. Forget Elizabeth, the fact that Segel’s character Russell would want anything to do with her beginning, middle or end of the film says a lot (though quite little) about his character.

The R-rated comedy trend continues to thrive with “Bad Teacher,” though for better or worse it’s hard to say. Calling it a guilty pleasure comedy might be the most apt description, as even those who really enjoy it will admit just where it falls on the preposterous spectrum. Considering many previous Cameron Diaz vehicles have fallen into the guilty pleasure category too, maybe the actress has been in her comfort zone all along.

3/5 Stars

Bad Teacher
Directed by Jake Kasdan
Written Gene Stupnitsky, Lee Eisenberg
Starring: Cameron Diaz, Lucy Punch, Jason Segel, Justin Timberlake