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

If humans can only access 20 percent of their brains normally and 100 percent while on NZT, the “Limitless” drug of choice, then I would say screenwriter Leslie Dixon and director Neil Burger probably access somewhere around 70 percent of their creative power with regards to bringing Alan Glynn’s novel to the big screen. All far-fetched concept stories have their side effects, but the true winners avoid the crash. “Limitless” takes its audience on a thrill ride through the realm of possibility and gleefully entertains, but some sobering second-act elements kill off a bit of the joy.

Bradley Cooper ascends to full-fledged leading man status as Eddie Morra, a disheveled writer stuck in a rut who receives a little round miracle from an old acquaintance. This pill multiplies brain function exponentially, increasing his capacity for knowledge and the speed with which he acquires it. He can learn entire languages within hours, problem-solve instantaneously, recall long-discarded insignificant details from his memory and even finishes his book in the first night. But as we all learned in D.A.R.E., all drug use has its consequences.

Eddie’s consequent meteoric rise to wealth, prestige and even fame is a fun time. He even scores his girlfriend (Abbie Cornish) back. Although the degree to which he outsmarts and impresses everyone is a total joke from a believability perspective, between Burger, Dixon and Cooper, we get a hard sell. The script paces well and uses narration effectively to help us enter Eddie’s head and Burger employs a great deal of visual techniques — even if excessive at times — to mimic the effects of the drug, not unlike Darren Aronofsky’s work on “Requiem for a Dream,” just less stomach-churning.

Burger and cinematographer Jo Willems change exposure levels, color brightness and countless other techniques to create a distinction between when Eddie is on versus off NZT so that we feel that transition with him to an extent. Cooper as an actor fully captures that for us as well. I suppose if there’s anything he learned to do well from “The Hangover,” it was act convincingly hung over or experiencing withdrawal.

Truthfully, Cooper’s the show here.  Although they have scenes of influence, Cornish and Robert De Niro (as a business bigwig who employs Eddie to orchestrate a merger) have little bearing on the story. At one point it seem Cornish’s Lindy will emerge as a prominent character, but this surprisingly subsides.

Muddling matters more are the varying forces of antagonism in the film: a lender who gets hooked on the drug who keeps coming after Eddie, a man following him and of course the nasty side effects of the drug that Eddie soon uncovers. Things are not as intricately connected as we’re inclined to believe, which is mostly what derails the film in the end. The other factor would be a total lack of a realistic message, or any message for that matter.

Rather than make a statement, “Limitless” opens our minds a bit. For a science-fiction concept, there’s something relatable on a rather universal level. What if all of a sudden we could unlock our full potential? Would it still be “us?” The story imagines that world well and “Limitless” provokes these questions and more; it just doesn’t do much with them.

Serving as executive producer, Cooper shows a flare for the business here. He’s put the right pieces in place to make a fun concept movie work in addition to finding a leading role that fits his abilities. The film’s better-than-expected box-office business also suggests he’s growing quite popular. It’s almost the kind of prowess you’d have to manufacture … wait, could it be?

—

3/5 Stars

—

Limitless
Directed by Neil Burger
Written by Leslie Dixon, Alan Glynn (novel)
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Abbie Cornish, Robert De Niro

There are the grand emotional courtroom dramas that immerse you in the ethical dilemmas that stem from from the case itself, filled with quotable speeches from venerable actors; then there’s “The Lincoln Lawyer” starring Matthew McConaughey. Based on the Michael Connelly novel, the film plays more like a crime thriller set in the legal realm, one that intends to be equal parts slick and ethically challenging. Rather than an honorable protagonist who must do the right thing in the face of great adversity to combat a corrupt justice system, Mick Haller is an alcoholic with a moral compass that would make your intestines curl.

“The Lincoln Lawyer” embraces the idea that the legal system is an open air-market where deals are cut left and right “justice” is nothing more than a word that keeps it from crumbling. Mick Haller puts bad guys on the street and makes a living off the legal fees of some of the scummier creatures in Los Angeles, but he’s also seen his fair share of state prosecutors using big hammer on a tiny nail — that’s just how it goes. However, there comes a time when every person’s true moral character is tested.

Haller finds himself in a tough spot when he agrees to defend a wealthy real estate agent name Louis Roulet (Ryan Philippe) who’s been charged with assaulting and raping a prostitute. If he’s telling the truth, the case seems pretty open-and-close, but he’s hiding a few secrets that twist the case in unimaginable ways.

Although terrific talent lines this film inside and out, the acting merely helps bolster the impressiveness of the gripping story. Director Brad Furman has paced the film perfectly with the exception of the last 15 minutes; there are essentially no dull moments. Solid legal thrillers can wrap around your brain with the slightest of ease (why else would “Law & Order” still be on television?), but the true challenge lies in telling a unique story. No rival comes to mind to Haller’s ethical quandary.

McConaughey’s swagger makes him perfect for a sleazy lawyer, but the emotionally troubled alcoholic side of the character — the part that can’t sleep at night — doesn’t lie outside of his acting boundaries. Although neither the script nor the direction ever tests him for too long in this regard, he embodies the role to the point that it does add something to the film. In my experience, McConaughey’s never been better.

Actors such as William H. Macy, a still-underrated Ryan Phillippe, Marisa Tomei, Josh Lucas, John Leguizamo and Bryan Cranston all provide excellent fits and stud out the cast, but the stars remain the thrills of the story and Furman’s superb pacing.

The film’s ethical dilemmas and insights provide for some relatively strong chewing, but but “Lincoln Lawyer” rides suspense and engaging dialogue like a Lincoln Town Car into the sunset.

—

4/5 Stars

—

The Lincoln Lawyer
Directed by Brad Furman
Written by John Romano, Michael Connelly (novel)
Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Ryan Phillippe, Marisa Tomei, William H. Macy

Give Rodrigo Cortés credit: movie aside, few people could stand the thought of 90 minutes in a box with Ryan Reynolds. Not to jab at Reynolds’ talent, but most of his roles wear thin during the course of a movie and you can actually empathize with Paul Conroy. A Michigan- based truck driver, he’s on a routine delivery in Iraq when he gets kidnapped by some insurgents and buried in a wooden coffin with seemingly nothing but a cellphone and a lighter. We don’t get to see the kidnapping part, just the coffin, which makes for the film’s challenge: make lots with little.

Good thing for the cellphone, as there’s no story without it. Buried not too far underground so that he can get a signal and communicate with his captor as well as anyone else he chooses, much of the conflict scoots by on our imagining of the voice on the other end; it’s our chance to escape the claustrophobia of the film.

Personally, a shorter film with a bit more claustrophobia would have been more effective. Cortés makes us grow just as restless and impatient as Conroy, who conveniently has anxiety issues permitting outbursts of swearing to provide some needed noise, but “Buried” loses the effectiveness of its premise a bit with some of the social commentary of Chris Sparling’s script.

The film would have escaped as an effective mood piece with cries of a acclaim for Cortés had it focused solely on a guy in a box trying to save his life. Instead, Sparling dips us in and out of his criticism of the system and how its image to millions ranks higher than saving one individual life. A valid argument all things considered, but a bit counteracting to the purposes of “Buried” in terms of thrills.

Cortés scores points visually and in terms of suspense. Each light-emitting item in the coffin creates a different “color” and as such it affords him some creative wiggle-room to more directly influence audience reaction through lighting. On a couple occasions he pulls away from Reynolds and breaks the illusion of the audience being right there in the box with him, presumably allowing us to get some much-needed air, but his fear of torturing the audience into an irritable state gets the best of him.

Not a stretch here to say that Conroy lands as probably the best performance of Reynolds’ career. He makes a few snarky comments here and there lest we forget he’s the guy in the box, but as he pleads with voices on the other end to pick up the phone, come save him, or stop being a bleeping idiot, he’s most importantly relinquishing control. Reynolds rarely plays characters who don’t dominate the scene or desire being the center of attention. Amusing because Paul Conroy is that kind of character exactly, just in a more literal way. As such, kudos to Reynolds for not completely milking that attention for egotistical purposes. We could have done with half as many outbursts and phone calls that end in hyperventilation (seriously, how much air is in that box?), but never once do we dispose of our sympathy for Paul and his situation.

That’s key, because “Buried” excites ’til the very end. Rarely does a film build up as much doubt about the ending and legitimate confusion about whether or not Paul will suffocate or be saved. While the social commentary plays into that answer and costs “Buried” some points in terms of being a terrific thriller, Cortés has created an incomparable ride that had so much potential to go wrong but swerves artfully around most of it.

—

3.5/5 Stars

—

Buried
Directed by Rodrigo Cortés
Written by Chris Sparling
Starring: Ryan Reynolds

What a seemingly insurmountable task to adapt and execute the multiple story lines and brimming detail of Stieg Larsson’s novel “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” Despite all the slicing and dicing (yet still a two-and-half-hour run time), credit belongs to this Swedish filmmaking team for still managing to replicate the novel’s extraordinary pacing.

The sacrifice, unfortunately, is tone. In spite of the length, director Niels Arden Oplev makes the film into a full-on sprint. We never get a chance, with the exception of the magnetizing character that is Lisbeth Salander and Noomi Rapace’s performance as her, of getting under the story’s or characters’ skin. We barely have enough time to really understand what kind of a character Mikael Blomqvist (Michael Nyqvist) is before he’s engrossed in solving the film’s core murder mystery. Yet despite all those complaints, would I or anyone be able to do any better without needing to make the film in two parts? I’d like to think there’s a way, but I would not volunteer the man-hours necessary to carve it out.

“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” tells the story of a business reporter named Mikael Blomqvist who ends up disgraced when he loses a libel suit thanks to faulty information used in an article trying to take down a billionaire. Needing to lay low, he receives a call from another rich businessman, Henrik Vanger (Sven-Bertil Taub), who offers Blomqvist ridiculous compensation to work on solving a 40-year-old mystery involving Vanger’s missing niece, who he believes was murdered.

Meanwhile, Lisbeth Salander (Rapace) is an information collector (aka hacker) with a troubled past and a number of tattoos and piercings who is doing her own research on Blomqvist and ultimately ends up getting wrapped in the mystery as well.

Although iffy on what it cuts from the book and what it alters, the adaptation succeeds at juxtaposing a lot of separate scenes in the novel into one sequence in the film. A common method for combining story lines and sub plots, this is particularly effective in picking up the suspense. As such, the film flows well and the key moments like the end and some pivotal events in the Salander subplot do not lack the impact or intensity that they require.

“Dragon Tattoo” moves at an entertaining clip, but never engulfs you like the novel and that will ultimately lead countless people to declare the books “so much better.” The themes, tone and depth simply do not exist. I imagine some of the production elements such as cinematography and a better musical score come with a lack of budget too, so that doesn’t help matters. Yet strong performances and entertainment value in this film do echo what made Larsson’s book so wildly popular.
—

3.5/5 Stars

—

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Directed by Niels Arden Oplev
Written by Nickolaj Arcel and Rasmus Heisterberg, Stieg Larsson (novel)
Starring: Noomi Rapace, Michael Nyqvist, Sven-Bertil Taube, Peter Haber

There’s no way to watch “Following” and not conclude that Christopher Nolan would become something special. Someone who can weave that much complexity into a film with a cast of few and in the course of just 69 minutes clearly has a knack for the filmmaking thing.

“Following” might not amount to a whole lot other than being the evidence necessary to secure financial backing for Nolan’s even more chronologically elaborate follow-up, “Memento,” but it holds its own. If “Memento” is the board game Clue than “Following” is Clue Jr. There are fewer characters, fewer loose ends to tie up, but the same desired effect is achieved.

The story begins with a young man (Jeremy Theobald) explaining to someone how he began following people. An aspiring writer, he’s fascinated by people-watching (and to some extent we all are), yet he admits he broke a few of his personal rules and therefore got caught up in the ensuing story.

One of the men he follows too far is Cobb (Alex Haw), who confronts him in a coffee shop. Before the young man knows it, he’s beings swooped up by Cobb, who has a knack for trespassing and “robbing” houses (he doesn’t take much). A total loner, the young man becomes his sidekick of sorts.

From this point on the film jumps out of order. Scenes from the end of the story are jumbled in with scenes from the beginning and scenes from the middle, with our only visual clue being the length of the young man’s hair. This is where the noir-style thriller comes in and justifies Nolan’s choice to shoot in black-and-white. The film seems like it will be a social experiment gone wrong, but “Following” evolves into a thick mystery.

After a thorough brain-scrambling, Nolan delivers the payoff by revealing twists one at a time. There are even twists on twists, quite the skill and daring for a first feature film. An amateur without a true gift would fail to dupe or impress anyone, but Nolan does both.

In order to make this climax work, Nolan does sacrifice a bit. Scenes we should have been paying attention to have no other compelling reason to keep our interest even though we’ll wish we had kept it when the credits role. Part of this is because he only had amateur actors, part is because the scenes only exist so that the ending makes sense and leaves no margin for error.

It’s easy to see why Nolan has risen to elite filmmaker status in just 12 years of feature filmmaking (to this point), and there’s no doubt cinephiles will be following him for many years to come.

—

4/5 Stars

—

Following
Written and Directed by Christopher Nolan
Starring: Jeremy Theobald, Alex Haw, Lucy Russell

“True Romance” blossoms on a lot of levels, but it most distinctively bears the mark of an early Quentin Tarantino film. The scene dynamics and the way it plays beautifully in and out of turning points are all early signs of the would-be master at work. Released the year between “Resevoir Dogs” and “Pulp Fiction,” “True Romance” doesn’t carry his directorial signature, but it reeks of Tarantino in all the right ways and compares favorably with those two early ’90s crime thrillers.

The replay value of “True Romance” dwells in how its bounty of supporting actors all went on to outdo its two stars. Christian Slater and Patricia Arquette play Clarence and Alabama, a couple who meet because Alabama was a call girl hired to sleep with Clarence as a birthday present. They fall in love and marry instantly. To put the past behind them, Clarence visits her pimp (Gary Oldman — that’s awesome supporting role number one), kills him and makes off with a half million in coke.

Hunting the runaway couple are agents of a mob boss played in one 100 percent Tarantino scene by Christopher Walken and later by James Gandolfini in a breakout performance. Brad Pitt, who worked with director Tony Scott’s brother Ridley as an unknown just two years before in another fugitive film, “Thelma & Louise,” plays the unassuming stoner roommate of Clarence’s best friend (played by comedian Michael Rapaport). Other notables are brief appearances from Samuel L. Jackson and Val Kilmer, as well as Dennis Hopper as Clarence’s father.

Even with this “secret” knowledge, this dynamic works for this story, one that attempts to broaden one’s definition of love to include murder, running from the law and flat out acting nuts. Clarence and Alabama are unconventional and completely stupid, deserving of losing everything, but in front of a backdrop of characters who define true moral scumminess, it becomes easy to root for them.

Scott certainly helped create the suspense necessary for a dialog-heavy Tarantino script and that warrants applause, but Quentin simply owns this picture at its core. Hopper’s “history lesson” where he laughs in Walken’s face as he refers to his ancestors as a racial epithet showcase Tarantino’s classic tension-twisting. The way a scene’s momentum shifts at the drop of a hat and climaxes into pure mayhem captures his utter brilliance.

The characters spanning a wide array of vivid strangeness and the sheer untamable wildness of the story and events make “True Romance” hard to forget.

—

4/5 Stars

—

True Romance (1993)
Directed by Tony Scott
Written by Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Christian Slater, Patricia Arquette, Dennis Hopper

Mel Gibson returns to suitable form in “Edge of Darkness,” a revenged-fueled thriller by the producer and writer of “The Departed.” It’s not that anyone doubted Gibson’s prowess, especially in a role with motivation as clear as “you people killed my daughter and when I prove it I’m going to make you pay in ways you never imagined.” For some reason, we expected him to be rattled after eight years off which included his infamous DUI and the subsequent racist and anti-Semitic rants. The role of police detective Thomas Craven works for him. Heaps of praise are not warranted here, but this complicated mystery is a decent flick that he pilots with ease.

The premise here is last year’s surprise hit “Taken” mixed with your typical corporate and government cover-up thriller. The former is Gibson’s specialty: adding some emotion to the hardened cop role, and these days he comes at a cheaper price than Bruce Willis. The latter is writer William Monahan’s specialty, the writer who weaved together the many characters of “The Departed” into a top-notch suspense film. The issue is the two don’t work in tandem as well as they should. Certain scenes are dedicated to Craven’s emotional side such as hallucinations of his daughter as a child or her talking to him. Others are dedicated to Gibson finding out about the crazy nature of his daughters work and exposing the truth.

“Edge of Darkness” feels like two scripts that someone tried to make into one. I’ve no idea what the BBC program the film is based on was like, but perhaps it had more time to make both plots operate together as one. Monahan and Andrew Bovell’s version rushes through both.

The better-executed part is by far the conspiracy. It’s not all that complicated, but the information whips by and much of it comes out of Ray Winstone’s unintelligible mouth, magnifying the problem. Winstone plays a cover-up specialist looking into the death of Craven’s daughter. Named Jedburgh, his motivation is unknown. While initially Craven believes he was the intended target of the bullet that took down his daughter, we quickly learn that’s not the case from Jedburgh. Craven digs into her past (their relationship wasn’t very open prior to her death), finding out she worked for a nuclear power manufacturer headed by Jack Bennett, played by Danny Huston, an actor with a reputation for playing the dislikable character without overdoing it. As it turns out, she might have been trying to expose something.

Considering her father’s motivation is in avenging her murder, not in being a hero by setting Bennett and those he’s in league with up to be caught with their pants down, the signals are mixed. By the time we are wrapped in the mystery, we become far less interested in Craven’s internal struggle and Gibson’s performance loses weight. When the script decides he’s going to turn the ass-kicking dial up to 11, our reaction is not immediately “get ‘em, Mel,” but “hold ‘em captive and get more information out of ‘em so we can find out what’s going on … Mel!” The story comes to a compelling “Departed”-style climax, but it takes a mental adjustment because these two plots aren’t on the same page.

No knocks here against “Casino Royale” director Martin Campbell, who was obviously brought in to tackle the challenge of generating the emotional impact while expertly handling the action and suspense as he proved capable of by turning James Bond, cinema’s most infamously hardened hero, into an emotionally complex character. The action and suspense scenes are terrifically paced, but the script keeps Campbell on a leash as far as everything else. There’s only so much one can do to make a father’s redundant hallucinations of his little girl palatable.

Nevertheless, “Edge of Darkness” will grab your attention in spots and on occasion floor you with its thorough knowledge of police department infrastructure, protocol and information access (did I mention Monahan wrote “The Departed?). And Gibson, he does what he always used to, keep it real with a likable protagonist. It sure makes you wonder how the guy can be an a-hole in actuality. I guess that’s acting for you.

—

3/5 Stars

—

Edge of Darkness
Directed by Martin Campbell
Written by William Monahan, Andrew Bovell, Troy Kennedy-Martin (TV Series)
Starring: Mel Gibson, Ray Winstone, Danny Huston

As a fan of science fiction allegory, social experiment, “The Twilight Zone” and the thriller genre –no less all those elements combined — Richard Kelly and his film “The Box” should’ve at least won me over, but it doesn’t. It can’t even decide if it wants to remain completely mysterious or explicitly tell us what’s going on and any film that has to contemplate that is too complex for its own good.

With any story this daring, there’s potential for something meaningful. “The Box” does let you glimpse it and draw a few interesting conclusions, but through intellectual jail bars placed before our eyes by the myriad of plot contrivances. In other words, too many plot elements exist in in the film that keep us from ever putting our mind around what Kelly is trying to say. Although he starts simply by focusing on a couple (James Marsden and Cameron Diaz) and their child making an ethical decision, the scope widens to include everything from Arthur C. Clarke references to mindless drones to some indiscernible notion of the afterlife.

This beginning piece is based on Richard Matheson’s story “Button, Button,” which was a short story turned into a “Twilight Zone” episode. In “The Box,” a mysterious man with a half-burned face played by Frank Langella drops off a box with a button in it at the doorstep of Norma and Arthur Lewis and their son Walter. He later comes back and gives Norma a proposition: don’t press the button and nothing happens, or press the button and receive one million dollars and subsequently someone, anywhere in the world, whom they don’t know will die.

Well, Norma, a teacher, just lost her teacher tuition discount for her son and Arthur’s application to be an astronaut was just denied and despite living in a nice looking house in Richmond, Virginia they apparently have no money, so it’s not hard to figure out ultimately what they’ll do. After all, don’t press the button and there’s no film — not that some people who sit through this would’ve minded that in retrospect.

As with his cult hit “Donnie Darko,” Kelly keeps “The Box” fascinatingly creepy. It starts with the colors, the classic string soundtrack from the band Arcade Fire and some peculiar Easter eggs and moves on to more jarring occurrences. There is never a point where things get so absurd that you don’t care what happens in the end, even if there’s a chance the end could be terribly unsatisfying. It’s one of few saving graces for “The Box,” but perhaps even this is only for those intrigued by high concept sci-fi mystery that parallels human nature no matter how vague.

When any thriller collapses somewhere after the midway point, you can usually blame the fact that too many occurrences in need of explaining were written in order for the writer to achieve his desired end. When James Marsden gets hit in a car by a truck and comes out of a giant light warehouse and that ultimately never gets explained, its degrading to the viewer.

The real trouble with “The Box” is how ambitiously it tries to combine the ideas of intelligent life/space exploration with religious notions of life, death and what might come after as well as numerous other elements too many and too difficult to explain. Kelly found that balance between time travel and inter-relationship drama in “Donnie Darko” but “The Box” implodes on itself by severing its little social experiment from the characters with too much unexplained phenomena.

—

3/5 Stars

The Box
Directed by Richard Kelly
Written by Richard Kelly, Richard Matheson (short story)
Starring: Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, Frank Langella

Anyone could market or even direct “The Conversation” as a mystery, but Francis Ford Coppola manages to reveal some of our human tendencies in his film just as well as he holds us in suspense. Voyeurism, like it or not, is a human characteristic. Modern day reality television simultaneously proves both this point alone and that “The Conversation” is an excellent film because it has only ripened over the years.

Coppola’s character Harry Caul, portrayed by Gene Hackman in one of his finest performances, is the embodiment of this guilty pleasure of spying on others whether covertly or casually. He’s a professional wire-tapper, one of the best in the business, seemingly able to capture the most pristine recordings for all his clients even though he is rarely enlightened as to the purpose of his jobs. It’s not too long before we learn that Harry is a devout Catholic who harbors a bit of guilt because his career founds itself on the don’t ask, don’t tell principle.

The film opens with what its title promises: a conversation. Harry has been hired to record a discussion between a man and a woman on their work break. The conversation seems inconspicuous, but the more Harry deals with his mysterious client and goes back to listen to the tapes, the more he begins to hear and infer from the conversation. He eventually comes to the conclusion he might have recorded a death warrant and begins to grow paranoid.

Harry’s complexity is the finest element of Coppola’s script. The story develops slowly but Harry becomes a more peculiar figure in the viewer’s mind as time wears on. At first it seems like he isolates himself for protection purposes, but his loneliness becomes more and more apparent. He constantly feels threatened and there feels like a layer of ice between him and his relationships in the film, especially two memorable scenes where he interacts with women.

Coppola’s elegant framing and precision pacing do the rest of the work drawing us further in as the story progresses, highlighting our own preoccupation with the truth behind this couple’s conversation. We’re made aware of our own tendency to twist words and misinterpret what someone is saying, not to mention how easy and commonplace it really is to essentially spy on someone and invade his or her privacy entirely.

“The Conversation” properly mixes drama with mystery while offering a complete character portrait and subtle social commentary. Most films don’t have that many tools working for them but Coppola’s masterful script does. No single element is consummate or overrides the rest, but together they make for a fine film.

—

4/5 Stars

The Conversation
Written and directed by Francis Ford Coppolla
Starring: Gene Hackman, Teri Garr, John Cazale

A thriller on the Trans-Siberian railway is not an everyday film premise and that is in part what makes “Transsiberian” interesting. It’s not typical in any way unless you count the connection between murder and trains. That, and its cast is quality without seeking out big- hitting names and its director, Brad Anderson (“The Machinist”) is a fairly understated one. The story of a married couple onboard the railway and encountering something over their heads is not full of devious twists and turns, but it’s attention-getting.

Emily Mortimer and Woody Harrleson star as two married travelers who after going to China to do volunteer work through their church, decide to travel through Russia by train to make their trip a bid more adventurous. After all, we wouldn’t have much of a film without them deciding to take the train. On board, they meet Carlos and Abby, a young couple whom they bond with, but who appear more and more suspicious as the film inches toward its first big event.

Not much more can be said without giving away large chunks of the suspenseful elements of the film. It’s not bland, but the intrigue of this film is summed up into just a handful of moments. Ben Kingsley, however, has a dynamite supporting role as a Russian homicide/narcotics detective. His performance is crucial to the movie’s entertainment value.

I would suspect a lot of people would be less than enamored with “Transsiberian” because it floats between suspenseful thriller and a drama about keeping secrets, telling lies and guilt. It’s not pure entertainment, nor is profound with regards to the human condition. Expectation for one or the other is a recipe for not having much of a feeling about this film.

I, however, found the subtlety of Anderson’s film a delightful change of pace and the characters played by Mortimer and Harrelson (and the performances they give) easy to sympathize with and unique. Anderson doesn’t use any familiar clichés in creating suspense with his film. It just builds toward its few moments and with the help of what I felt was an equally effective score from Spanish composer Alfonso Vilallonga. “Transsiberian” is effective in rhythm and mood, not in plot twists and profundity.

—

3.5/5 Stars

Transsiberian (2008)
Directed by Brad Anderson
Written by Brad Anderson, Will Conroy
Starring: Emily Mortimer, Woody Harrelson, Ben Kingsley, Kate Mara

There’s exploiting the criminal justice system and then there’s Clyde Shelton’s (Gerard Butler) exploiting of the criminal justice system, which involves killing everyone connected to it. Right and wrong is hardly black and white in any good movie and in “Law Abiding Citizen” it’s hardly a hundred shades of gray. Shelton is a man who lost is family and didn’t get the justice he thought he deserved in the prosecution of his family’s killers. Ten years later he not only gets his “justice” by killing both guys, but also when he’s taken to prison he begins to orchestrate a series of murders seemingly while in solitary confinement.

Shelton is a combination of the vengeful father character and The Joker — Heath Ledger’s Joker, that is. A series of carefully planned murders help him to try and make his point about the inherent flaws in the U.S criminal justice system while the attorney who wouldn’t take his case all the way (Jamie Foxx) tries to stop him knowing full well he could be next. “Citizen” is not a brilliant deconstruction of American law, but it exposes it impressively and manages to make that concept turn into an exciting thriller.

The harshest critics of “The Dark Knight” are liable to have the same problems with this film: plot holes. Screenwriter Kurt Wimmer, who wrote the Pierce Brosnan remake of “The Thomas Crown Affair” and the solid sci-fi dystopia film “Equilibrium” is experienced enough to make the film believable for most of the movie, but any film about a mad man concocting the most grandiose and precise murders and not failing is bound to produce skeptical viewers and rightfully so.

It’s an ambitious film, but in that sense and also in trying to be both entertaining thriller and social commentary, managing to succeed at one and come awfully close with the latter. The only reason the commentary falls short is because the action takes the film so far away from the original incident of Clyde’s family being killed and his first act of revenge that it sets up the conflict and the “what is justice?” themes better than it carries them out to their end.

Nevertheless “Citizen” is clever and at times brilliant. Butler and Foxx are credible talents and lend themselves to this film very well. Veterans Colm Meaney and Bruce McGill also round out the cast impressively and certainly director F. Gary Gray (“The Italian Job”) has his credentials. It gives a needed boost to Starz’ Overture Films, which aside from “Sunshine Cleaning” is a studio that hasn’t had much to hang its hat on just yet.

—

3.5/5 Stars

Law Abiding Citizen
Directed by F. Gary Gray
Written by Kurt Wimmer
Starring: Gerard Butler, Jamie Foxx

In the wake of World War II, Alfred Hitchcock brought audiences “Notorious,” a romantic thriller with political undertones. To audiences of the era, I’m sure it was slightly scandalous. Not only in its dealing with Germans living in Brazil post-WWII and handling uranium, but also with its co-stars Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman kissing on and off for an extremely long take. It’s safe to say that was particularly sensual for film in 1946, but for modern viewers, their love affair seems almost childish and unfounded. The one aspect of this film that has not withered over the last 60-some years, however, is the immaculate direction of Sir Alfred Hitchcock.

Hitchcock is not only a master of suspense in “Notorious,” but also of grace and creativity. His every directorial choice is inspired and brilliant, creating every emotion and audience reaction he could’ve possibly intended. From his elegant zoom-ins on a memorable key to his object-focused transitions such as bottles of wine, Hitchcock is what makes this film truly great. Writer Ben Hecht has certainly crafted a screenplay of carefully placed tension and brilliant turns of events, but it’s Hitchcock telling this story through the details that makes it a classic.

Grant and Bergman star as two people with a mission who fall for each other. He’s a government agent in charge of persuading her, the daughter of a German-born traitor who’s just been imprisoned, to go undercover in Rio. She must use her womanly wiles to gain access to the house of one of her father’s old acquaintances who has always had feelings for her. Tension between the two lovers rises when she marries him for the sake of the operation.

The romantic aspect of the film is definitely weak by modern standards. It’s got a juicy old- world feel that when things get tough for them, acts like it’s a whole lot more intense than it is. Grant and Bergman, however, do their part to charm the audience into going with it. Once you get over the hump that they’ve starting taking themselves way to seriously too soon, it becomes an intriguing part of the film.

As a thriller, after the first 45 minutes the film starts to pick up. Hecht and Hitchcock hold the film’s only secret over your head for as long as they can to keep your attention and it pays off. There’s something just classically suspenseful about our heroes trying to gain access to the restricted cellar at a party, but if the party runs out of champagne, they’ll get caught. Hitchcock keeps showing the number of bottles in the cooler diminishing and the tension builds. Classic technique and there’s nothing stale about it.

The political edge has also kind of worn down on this film. I can imagine that would feel like a bigger deal right after WWII, but today the undertones are too subtle to come across the viewer completely. Hecht’s storytelling, however, premise aside, is superb. Ultimately, even if the romance is a bit out there and the magnitude of the situation diminished over the years Hitchcock and “Notorious” have you hooked, as always, on what will happen next.

—

4/5 Stars

Notorious (1946)
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
Written by: Ben Hecht
Starring: Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman

There comes a point in the repetitive nature of films where the phrase “run-of-the-mill” just won’t do. In the case of the remake of the train hijack/ransom heist thriller “The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3,” the mill has been running so much that maybe the more adequate phrase should be the past tense “ran.” Tony Scott’s “Pelham” does give us those vital and homey conventions of the “mad man takes hostages and demands millions” movie, but the story is so straightforward and the film as a whole never seems to take itself seriously enough to completely hook its audience and pull them into the situation.

First there’s John Travolta, rocking some creepy facial hair, senseless tattoos and shouting swear words at authorities like it’s the third grade and his buddy just taught them to him. Considering “Pelham” is not a movie that aims to dig into the psychological background of its antagonist, his attempt to play up the Joker-esquire semi-insanity of his character is pointless. The script does coax you to guess the motive of his character, but the ultimate answer isn’t good enough to justify Travolta’s performance. Even Denzel Washington, unlike previous Tony Scott thrillers, is relegated to spectacles and a weak attitude. The characters offer very little gravity to the hostage situation.

In the film, Travolta and his cronies hijack a New York City subway train and hold everyone in it hostage for $10 million dollars In the process. Washington’s character, the man who oversees that section of the rail traffic, gets stuck in the situation because Travolta’s character takes a strong liking to him from their radio conversations.

Travolta’s “all guts, no glory” attitude does keep you in suspense for brief moments when he might kill another hostage, but the attempts to make us really care about the hostages on board are feeble and half-hearted. I really don’t pity the guy video chatting with his girlfriend during the crisis who keeps stupidly demanding that he tell her he loves her when he could get shot if he says something. Then there’s the matter of him getting Internet down in the tunnel, but that would have been more forgivable if it weren’t such a cop out.

The only real solid other than Washington despite his limitations is the direction of Scott, who does everything in his power to keep up the intensity of this bare bones movie. Speeding blur transition to mimic the feeling of a train as it barrels by and briefly freezing moments and giving us title cards to show time ticking down until the deadline for the money exchange are a few of the techniques that the master of highly watchable thrillers employs.

“Pelham” isn’t horrid, it just doesn’t bring a whole lot to the table. It makes no effort to stand out among the dozens of ransom thrillers that came before it other than that it involves a subway train. Unless you’re a sucker for the genre, “Pelham” won’t feel like it made enough effort to go beyond mere sufficiency and I say that having really enjoyed Scott’s “Deja Vu” and “Man on Fire,” for example. I’d recommend searching for a thriller that might have something more to offer before trying out “Pelham.”

—

2.5/5 Stars

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009)
Directed by: Tony Scott
Written by: Brian Helgeland (screenplay), Joe Godey
Starring: Denzel Washington, John Travolta

It’s been awhile since we’ve seen a good cat-and-mouse thriller done old school, and that’s exactly what “Public Enemies” is. Merely trade in your usual summer crime movie full of thieves in ski masks wielding uzis for ones wearing suits and fedoras armed with tommy guns and suddenly you’re getting entertained Great Depression-style. “Public Enemies” is a neat crossover between the action-packed thrillers of today and the mob movies of yesterday, and one that comes to us well-armed with the talents of Johnny Depp, Christian Bale and a master of the thriller genre: director Michael Mann.

“Public Enemies” is about 80 percent action thriller, 20 percent biography of infamous ’30s bank robber John Dillinger (Depp). It gives us a colorful character portrait of Dillinger as a care-free crook with a sense of humor, but its main goal is to give us a handful of flashy crackling gun fights. It’s not an intimate or dramatic character study that makes us think twice about what it means to be America’s most wanted; the intention is to develop Dillinger enough so that Depp can make him an intriguing personality for us to follow on this 140- minute “catch me if you can” adventure. So check your Oscar-caliber expectations at the theater entrance.

Depp is a perfect fit as Dillinger, a man who lived in the moment, doing only as he wanted and hearing only what he wanted to hear, even when it was “you won’t get away with this forever.” He’s a likable criminal type, not unlike a clean-shaven and articulate Jack Sparrow. Basically, he makes life hell for the Bureau of Investigation (it’s his example that will later add the “F”) and the chief detective on his case — Melvin Purvis (Bale). He’s the silly rabbit that keeps getting away, and Bale — in a strong but unremarkable performance — vows to hunt him down.

This isn’t unfamiliar territory for director/writer Mann, whose thriller “Heat” was basically a more sophisticated modern version of the cat-and-mouse story with two other stars on opposite ends of the fight (De Niro and Pacino). Like that film, “Public Enemies” has a lot of exciting and dramatic nighttime action scenes. The gunfight at the Wisconsin getaway with the guns lighting up the cold night air is most memorable. Mann more or less film this movie like someone who’s been here before. His only weakness is overuse of hand-held camera shots. In a period piece, you’d expect a filming style that would be a little more classic, framing every shot perfectly, but Mann insists on this modern technique that does sort of shatter the bubble of being in the ’30s in spots. There is definitely a sense at times that these are just modern people playing gangster dress-up — it’s not a flawless recreation of the era.

I’m unaware of the historical truths surrounding Dillinger and his cronies “Pretty Boy” Floyd and “Baby Face” Nelson, or even if he had a relationship with a Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard), but all their roles and the facts that may or may not accompany them are of little consequence to the enjoyment of the film for those who aren’t crime history buffs. Billie is the best example of a character rendered ineffective because the movie cares little about her (despite Cotillard’s talents). She’s just there because every no-good gangster/mob guy has a girlfriend, which isn’t great, but it’s fine because it gives us another side of Dillinger and he’s what is supposed to make the film stand out.

Keep in mind that “Public Enemies” was released in July and not December and you should enjoy it — it’s an action thriller done ’30s gangster style, not an Oscar-contending biographic crime drama. It wouldn’t be unfair to expect a bit more character conflict or development for all characters and actors not named “John,” but it’s definitely appropriate summer movie fare.

4/5 Stars

“Public Enemies” (2009)
Directed by: Michael Mann
Written by: Ronan Bennett, Michael Mann, Ann Biderman, Bryan Burrough (book)
Starring: Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard