Enemy

I will apologize right up front, there was no proof reading of this review today.  I suppose that is how the cookie crumbles from time to time, but for it to get posted today it just needed to be done and out of the way.  It was a very complex movie and my brain just was not getting off the starting line today, which made reviewing it quite the difficult task.

While some people enjoy straight forward movies, there are also some people out there who enjoy the mystery and riddle to a film which does less storytelling, and focuses more on leaving some clues around for the audience decipher.  It can be a rewarding experience to view a film and let your brain pick up the task of plotting out possible scenarios and explanations for elements of the movie and coming up with a point of view that makes sense within the context of the story.  For the most part, Denis Villeneuve’s Enemy expertly disperses nuggets of possibility to the viewers without relying on offering its own reasoning, keeping the suspense and intrigue front and centre, demanding all of the viewer’s attention.

Enemy is a story of a history teacher named Adam (Jake Gyllenhaal) who learns that there is someone out there named Anthony (also Jake Gyllenhaal) who looks and sounds exactly like him.  Adam becomes obsessed with this and works to locate and meet his double.  As he is seeking for answers, so are we, as we gain some insight into the story that acts as both context and symbolism to view in light of Adam’s story.

Much like Prisoners, Villeneuve shows an expertise in the visual aspect of directing and has a great sense of what to include in shots and what to leave out.  He has an ability to insert props and set pieces into scenes to inform the audience as to what is going on, as well as a using them to inform us on the characters themselves.  Very little explanation comes in the form of dialogue in this film, and the reason for that is the proficiency Villeneuve has in visual storytelling.  In fact, there are long sections of this film where there is little to no dialogue, and all we have to guide us is what we see.

Another talent of Villeneuve is in how he uses filters and light to tell the story and set the mood.  In the life of Adam, everything has a yellowish tinge to it, and is propelled by the type of lighting that Adam uses in his house.  We get a very drab and colourless feel about Adam as an individual, and even the colour of yellow could be in reference to his timid demeanour.

Jake Gyllenhaal, as he is apt to do, delivers a very strong performance and is a natural at communicating his emotions and thoughts with his face and posture.  We really get to see this skill shine in the scenes where both of his characters are face to face, and it is the subtleties in Gyllenhaal’s acting that distinguishes the personalities and works to set the tone of the scene.

The wonderful inclusion of the subtle is what really makes this film, and it is when it deviates from it that it loses its magic.  There are moments in the film where perhaps the use of music feels a bit abrasive, that we are slugged over the head with it at moments so that we know exactly what we are supposed to be feeling.  It felt to be a bit of a shame that with such a wonderful flow visually there would be a bit of a strain coming from the audio side of things, but this never reached the level of being an enormous distraction, and it did not hinder my enjoyment of the film very much.  It more just seemed to counter the softer tone of insinuation that had been established.

The big issue that the film had was with the consistency of the characters.  In the end, there is so much mystery to the story and we are left trying to come up with interpretations for what happened in the movie.  That is the sort of thing that would drive some people mad, but I am fine with it as long as there are theories that we can work with that makes sense with what we have seen.  Every theory that my friend and I were able to come up with were not consistent with how the characters acted in the film, and even taking the movie at face value alone sees the characters acting in ways that fight the story.  To go into it in any detail would be throwing spoilers on the table, so I will keep from doing such things.

The end of the film, while it caught me off guard, left me with a lot to think about and discuss on the ride home from the theatre.  For better or worse, is there really any more that you could ask for from a movie than to give you lots to talk about?  Unfortunately, a lot of the conversation continually reverted back to the fact that the characters did not feel as though they acted in line with who they were throughout the movie, a factor which made truly enjoying this movie a very difficult task.

Rating – 3 out of 4 stars

Hannah's Pick: Source Code

My amazing sister in-law, Hannah, recently passed a number of movies my way (most of which I had not yet seen) for me to check out and review.  In honour of her support of my blog, Wednesdays will now be 'Hannah's Pick,' as I will go through her offerings until the well worn shopping bag they came in is empty.  It is an earlier blog for me today, as I was sent home from work when I offered to come in for the night shift tonight and help out.  I napped a full fifteen minutes already, but something tells me that may be all the sleep I get until sometime after 7am tomorrow.  I will definitely be showing up for work double fisting the coffees.

Today's movie is Source Code, a film that I had heard good things about from friends and have been intrigued about for a while.  My interest was sent into overdrive a few months ago when I saw Moon, a sci-fi flick that was the debut for writer/director Duncan Jones, who would then go on to direct Source Code.  When watching Moon, a great appreciation grew for the story telling style of Jones, who is able to guide the audience through complex stories while keeping them simple enough to comprehend, and that allows us good emotional connection to the characters.  If I talked positively about Sam Rockwell in yesterday's review of The Way, Way Back, just wait until I review Moon and you will hear me gush over this under-appreciated actor.

Source Code stars Jake Gyllenhaal who plays the role of helicopter pilot Captain Colter Stevens, who awakens on a train, in mid conversation with a woman he has never seen before (Christina, played by Michelle Monaghan).  From this point on in the movie, we slowly get an unraveling plot as Captain Stevens tries to figure out his situation and the true depths of it.  He quickly finds out that quantum physics has allowed a program to be created that will allow Stevens to re-live the last eight minutes of someone's life, and that he is being inserted into the final moments of the victim of a terrorist attack on a train in order to find the bomber's identity.

 The acting in this film is really well done, and that seems to be something that Duncan Jones realizes is important when spinning an elaborate yarn.  It is possible for an audience to suspend disbelief and dredge through the unknown when we feel a connection to the outcome of the characters.  Gyllenhaal does a wonderful job showing the wide range of emotions his character goes through while constantly having to experience the same eight minutes only to perish in a terrible explosion each time.  Michelle Monaghan is great in her role as the stranger in the train that Gyllenhaal continually meets in his efforts to find the bomber.  As well, Oscar nominated actress Vera Farmiga delivers a terrific performance as Captain Goodwin, the face on a monitor who coaches Gyllenhaal between trips in the source code.  Because she is just a face on a screen, she needs to be able to portray any thoughts, emotions, or inner turmoil through small, nuanced alterations in her face, a task which she is able to accomplish extremely convincingly.

 Duncan Jones is really establishing himself as someone to watch, after only having directed two movies so far.  One of the skills evident in Source Code is that he is able to layer in deeper themes into a movie that is also enjoyable on a mere visceral level.  The film looks at living and existence, two terms that may seem to mean the same thing, but that are completely different.  What is someone willing to live for, willing to exist for, and willing to die for.  It is this theme that adds weight to the film, and is great fodder for conversations with friends over coffee.  It is an aspect that is woven into the fabric of the movie, and is not overtly shoved in our faces and left us dizzy from being bashed over the head with it, as seems to be the method when some films attempt to include a 'deeper' meaning.

If you are a fan of science fiction, you will most likely love Source Code.  If you claim that you are not a fan of science fiction (much like my wife) but enjoy thrillers, you will most likely love Source Code.  In both this movie and Moon, Duncan Jones shows that the genre is not just about space ships and cyborgs, but is really just a canvas left destined for immersive imaginations.  It is a place where all things are possible, and Source Code makes the most of it, inserting Captain Colter Stevens into mystery for eight minutes at a time, forcing him to repeatedly live with those who are about to die, a man immortal thrust into the continual mortality of the people on the train.  Sound confusing?  Duncan Jones does a better job at delivering the story and the message, and that's a good reason for you to watch it.

Rating - 3.5 stars out of 4

Prisoners

I am now home after a weekend spent at my very hospitable in-laws, surrounded by amazing cottage country views and near perfect weather.  While it was a great time, it was also quite hard.  I have found that when my anxiety was very pressing and relentless a few months ago, it left me quite tired and unsure of myself in social settings.  If I add onto that the fact that I am an introvert by nature, it means that a weekend away (even though the company is great) can be extremely draining.  I explained it to my wife that if I had a metaphorical glass of emotional energy, anxiety is a hole at the bottom of it which can sometimes let the glass drain a lot faster than it can be refilled.  That is what happened to me this weekend, but with tasty ham and chicken.  All of that to say, I had a near breakdown on the highway, but I am now in my slippers drinking some rooibos tea and the world is set right again.

My reasoning behind reviewing Prisoners today is because it is set around Thanksgiving holiday in the States, but also it does highlight in a form the depletion of emotional energy that I had mentioned above.  The movie stars Hugh Jackman as Kelly Dover, a blue collar father who believes in being prepared for all possibilities (including surviving in the post-apocalyptic world, it would seem) whose daughter is kidnapped while the Dover family is celebrating Thanksgiving with their friends, and the Birch family (whose daughter is kidnapped as well).

The content matter of this movie is deeply unsettling, and seemed to be a very risky move to write a script around.  While audiences are desensitized to a great number of violent acts and behavious in movies, the abduction of a child can hit many strong emotions for so many people.  We do not even need to be told the reasoning behind such an action, the fact that it happened is powerful enough.  The case of the missing girls is put into the ultra capable hands of Detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal) who has never had a case that he has not solved, and shows a quiet determination to continue his streak.

When the investigation does not go as fast as Jackman's character would like, he finds himself taking the investigation into his own hands, and ultimately venturing down a similar path as the kidnappers.  We see his passion to be a protector, but also the slow loss of sanity that comes as days pass by and he is unable to recover his daughter.  Kelly Dover becomes worn down, tired, an emotionally empty glass, who allows himself to do more and more inhumane actions.  On the other side of the investigation, we get a sense of the tiring Loki, whose face begins to show the emotional toll that this case has inflicted on him.

While the concept itself is gripping and chilling, there was little else about it that added to the intensity of this thriller.  The movie was shot absolutely beautifully, with shots that allowed some uneasiness to start sinking into the viewer.  There was a great use of props in shots to tell us some background of the lives of the characters, and that was so refreshing because it does get exhausting when you have to sit through blatant expository dialogue to get a sense of the characters.

There was some amazing acting in this film that really does need to be mentioned.  Paul Dano played a creepy suspect of the crime almost too well (not enough people seem to be praising Dano, and that is a shame).  Gyllenhaal is able to deliver us a multi-dimensional version of a police officer who seems to have a lot hidden under the surface but does his best to not let that show.  Hugh Jackman nailed some pretty impactfull scenes that showed the progression of his character as well.

The best acting, in my opinion, was sadly underused.  The parents of the Birch child, played by Terrence Howard and Viola Davis, had very little screen time in the movie.  It is a shame for a few reasons.  Firstly, they seemed to be a connection point for the audience.  While Kelly Dover is losing his sense of morality and ethics, it is the reactions of Franklin and Nancy Birch that the audience is most likely to empathize with.  They know the horrible things that Dover is doing, and are unable to participate fully, but are also able to justify turning a blind eye in the hopes that their daughter may be found through his acts of brutality.  We see the pain in their eyes, in their faces, and in their postures.  We get a deep sense of their turmoil, and we most likely may find ourselves more in their role than in the Dover's.  Secondly, they absolutely nail their performances.

The biggest downfall of this film was the script.  It had some intriguing twists and turns, at least at first they seemed intriguing, that ultimately fell apart under very light scrutiny.  There were some incredibly key coincidences that happened that made the plot progression feel forced in some places.  As much attention that was paid to setting up the shots and creating well rounded characters, it felt like that same attention was lacking from the script.

In the end, the good with the bad, it is a movie that visually looks great and at times has a creep factor of eleven.  While it was able to hit that mark at times, I found it unable to sustain it with a number of the scenes falling short for me.  This lead to a rather emotionless experience for the majority of the film, and not the white knuckle tension that is needed for a thriller.  I did enjoy the fact that the solving of the case was not the whole story, and that the paths that the father and detective took tested both of them, leaving them completely devolving at points.  There is a simple understanding and relation that we can have to characters who are growing worn down and tired, battling through mental and emotional depletion.  It is something that a lot of people deal with, just not in the same realm of the immoral that Dover finds himself in.

Rating - 2.5 out of 4 stars