Primal Fear (Gregory Hoblit)

The altar boy.

As much as it is a powerfully fearless courtroom drama, "Primal Fear" is a film better remembered as the shockingly brilliant cinematic debut of Edward Norton. But to limit this film solely for that fact does not do "Primal Fear" justice. True, it was Edward Norton, with his performance that I wouldn't bother to call as one of the great ones in recent memory, who has carried the film from its brutal opening scenes up to the shocking conclusion, but let's not count out Richard Gere. I have to admit that I have not watched a full Richard Gere film prior to "Primal Fear", as I've thought that, based on some snippets that I've seen from some of his works, he's merely playing himself on all of which I've partly seen. And with 'all', I mean two or three films, so they're not much for me to judge.

Nonetheless, Richard Gere is seemingly at his comfort zone playing an arrogant, cocky, scene-stealing hotshot lawyer named Martin Vail that ostensibly takes cases because he just likes the money and the attention. But with the film judging him worthy to be its hero, Gere convincingly transformed from such a charismatic prick into a silently desperate anti-hero that may or may not care for his client's fate, an altar boy named Aaron Stampler (masterfully played by Edward Norton) who 'allegedly' murdered a prominent Catholic Bishop, but still proceeded to defend him because his instinctive hunch tells him that the boy is innocent.

Meanwhile, on the side of the prosecution, there's Janet Venable, played by Laura Linney with reckless fervor and dry wit, a lawyer who takes on the role of prosecutor in the case more because she wants to keep her job (she's continually being pressured by her boss, John Shaughnessy, portrayed by John Mahoney) and less about unraveling skeletons better locked tight inside a closet. Surprisingly, both Gere and Linney had wonderful chemistry together, as their slightly humorous vibe makes the off-courtroom scenes seem to take on a bit of a comic tone, which personally makes those said scenes easier to watch even with all those barrister jargon being spontaneously thrown in the air.

"Primal Fear", with its initial narrative spark that fully promises a tangled murder story, may be much more deceptive than how you may initially think it would be. With a story (thanks to the source novel by William Diehl) that involves the Catholic Church and some muckraked revelations here and there, the film, with us viewers not knowing what we're really in for, is founded upon an evolving and sharp-edged murder case that may look isolated yet can really be something much more, but then again, can just be the other way around.

With this simple a cyclic narrative flow, "Primal Fear" has been way more effective in conveying complexity through its roundabout revelations and logical beatings around the bush to achieve a certain coherence to support a conclusion that may otherwise be deemed too simple, but one that will ironically make you ponder for hours on end even by the time the credits finally run out and all else are black.

Director Gregory Hoblit, a man whose career surprisingly never took off after this very impressive film, has painted a cinematic Chicago that's like a Gotham City that never was. Modernistic in its immediate towers and skyscrapers, depreciated in its mid-dwelling apartments and almost dystopian in its underbelly, cinematographer Michael Chapman has given Chicago a proper look to accompany the film's tone and also to disassociate and contrast the murdered bishop's posh house with those of the less unfortunate ones.

Whenever one hears the term 'courtroom drama', it's easy to expect some larger-than-life speeches given by the main characters, be it the lawyers themselves or the haplessly accused ones. We've seen Paul Muni's numbing speech in "The Life of Emile Zola", we've witnessed Gregory Peck's "In the name of God, do your duty" monologue as Atticus Finch in "To Kill a Mockingbird", and we've breathlessly beheld the lingual battle between Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men".

"Primal Fear's" courtroom scenes, on the other hand, never had any big-time dialogue exchanges or killer monologues. Instead, facts are treated as facts, while short-handed evidence and wrong choices of words equate frustration and seem like nothing more. The film, after all, is truly more focused on what it has to unravel than what it has to say.

To succeed on film at a young age, there are mainly two extremes: it's either you're really, really good at what you do or you just had the looks (sometimes it's even a case of nepotism). Norton, with his brilliant acting chops, stumbled and stuttered his way into cinematic prominence. He surely has taken the hard way. Indeed the path of a true actor.

FINAL RATING

Memento (Christopher Nolan)

Lenny and AMD.

After a 4th viewing, I finally came into terms on how great a psycho noir film "Memento" really is. Its lonely and constantly manipulated protagonist Leonard Shelby (played by the very underrated Guy Pearce), who is out there in the open searching for the man who raped and murdered his wife, isn't the only one that goes with the wave of the film's conflicted theme of revenge, deceit and selective thinking, but also us. 'This' character helps Leonard and 'that' character aids him, but can they really be trusted? "Memento" is indeed a film that gives its ultimate revelation in the end (which is also supposedly the chronological beginning of the film's colored sequences) just like any other mystery films, but what elevates the film above other movies of its kind is its unique view of its characters' reliability. Do they really speak of the truth?

The film plays like a crooked little jigsaw puzzle game and we, the audience and Leonard, are the clueless arrangers. Or is it like a tight-strung political conspiracy and we are the Woodwards and Bernsteins? "Memento" is truly successful in its layered exploration of the barren landscapes of a short term memory disorder-inflicted mind that visually simulates this through the film's reverse chronology. Christopher Nolan, who directed the film with both the limitless consciousness of a daring independent director and the depth of a human dramatist, fragments the film with subtle linkages that makes the film all the more urgent in its presentation. It's purely involving yet it never spoon-feeds plot devices and narrative necessities.

"Memento" merely plays like a confused sleuth who constantly goes around places until its confusion turns into a foggy clarity. As evident in its pattern alone, it stands as a film that was never really created to answer its own teetering questions. It probes into the deepest and treads the slightest yet the next thing you may know, it unravels on its own. Here is an exceptional mystery film that is more concerned with its protagonist's internal catharsis than the audience's plot satisfaction.

Here we do not have a hero but a mere vengeful soul. He wants answers but so do we. "Memento" hands out its clever twists and turns just like any other cinematic exercises in doing so but does not have the courtesy to give a parenthetical period. It's a fourth wall cerebral involvement and I'm more than happy to join in.

I hate films which open up a lot of doors yet don't have enough capacity to close them afterwards. "Memento" is different. It's meticulously written to the point that I have even imagined Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan drawing out diagrams for the film's numerous probabilities. We're very much aware of their skillful ability to answer the film's many questions with stoic narrative certainties, but they chose not to.

Like people with Anterograde Amnesia ourselves, Nolan is our few-worded storyteller that tells us an unforgettable tale of desire and the search for human closure but does not consider the necessity to leave us a pen so that we wouldn't forget. But as I like to call it, it's 'living in the moment and in it alone'.

Aside from a rich, 'blink and you'll miss it'-type of story, the film is also filled with splendid performances by former "Matrix" colleagues Carrie-Anne Moss and Joe Pantoliano. He (Pantoliano) embodies our common view of an unreliable handler of truth. Do the words he says comfort or distort?

"Memento" grabs us audience in its engrossing clutches but then leads us astray to each our own as the film ends. Some may find Teddy as a legitimate guide, some may consider Sammy Jankis nothing but a tarnished flashback, but again, to each our own. "Memento" surely polarizes in-depth views and what-if analyses among its viewers, but as a film that brilliantly shows the mystery of motives and the flaws of human relationships, it concentrates its audience into a common agreement that it is indeed one of the first great films of the new millennium.

First viewing, I thought it was confusing as hell. Second, I thought it was good but still confusing as all hell. Third, I thought it's not as confusing as how I initially thought it was but still wasn't as great as how everyone thinks it is. This is my fourth viewing and the rating speaks for itself. It's not 'confusion' that bothers me anymore but its characters' (particularly Teddy's) 'reliability' and the liability of Leonard's tattered memories; two doors worth finding the keys for.

FINAL RATING

Body Heat (Lawrence Kasdan)

A gun and a femme fatale.

One hot night in a coastal town, a lawyer subtly forced himself quite capably into a married woman. He bought her a cherry snowball, they fell in love. The consumption of the pleasures of the flesh is their primary goal. They groped, gyrated and talked. The married woman quietly despises his husband, but wait, she wants his money and so do the lawyer. 'What about murder? The two agreed. But will it be a perfect crime? Can they pull it off?

These are the questions that echo all throughout "Body Heat", a more-than-impressive directorial debut for Lawrence Kasdan, writer of such blockbuster movies as "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "The Empire Strikes Back". It really was quite ironic for a mainstream writer such as Kasdan, who established himself by creating proses for enjoyably superficial adventure and science fiction films, to explore so patiently, with two insidious and overtly sexual characters that made the film noir genre so darkly fascinating and strangely involving, the extent of a murder for a gain, from its conspiratorial planning to the burdening aftermath.

William Hurt plays Ned Racine, the error-prone lawyer whose womanizing ways easily makes him very vulnerable for manipulation and deceit. Hurt painted a character that may immediately look smart, witty and quietly reserved on the surface, but internally rambling with his own shortcomings and an unquenchable thirst for love. But he found that latter desire in the form of the initially distant but very sexual Matty Walker, played by Kathleen Turner with powerful complexity that seemingly re-envisions the legendary Barbara Stanwyck performance in "Double Indemnity" (although that may be intentional, as "Body Heat" was an indirect re-imagining of the said Billy Wilder classic). And along with that, the idea of the money he may get for offing Matty's husband (played by Richard Crenna. Yes, John Rambo's superior Col. Trautman) may serve as an easement to his first. Without readiness and barely an inch of a gut, the sluggish Ned finally agrees to conspire with Matty. But at what expense?

From those simple motives and without any cinematic contrivances in the murder itself, no additional disguises nor fleeting establishments all the way to the very deed, the film has able to carve an identity of its own in a haze of noirs that may easily look and feel the same: It opted for simplicity that is fueled with escalating intensity. Nothing complicated, nothing confusing, exactly just like how any potential criminals may prefer it to be.

Yes, there were some narrative nuggets that mainly serve as the plot's progressing points to weave the story well, but the consequentially enclosing sequences for Ned and Matty that follow their committed crime were purely founded by the two characters' deteriorating, though still emptily carnal, artificially romantic relationship, at least in the eyes of one of them (I wouldn't say who).

There were no outer forces, though Ned's friends and colleagues Lowenstein and Oscar (strong supporting performances by Ted Danson and J.A. Preston) are on a steady probe. No lawful deus ex machinas, no conscious editors or Lawrence Kasdan to pull the plug. Kasdan has already laid down a well-written material, so if it implies it's 'well-made', it is up to the molded characters to emphasize and internalize the film's core, and up to the actors to make it even more convincingly so.

Gladly, both shattered the limits of expectations. William Hurt and Kathleen Turner breath life into the film through their uneasy, sexually-charged interaction, while the atmospheric musical score by John Barry that highlights the film's moral sleaze, the watchful guidance of Kasdan himself and the artistic hands of cinematographer Richard H. Kline that harmonizes otherworldly fogs and warm color tones to render the clashing seediness and scorching liveliness of a heat-wave-stricken town added further effect.

Through that photography, not only did the two main characters breath life into the whole picture, but they also sweat dread. They have no choice but to absorb the natural heat, but to welcome the exceedingly tempting allure of money albeit a casualty, they surely have. Call it blood-drenched hedonism, but they preferred not to have any. For Ned, he had a choice to escape and give up, but he pushed on. Is it love or is it the money? Is it both or none?

As we question his motives, as we question hers (Matty), just like the great "Double Indemnity" and other great film noirs that dared to show the follies of crime and how the most perfectly executed one may also unexpectedly be the most flawed and stupid, our inquiries about a 'perfect crime' ceases to persist; there's already an answer, and the entirety of "Body Heat", it is.

The film is a haunting tale of where extreme desires may put people into just to make these a reality: in the edge of desperation, on the foolish side of manipulation and in the wake of dishevelment. And just when we thought that the moral tangles in the film would slightly loosen up a bit and the responsible ones are about to be completely punished, there's suddenly a victor, and what he/she has left behind, he/she could not care less.

Find out the character's gender for yourself, and whether you're a film noir/neo-noir viewing completist or just a simple lad whose spine tingles in the presence of a riveting narrative filled with carefully-placed twists and revelations, "Body Heat" is a must-see. Or watch "Double Indemnity" first then this, or the other way around. It will be very, very rewarding. Oh, and there's Mickey Rourke too.

FINAL RATING

Unbreakable (M. Night Shyamalan)

Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson: Third time around.

Film Review Archive (date seen: December 18, 2010)

Before M. Night "The Happening" Shyamalan became the laughing stock of cinephiles everywhere that he is today (enhanced courtesy of his live-action adaptation of the Avatar animation series), he was quite a capable filmmaker that has the uncommon touch of conveying emotional power.

Though his earlier film "The Sixth Sense" was the most renowned of all his works, for me, "Unbreakable" is the better film. Not only because it's a well-weaved tale of self-discovery, but also because it has brought the superhero mythos and all its undertones into a different territory. No, not into familiar grounds that consist of flying musclemen and villainous megalomaniacs, but into a complex observation of its ideas, its translation into an environment more grounded in reality, and its application to the two main characters' (played by Bruce Willis and Samuel Jackson in their third film together) individualism and their search for existential meaning.

Yes, that may sound a tad too deep considering the conventionally immediate visualization (protagonists wearing colorful tights and leotards) of the film's main theme. But director Shyamalan completely deconstructed those basic ideas, left important concepts into the film (such as the idea of a hero, a villain and the complexity of choice), and able to conceive a film that may look really familiar based on its initial elements, but a whole new exploration in its entirety.

"Unbreakable" is not about heroism nor villainy; it's a film about motives and decisions within that ultimately define who we really are.

FINAL RATING

The Girl Who Played with Fire (Daniel Alfredson)

The Girl with a dark past which haunts her in the present.

Film Review Archive (date seen: December 11, 2010)

Just when I thought things got a little better for Mikael and especially for Lisbeth in “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”, things started to get rougher in this gritty, though a bit laid back second installment in the “Millennium” trilogy.

As far as the narrative is concerned, there’s no connection whatsoever between the chief mystery in the first film with this one, but there’s also little exposition here involving characters such as Bjurman and Zala. So although “The Girl Who Played With Fire” is still a good watch all on its own, it’s further recommended to really watch the first film to really let the eponymous character, her relationship with journalist Mikael, and her inner struggles sink in unto one’s viewing consciousness. What’s exceptional in this film is its great maintenance of its thrill factor, letting the visuals and visceral sequences speak for itself, with just hints of musical scores to accompany them without any overkill.

I have to say that plot-wise, in the tradition of all the other twisty thriller films, I prefer “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” more. But this film’s revelation of Lisbeth Salander’s wounded past, albeit with some soap opera-like feel in its unraveling, is nonetheless still very compelling. Mikael Blomkvist is in pure journalist mode in here though, so do not expect a chase sequences or two from him.

FINAL RATING

Minority Report (Steven Spielberg)

Tom Cruise: jumping futuristic cars and anticipating crimes.

Film Review Archive (date seen: December 11, 2010)

“Blade Runner”, “Total Recall”, and now “Minority Report”. Philip K. Dick’s alternative view of dystopia and the condition of future society has influenced modern filmmakers. From cyberpunk films to neo-noir-ish treatment of the sci-fi genre, his works have, although its scientific ideas were not entirely plausible, in some ways, churned up visions that might as well be prophetic and relevant to both our world’s current technological advancements and present state of morality.

Fresh from his work on the Kubrick-conceived “Artificial Intelligence”, Steven Spielberg then tried to merge his own visions with Philip K. Dick’s, and the result is “Minority Report”, quite possibly one of the best sci-fi films of our generation. I’ve always preferred sci-fi films not delving into much computer-generated overkill, but in this case, I have to make an exception. Because although Spielberg is quite well-known as a visual baroque, this film is less a flamboyant display of futuristic computer-altered images than it is an effective portrayal of a ‘perfect’ system that is really not what it seems to be. Tom Cruise is great as John Anderton, mixing his past experiences with hard action films with emotional depth and some mild black comedy (in the eye transplant scene, with the exceptional Peter Stormare).

Paralleling Max Von Sydow’s character’s surname (Burgess) with “A Clockwork Orange’s” author, both works deal with the same subject matter. And though a bit different in substantial attack, have clamored for one common, irreversible fact: That ‘crime’ cannot be prevented by the repression of human nature. Its solution lies within one’s own “choice”. An outstanding film that meritoriously worked on a cerebral level, but also did not falter on its entertainment value.

FINAL RATING

Sea of Love (Harold Becker)

An awkward relationship.

Film Review Archive (date seen: December 8, 2010)

Though it's the main motif of the film, the title "Sea of Love" was quite misleading when I first saw it, as it sounds more like an ideal title for a romantic pocket book than for a mysterious thriller. Al Pacino is obviously comfortable in playing the cop protagonist, a common role that he would soon portray heftily after this film's release, squeeze out from it memorable performances after another, and put it end on end as the polar opposite of his gritty gangster roles.

"Sea of Love" has a very good first-half that flowed so effortlessly (with the help of the very entertaining John Goodman) I haven't even noticed that I'm already halfway done. But the latter part which involved the plot's main revelation is quite predictable, not because of flawed writing, but by a critical casting choice that pretty much gave the film away. (SPOILERS) I have nothing against Michael Rooker, but come on, this actor garnered immense cult fame by playing Henry Lee Lucas in "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer". Would you really expect him to just play a naive, good-natured witness in a bit part? The killer instinct in his eyes that gave me nightmarish jitters while watching "Henry" suggested that he would certainly not.

Richard Jenkins is quite good as the subdued Gruber (way before anyone even thought of mentioning his name and 'Oscar nominee' in the same sentence), and a then-unknown Samuel Jackson as a criminal attending the "Meet the Yankees" breakfast, almost two years before his head was blown off by Joe Pesci in "Goodfellas".

FINAL RATING