TEFB REVIEW: THE TREE OF LIFE

Directed by Terrence Malick

Starring Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain, Hunter McCraken



There is more emotional honesty about adolescence in ten minutes of Terrence Malick's new film The Tree of Life than in the entirety of JJ Abrams' most recent supposed nostalgia piece Super 8. While they are two wildly different movies, both explore the mysteries of adolescence and coming of age. Abrams film strives hard to appeal to the inner child in us all, but in the end fails (although just barely) because his young characters are only truly relatable to those of us who are in love with the art and magic of filmmaking. While this is great - and certainly recognizable (cool, the kids like to make movies and there's a Dawn of the Dead poster on the wall!) - to the movie geek in the audience, it's this specificity that keeps the experiences Super 8's cast from truly connecting on a larger and more meaningful level. The few times the film is successful in this regard, it's mainly due to the performances of the two lead actors more than the work of the screenplay or direction.

Malick's film succeeds where Abrams's doesn't because it's simply more earnest in it's endeavor. While Super 8 at times caters to a certain audience, making sure the kids are always doing something some folks in the audience may identify with, The Tree of Life is more concerned with relating universal childhood experiences and responses . While the former film does an admirable job of attempting that, only the latter truly evokes recognizable feelings and emotions.


The Tree of Life doesn't tell a straight narrative story rather than give glimpses of moments in time, usually with very little (or no) dialogue. It's standard Malick - he's been making films that operate this way since Days of Heaven, although never to this extreme. After a quick introduction to the family documented in the film (headed by patriarch Mr. O'Brien - played by Brad Pitt and his wife (Jessica Chastain)), the film suddenly begins to display a series of visually breathtaking images showing the beginning of life in the universe, from the big bang to the extinction of the dinosaurs. After this twenty minute segue, we see the birth of Mr. and Mrs. O'Brien's first son Jack. The film then spends it's main portion following the life of young Jack (a wonderful Hunter McCraken), focusing mainly on his transition into puberty. Jack butts heads with his stern but loving father, and falls in love with his doting mother. He fights with his two younger brothers, he plays with his friends. He learns the finality of life after witnessing his first death, and the cruelty of God after his father loses his job. He becomes rebellious and feels a first twinge of regret. Witnessing these times in Jack's life, we come to realize that the creation of the universe that we saw before is every bit as dramatic and wonderful as the birth and first dozen or so years of one's life. This comes into focus even more as the film jumps ahead to show older Jack (Sean Penn) a man reflecting on those years and coming to terms with how much they shaped who he is.

Throughout the film, Malick shoots with a handheld camera, capturing every confused flick of Jack's eyebrow, every frustrated twitch of the mouth. Many times, the film seems to wander int a scene where something is about to happen, then cuts out. Very rarely does Malick stop to explain something or give a few minutes for the narrative to move forward in any recognizable way. It can be a frustrating experience for some viewers (the film jumps around chronologically as well), but it's Malick's statement (a perhaps obvious one) that adolescence (and life, to be completely honest) is recalled only in fragments. It's the details in the periphery of the experiences one seems to recall more than the experience itself. It's a color, a shape, a movement, a look on someone's face. Malick is is more concerned with creating moods and textures, evoking feelings, and loosely tying together themes than he is of giving a traditional throughline to the film.

If there's one reason to see The Tree of Life it's this: it's arguably the most visually breathtaking film I've ever seen. The effects detailing the big bang and beginnings of life on Earth are spectacular and gorgeous, and while the CG dinosaurs aren't quite rendered to perfection, the micro-photography (showing the division of cells and the fetus of some early Archean-era creature) is stellar, and combined with the grandiose celestial imagery of the legendary Douglas Trumbell (who also worked on 2001: A Space Odyssey - a film that I believe is very much a companion piece to The Tree of Life) makes for a jaw-dropping experience. If anything, The Tree of Life is a showcase for old-school special effects and proof that imagery created by computers is no match for the power of tangible, in camera effects work.

As magnificent as it is, though, The Tree of Life, perhaps because of it's unconventionality and ambitiousness, is not without its faults. The scenes with Penn - cut into the film mostly as book-ends - stick out in particular. I believe I understand their meaning, as previously mentioned, however, old Jack is given nothing to do but stumble around his office building dazed. And when he's not stumbling around his office dazed, he's wandering through the desert just as dazed. Penn is given even less dialogue than the other actors, and I don't think Malick ties these portions of the film in successfully with the hour and a half or so in between.

Minor quibbles aside, I don't think there will be another film this year filled with so many questions about life but ultimately joyous about being able to live it. The Tree of Life is an amazing emotional experience for those willing to endure it's sometimes ponderous pace and meandering narrative. It's demanding, yes, but fulfilling and (although I hate to use the word) profound. One might be sick of Malick and his penchant for whispers and long takes of nature, but never has an existential film like this felt so warm and inviting.

TEFB REVIEW: ANIMAL KINGDOM

Directed by David Michod


Starring James Frecheville, Ben Mendelsohn, Jacki Weaver



In both his narrative (Aguirre: The Wrath of God) and documentary (Grizzly Man) features revolving around nature, Werner Herzog presents the axiom that nature is cold, cruel, and incapable of emotion. As animals aren't sentient, they care not about such things as empathy and compassion, they only seek to perpetuate the survival of their species. Broken down even further, every family in each species seeks simply to fight for the survival of the clan. Outsiders are shunned, and if a member of the clan is wronged or a life in the clan ended, the head will do everything in his or her power to protect the rest.

Taking this general rule of wildlife on planet Earth and applying it to a family of Aussie thieves, first time feature filmmaker David Michod has crafted Animal Kingdom, one of the best crime dramas in recent memory, and a film that's incredibly intense, tight, and emotionally involving. There are parts of Animal Kingdom that will be very recognizable to anyone who has seen any of the many hundreds of crime-family centered films of the past few decades, but the whole of the movie adds up to something not quite seen before.

After his mother overdoses on heroin, stoic teenager Joshua (James Frecheville) contacts the only family he knows of: his grandmother Janine Cody (Jacki Weaver). It's been years since grandson and gram have seen each other, but she welcomes him into a side of the family he barely knows with a aspartame smile and open arms ready to pull him in and suffocate him, should he get out of line. Arriving at her house, Josh is reintroduced to his uncles, all criminals specializing in stealing things with weapons: Barry (Joel Edgerton) is the logical, strong-willed glue that keeps the brothers in line; Darren (Luke Ford) is the sensitive, unsure one; Craig (Sullivan Stapleton) is the trigger-happy loose canon; finally, there's Andrew (Ben Mendolsohn), the semi-psychotic - scratch that - fully psychotic older brother, on the run from Melbourne's Armed Robbery police squad.

It's these early scenes in which Animal Kingdom seems poised to be just another by the numbers crime film. With the introduction of Craig - a character who does such cliched things as light up a cigarette in a non-smoking diner just to piss off the wait staff - I assumed I'd be able to predict every single beat the movie was going to hit. I couldn't have been more wrong.

The main action in Animal Kingdom kicks off when the aforementioned Armed Robbery squad, tired of failing to capture the wanted Andrew and suffering from budget cuts to the department, take matters into their own hands and decide to break up the family by taking out one of its members. This has the desired effect, as the remaining members of the Cody family exact revenge on the police force, and end up in the arms of the law with only Joshua standing between them and years behind prison bars.

Michod has chosen to shoot Animal Kingdom with that oft-used gritty, hand-held look. However, Animal Kingdom doesn't have the documentary feel of, say the recent Gomorrah. Instead, Michod and his cinematographer, Adam Arkapaw, have lit the film classically, giving it a very cinematic feel. Michod has made the right choice by not shooting the film as in-your-face and cinema-verite as others may have. Animal Kingdom knows it's a fictional drama, and one that intends to turn screws and tighten your chest with each passing minute.

And that it does, very, very well. Michod executes the film with a precision not usually seen in first time feature-film directors. By tweaking our expectations with every other scene, Michod ensures that we become fully involved in the drama taking place throughout Animal Kingdom. Sure there are recognizable and familiar aspects to almost every minute of the film, but the director has such a sure-handed way of playing with these aspects that we're never quite sure what's going to happen, and by the time we realize Josh's life is really in complete and utter danger, we feel just as scared as he does.

Of course, Michod gets quite a bit of help making sure things stay unpredictable with a stellar cast. Josh is, at his core, an annoyingly non-verbal weakling. He's the kind of kid you wish would become either enraged to the point of ridiculousness about something or completely over-joyed with it, no matter what it was, instead of just standing there, shoulders hunched, mute. As ingratiating as it would be to spend time with this person in real life, though, James Frecheville's performance is interesting to watch as the movie unfolds. Josh internalizes his emotions, and Frecheville is surprisingly good at showing his character's changes in little ways through facial expressions and eye movements.

Joel Edgerton as well gives quite a great performance as Barry. We're told that Barry is a bad-ass but never actually see it - that's okay, though, because Edgerton makes us believe it's so. There's an intensity behind his eyes and a confidence in his strut that exudes authority. But he's also warm and surprisingly kind. A man's man if there ever was one, Barry is the father you don't want to disappoint - not because he would knock you out with one left hook to the face (although he could), but because he would shame you with one look and a few admonishing words. Edgerton will be seen in the upcoming Warrior

Impressing the most, though, are Jacki Weaver and Ben Mendohlson. Weaver was nominated for a Best Supporting Actress award at this year's Academy Awards, and by all means she deserved it (the nomination, if not the award). Quite possibly the most dangerous person in the film, Janine comes across as the grandma you wish you had one moment, and the person you least want to be related to the next. And the attitude is changed with only a slight change of voice and a raise of an eyebrow. She's super-sweet and completely and utterly venomous.

Mendohlson almost single-handedly walks away with the film. At first coming across as slightly neurotic and shifty, Andrew evolves into a complete and total psycho by the end of the film. Not the kind of psycho that runs around stabbing nude girls in the shower, but the kind of guy who sends chills up your spine with just a look. It's a performance that makes a viewer antsy whenever the character is onscreen. Creepy and shockingly intense, Mendelsohn presents Andrew as an un-empathetic lunatic. It's great work.

I had a few issues with the way Animal Kingdom handles its third act - for all the complaining I do about films that need to be shorter, this one could benefit by actually being fifteen to twenty minutes longer. Some more time with Guy Pearce as a police detective would have been nice, and the film feels as if it's rushing towards the end just to end at a certain point in the film.

That nitpick aside, Animal Kingdom is a wonderful, engaging movie. Intense to the point of being cathartic (when the film ends it feels as if a load is being lifted off of your chest), it's a great first feature-length film from a very promising director.

NOTE: The trailer below is the only time Air Supply will ever be cool Ever.

TEFB REVIEW: I SAW THE DEVIL

review by Mark Pezzula


Directed by Jee-woon Kim


Starring Min-sik Choi, Byung-hun Lee

Contrary to the laws or society is built on - that justice should be carried out by those with the authority to do so and that revenge exacted by those directly affected by a criminal's actions is frowned upon - we live in a culture that believes in the "eye for an eye" adage more than we think we do. Ask any parent what they would do should their child be molested by someone and they would most likely tell you they want unspeakable things to happen to the perpetrator. Ask a husband what they would do should their pregnant wife be chopped into bits by the most reprehensible human being imaginable and he would most likely go one for hours about the numerous and sickeningly creative ways to pay the monster back.

Believing in "eye for an eye" and actually practicing it are, obviously, two different things. Most folks, when pressed, wouldn't be able to personally act in a vengeful manner, no matter how disgusting the crime. We would like to think all criminals (and especially the heinous ones) are Evil and, therefore, impervious to pain and suffering. Criminals, though, (even the heinous ones) are, in fact, human, and most folks don't tend to like to see other humans suffer, even if that other human has committed crimes that would keep Henry Lee Lucas up at night.


I Saw the Devil, directed by Jee-Woon Kim, takes on the subject of vengeance and displays, with stunningly violent clarity, that revenge is a dish best not served at all. And when it is served, says the film, it's a meal that poisons not only those who serve and consume it, but those who aren't even in the restaurant.

Min-sik Choi (the Korean Daniel Day Lewis) is Kyung-chul, a serial killer who has no M.O. other than making sure his victims are dead. "Cold blooded" is a kind term for Kyung-chul, whose empathy gap is wider than the Grand Canyon, and who treats even people trying to help him with contempt and hatred. As the film opens, we find Kyung-chul viciously beating and murdering a young woman stranded on the side of a snowy Korean road. Believing he's gotten away with it scot-free, Kyung goes back to his day job - driving around school children.

Meanwhile, Kim Soo-hyeon (played by Byung hun-Lee) is the husband of the young murdered woman, and he has vowed to his dead wife that the killer will feel the same pain she has. Using his contacts in a secret agency (the name and purpose of which is left unclear - it's obvious, though, Kim Soo-hyeon is a pretty bad ass trained assassin), he hunts down Kyung-chul to begin a game of cat and mouse with the deviant. Becoming just as sadistic as the killer, Kim tortures Kyung-chul only to let him go, capturing him again and again, torturing and releasing every time.

If I Saw the Devil sounds violent and disturbing, that is because it is. Director Jee-woon Kim lets the camera linger on head-beatings, a cheek piercing, an Achille's heel slicing, stabbings, and other vicious acts. But this isn't a Hostel or another American "torture-porn" film, where the audience roots for the main characters to be killed in all sorts of fun and creative ways. I Saw the Devil pushes the audience to actively want the mayhem to stop. As gorgeously shot and well choreographed as the movie is (and it is indeed beautiful, with tense set-pieces that bring to mind De Palma, Hitchcock, and Tarantino), it's not a *fun* movie to watch in the least. Imagine if the intensity of the Mr. Blonde/cop-torture scene in Reservoir Dogs lasted two and a half hours, and you'd have a good idea of what it feels like to watch I Saw the Devil.

As fun as it isn't, there are many reason to see this film, in addition to the practically perfect direction and cinematography. The two lead performances being at the top of the list. I referred to Min-sik Choi as the Korean Daniel Day Lewis before, and that's not hyperbole. Most American audience know Choi from the film Oldboy, in which he played the lead character Oh Dae-su, a drunk, loser of a man seeking revenge after being kidnapped and locked in a room for fifteen years. His work as Kyung-chul is iconic. With slicked back hair and a slight pudge, Kyung-chul brings to mind Robert De Niro's portrayal of Max Cady in Cape Fear, although without the ability to be halfway charming. Kyung is completely and utterly socially inept. Every single person he comes into contact with understands immediately that this person is off, perhaps even dangerous. Choi plays Kyung-chul as if he's the most evil person to have ever lived, and he does it while still managing to make us feel slightly sorry for him during the most brutal scenes. It's great work.

Not to be outdone, Byung-hun Lee is magnificent as the shattered husband. Kim Soo-hyeon is always on the verge of emotionally breaking down for the first third of the film, and director Jee-woon wisely lets his actor's face stay in front of the camera for long stretches of time to convey just how broken this man has become. It's a powerful performance, and one that gives the film a deeply emotional and moving layer that was quite unexpected.

The other star of the flick is the director himself. The film veers from terror, to deep heartbreak, so shocking violence, to dark comedy, then pinballs between all of these throughout its excessive running time. While never forgetting that the subject matter is deeply serious, Jee-woon always remembers that film needs to entertain as well, and he keeps remarkably accomplished control over all of the emotional beats the film hits. The film is stylish, to be sure, but the director balances the in-your-face wow moments with old-fashioned tension building. (A stabbing scene in a taxi cab, for instance, ends with a wildly stylized spinning camera, but builds up to the shot with careful editing, designed to up intensity.)

For a film that deals with such violence, depravity, and serious subject matter, I was surprised at how much I enjoyed I Saw the Devil. It's a taxing film, and one that left me completely drained after I viewed it. It's a film that whole-heartedly supports structured justice, and one that frowns upon individual retribution. Nothing good comes of Kim Soo-hyeon's revenge. I Saw the Devil is ultimately a sad and distressing film, but it's one that will force you to look at where you stand on vengeance, and may (nay, SHOULD) change your mind about it.

TEFB REVIEW: SOMETHING BORROWED

review by Gina Muscato



Starring Kate Hudson, Ginnifer Goodwin, John Krasinski


Directed by Luke Greenfield


How do you choose between the love of your life and your best friend since childhood?

In the movie, Something Borrowed, unhappily single Rachel (Ginnifer Goodwin) is faced with this dilemma after she drinks too much at her 30th birthday party and winds up in bed with Dex (Colin Egglesfield), her crush from law school who just happens to be engaged to her BFF Darcy (Kate Hudson).

Although Rachel feels guilty and initially commits to putting the one-night affair behind her, she discovers that she has genuine feelings for Dex. In fact, he just could be the love of her life. As Darcy’s wedding nears, Rachel is caught between loyalties to her best friend and to her heart. A consummate good girl and generous friend, Rachel has always allowed Darcy to “win” … but should she let her win Dex too?

Meanwhile, Ethan (John Krasinski), Rachel's constant confidante, is busy evading the advances of Darcy's love-struck friend Claire (Ashley Williams), particularly during the group’s weekend escape to the Hamptons. The trips also provide chances for the charming Marcus (Steve Howey) to lust after Rachel -- as well as any and every other women he fancies.

The movie is based on the chick lit novel, of the same title, by author Emily Giffin. Without the benefit of having read the book, I don’t know if there are glaring differences between the two, though there usually are one or two. Whether the differences are beneficial or detrimental to the movie, you’ll have to be the judge.

Either way, this story is supposed to make audiences think about right and wrong, and how the lines between the two can be blurry. But during the course of the movie, we find out that Darcy herself has made some serious mistakes in her own relationship with Dex. Therefore, the lines aren’t as blurry as you might think – or as intended.

The movie’s main flaw is that it’s too long. I found myself irritated that Rachel, and even Dex for that matter, lacked the chutzpa to make a decision about the relationship. It seemed as if a resolution would never come. Finally it did, but not before making the audience restless and the film too long. 

Goodwin is very well cast in the role of the hard-working Rachel, who is often in the shadow of flashy, sometimes selfish Darcy. The usually-solid Hudson played Darcy well enough, though her performance was mired by having to portray such a plastic character. Darcy was always drunk and completely self-absorbed – so much so that you really wonder why Dex hadn’t left her long ago.
Krasinski is perfectly cast as Ethan, who provides some much-needed comic relief, particular during one of the movie’s funniest scenes, in which the characters play badminton on the beach and reveal secrets with every point scored. Williams also provides some comedy as Claire, though her over-the-top personality was almost too much, nearly making her more annoying than funny.

Bottom line: Wait for this movie on Netflix or Movies on Demand. It’s not worth the $10 to see it (thankfully, I had free screening passes). And under no circumstance should boyfriends or husbands be forced to watch it with you. This one is for girls’ night only.

Awesome guests you won't want to miss!

The Everything Film Show has some really fabulous guests planned for its listeners in the weeks ahead. Just look who will be swinging by to chat with the crew!

• 4/21 - Producer, actor, and director Michael Gleissner will be joining the show to discuss his new film "Deep Gold 3D", which will have been released just a couple days prior in Los Angeles, with expansion to other select theaters the day just after the show. He is also a partner with Bigfoot Studios and oversees operations of the International Academy of Film and Television, which he founded.



• 4/28 - Writer, director, and producer Eduardo Sanchez joins the show for the 100th episode celebration! Most of us got to learn of his talent through "The Blair Witch Project." Tune in to learn what future dark visions he has in store...



• 5/05 - Matthew J. Evans is a fresh-faced actor who will appear alongside celebrities in the Cameron Diaz, Justin Timberlake, and Jason Segel-fronted film "Bad Teacher" coming out this June. He is also is an award-winning filmmaker whose short film “Poetic Justice Project” debuted just days ago at the Newport Beach Film Festival.



• 5/12 - You've most recently seen the following actress in the hit television series "Smallville," but there is nothing small about the prospects for award-winning actor Allison Mack. Acting since she was four and having racked up hundreds of television episodes and other projects, there is no telling where the future will take her.

As you probably know, The Everything Film Show airs live every Thursday at 7:30 p.m. PST/10:30 p.m. EST. We hope that you will join us!

TEFB REVIEW: HANNA

Directed by Joe Wright


Starring Saoirse Ronan, Eric Bana, Cate Blanchett

Review by Mark Pezzula


Ladies and gentlemen, director Joe Wright (Pride & Prejudice, Atonement) has thrown down the gauntlet. He's set the bar. High. "Make a better movie than this," he's saying. By "this" he means his new film, Hanna. And with Hanna he has indeed made the best film so far of this, admittedly, young year. As fresh as this year is, however, I'm confident when I proclaim that Hanna will be greatly remembered by 2011's end. A lusciously photographed chase movie, Hanna is more than an arty-European take on the Bourne franchise. It's a feral fairy-tale that marries primal action with technological movie wizardry to create a propulsive and singular cinematic experience.

When Hanna opens, we're in the bleak tundra of Finland, where a little girl kills and guts a deer before engaging in a bout of fisticuffs with a bearded man we come to find is her father. Her father has been training her, if not be as deadly with her hands as she is with a pistol, to survive in the most unforgiving conditions using a combination of honed intellect, razor sharp wit, and expertly-trained martial-arts skills. This is Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) and Erik (Eric Bana). And they have been living this way almost since Hanna was born.

"I'm ready", Hanna says one day, and by the next she's flipping a switch her father tells her will bring a woman named Marissa, who wants nothing but to kill Hanna, to their isolated cabin, and won't stop until that happens. With the switch flipped, Erik leaves Hanna to her own devices against Marissa and her minions (really CIA and international operatives), with the plan being that Hanna will meet her father in Berlin, Germany.

That's the basic gist of Hanna, which is carried by a very simple premise. Girl trained to be deadly is let loose in society and attempts to reconnect with her father while being chased by equally (well, maybe not) deadly international undercover agents . It's a paltry plot, and one that is buffered with a fuzzy back-story regarding Marissa's (Cate Blanchett) relationship to Erik and his daughter, but it's a plot that relies on the tropes of fairy-tales and legends as opposed to the rigid structure of the modern movie narrative. Hanna is the young innocent girl lost in the forest, and Marissa is the Wretched Witch of the West, bent on claiming the innocent girl for herself.

That Hanna isn't structurally sound from a screenwriting perspective and is, in fact, hazy regarding the reasons Marissa is so intent on finding Hanna is, I believe, deliberate. Wright has filled his film with overt fairy-tale imagery. Fairy-tales are meant to be interpreted and re-interpreted by different generations and cultures. Whether this was the original intent of the writers or not is unclear. Perhaps it's simply that Wright left much of Seth Lochhead and David Farr's script on the cutting room floor. Whichever explanation, though, takes nothing away from the exhilarating experience of Hanna.

Stylized to an extreme, Wright has crafted a Bourne film filtered through the lens of European expressionism. Utilizing the same fight choreographer as Paul Greengrass used for the last two Bourne films, Wright wisely minimizes the use of the exhausted shaky-cam aesthetic and instead finds a balance between that and fluidly shot fight sequences/chases. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Wright has invented a new kind of action movie, but Hanna certainly strives to be different in a genre replete with boring, stale set-pieces (see: Battle: Los Angeles. A film with a billion more bullets than Hanna, but not 1/100th of this film's intense excitement). And with the film set to a score by The Chemical Brothers, Hanna's set-pieces are primed and visceral, alive and breathtaking.

The film, though, is certainly not wall to wall action. Wright wisely let's Hanna breathe (maybe a little too much so), but keeps the lulls in violence every bit as alive and fresh as gun play. This is especially true when Hanna is tagging along with a young British girl named Sophie and her family through Morocco. After an encounter with the girl (Jessica Barden in an almost scene stealing performance) in what would probably be a one-and-done scene in an American film, Hanna is accepted into their family and spends much of the film experiencing things normal girls Hanna's age would experience - close friendship, boys, familial bickering. It's not brand new ground Wright is treading cinematically here, but it feels genuine, especially given Alwin Kuchler's cinematography and Ronan's work as the guarded but infinitely curious (but not wide-eyed) Hanna.

It's a performance, by the way, that should garner awards attention come ten months from now. It's rare where I see a role so totally owned that I cannot imagine it belonging to anyone else. Hanna is such a role for Saoirse Ronan. I simply cannot think of another young actress able to project the icy glance of a trained killer one moment and then the curiosity of an innocent child the next. Ronan is so good that she out-acts seasoned actors Blanchett and Bana. While both are very, very good in their respective roles, neither come close to the heights Ronan reaches here.

The other stand-out performance in the film is given by Tom Hollander, probably most recognizable in the states for his recurring role in the Pirates of the Caribbean films. Here he plays a quirky, transgender loving interrogator hired by Marissa to find Hanna. Dressed in a track suit with a blonde parted mop constantly flopping in his face, Hollander's character Isaac appears quite benign at first. As soon as he begins to whistle a nursery-rhyme-esque melody, however, he becomes a sinister presence throughout the film. It's a weird yet memorable character, and Hollander's portrayal is practically iconic.

Despite being a tad unpolished narratively, Hanna ends up being an insanely satisfying cinematic experience. It offers more than just mindless action and popcorn thrills. It's a beautifully intense and (if you look hard enough) layered film. In an system hemorrhaging unoriginal remakes, reboots, retries, retakes, sequels, and adaptations into the market, Hanna is a like a canister full of nitrous oxide into your lungs.

TEFB REVIEW: MONSTERS

review by Mark Pezzula




Directed by Gareth Edwards




Starring Whitney Able, Scoot McNairy







I don't know how many people realize it, but right now is a great time to be a fan of science-fiction films. Director Neill Blomkamp made hardcore sci-fi geeks, the casual movie goer, critics, AND Academy Award members sit-up straight and take notice with his 2009 film District 9. Likewise, filmmaker Duncan Jones had a lot of success (although on a much smaller scale) with the film Moon, one of the best genre films of the last decade. Now, the creator, writer, director, and visual effects artist Gareth Edwards joins the ranks of these two virtuosos, and positions himself as one of the most exciting new filmmakers to come along in quite sometime, as his film Monsters demonstrates him to be quite a talent. 

Despite the film's marketing as a full-scale alien invasion film, Monsters is actually quite small and, dare I say it, more of a drama. That's not to say that Godzilla fans won't get their gigantic beast fix, but, on a budget of less than one million dollars (and without the clout of Oscar winning director Peter Jackson behind it, like District 9 had), Monsters is forced to focus more on its characters than on the creatures promised by its title. Although its marketing positions it as an epic creature film, it's actually quite small, and, I believe, all the better for it.

Monsters begins six years after an alien invasion, when the alien creatures are part of every day life for the people who live on the Mexican-American border. While the area (known as the "Infected Zone") has been destroyed by battles with the gigantic, HP Lovecraft inspired beings, it's still sparsely populated, and run by outlaws and gangs who make their money by transporting people across the border, from Mexico into America.

Two of these people being transported are Andrew (Scoot McNairy), a photographer for an unnamed American magazine, and Samantha (Whitney Able). Andrew has been sent to Mexico on an assignment to get footage for said magazine, only to end up playing babysitter when Sam's father (also Andrew's boss) asks him to accompany his daughter (who was injured in Mexico) back to America. Soon, Andrew and Sam are trying to barter with corrupt Mexican officials who won't allow them to travel without dispensing major cash, getting drunk on tequila together right outside the Infected Zone, and falling in love with each other while trying not to get eaten by invaders from another world.

Despite a terrifically shot and heart-pounding opening scene, Monsters spends a lot of time observing Andrew and Sam slowly becoming enamored with each other. Andrew initially turns down his boss's instructions to get Sam back to the border safely and then, for reasons unexplained by the movie (I can only guess it's because, well, Sam's smokin' hot), changes his mind. He's hostile towards her at first (she is, after all, getting in his way of taking a photo of either a live creature or a dead child), and she towards him (he is, pretty much, a prick). But, as they say, danger has a way of tightening the strings of attraction, and danger permeates the world in which these two characters exist.

It's a world that, in spite of it's low budget, director Gareth Edwards builds with care and attention to detail. From news reports of creature sightings on a television in the background of a scene, to kids playing with gas masks, to signs and graffiti marking danger zones, Monsters takes atmosphere and setting very seriously, and not once will you not believe that this story is taking place in a world changed by disastrous events in much the same way it was by 9/11. Filmed documentary style, Edwards knows how to fill a frame with interesting compositions, and much of the film is very beautifully shot, even when taking in disturbing subject matter. The look of the film is comparable to an indie art-house film, and while it may seem strange to mix "art-house" with "science-fiction", Edwards makes it work for pretty much the entire film.

What doesn't work for the entire film, unfortunately (unfortunately, but not so much so that it damns the film completely), is the screenplay. Characters make odd decisions that don't quite make sense, even in context, and it appears whole scenes that may explain character motivation are missing. For instance - at one point Andrew is on the phone speaking with his son, which he hides from Sam (who, at this point in the movie, he just wants to have a hot night in the sack with). A few scenes later, however, they're having a conversation about his son as if Andrew's been candid about the situation for the whole film. I'm not sure if this was an oversight during the writing of the script or if, during the editing process, a scene was excised that would explain that jump in the narrative, but either way it makes for a disjointed and perplexing experience.

Also disjointed are the performances by Scoot McNairy and Whitney Able. She fares much better than he does throughout the entire film, but her job as Sam is still uneven and, at times, just plain terrible. Scoot, while able to perpetrate a douchebag with a camera, struggles to keep his performance from seeming like anything other than an audition. The chemistry between the two leads is actually quite good, and there are times where they both nail emotional beats, however there are certainly much stronger actors out there who could have improved this aspect of the film immensely.

The CG effects in Monsters, for the most part, are wonderful. They are, of course, aided by the fact that the creatures only expose themselves at night, and therefore any flaws in the F/X can be covered up by shading easily. That is in no way a knock to the visual effects work done by Mr. Edwards, however. Apparently created with his home computer using consumer-grade Adobe software, the shots involving the aliens look mostly stunning, and the creature design is visually intriguing. The only shaky effects work comes towards the very end, when it's obvious that a large-scare effects house (such as WETA) wasn't involved in the making of the film. That's a nit-picky complaint, though, for a film so ambitiously created and executed on such a small scale.

Speaking of the ending - I'll avoid spoilers, but I was mighty impressed with how Monsters handles it's climax and resolution. It sets up a battle between monsters and military - and then takes a completely different turn into territory I don't think any alien film has ever gone to. I was surprised at the direction the film goes in, and pleasantly at that.



Monsters may disappoint those hardcore sci-fi fans looking for wall to wall battles and creature action. However, those looking for an ambitious, interesting, well paced, and superbly shot art-film that takes place inside the plot of a B-movie, look no further.