Crimson Peak (2015)

Score: 4.5 / 5

The first thing you should know about Crimson Peak is that it's not a scary movie. It's a horror picture. More than that, it's a period piece Gothic romance. So if you're going to the movies this Halloween looking for shrieks and giggles, you are going to be severely disappointed. If, however, you are going to be reminded of the potential beauty in haunted house films, to revel in the glory of expert filmmaking, or to lose yourself in a macabre fantasy of passion and evil, you can do no better than Guillermo del Toro's latest vision.

From its shockingly white opening image, this film sets itself apart as an atmospheric venture not unlike this summer's Mad Max: Fury Road. We are presented then, in increasingly vibrant strokes, with an immaculately designed period piece shimmering with intricate details and daring lighting. Not a moment passes by onscreen in which the nightmarish hues don't burn themselves into your eyes, forcing you to watch the horror unfold. Of course, the real spectacle here is the house itself, a masterwork of architecture and special effects, riddled with carvings and tapestries, and oozing sanguineous clay. The house is alive, shifting and swaying, "breathing" and groaning, and in almost every scene the red mud that gave the property its name ekes out from under floorboards and behind brick walls. It's a surprisingly eerie special effect, something I would have expected (less tastefully) from a Burton film.

I could continue to praise the production design, but I think you get the idea. The other aspects of the film are all solid, though nothing particularly noteworthy. It's a very familiar story, with simple and conventional plot devices that ultimately lead to an unsurprising and totally satisfying ending. I might have wished that del Toro could have spiced up the drama or the supernatural elements, but there's a lot to be said for balancing a tried-and-true plot with a daring aesthetic. The dialogue is great, and the plot moves along at a brisk pace with enough evenly-paced thrills to keep things effectively spooky.

Jessica Chastain is far and away the crowning jewel of the film. Her cruel gaze and calculating restraint is disturbing from the outset, and frankly her dresses steal every damn scene. As ravishing as she is haunting, Chastain injects her character with seething malice so delicious I was ready to cheer for her in the film's climax. Tom Hiddleston parries her every move with equally calculating energy, though his burns the sweeter. His dynamic turn (and beauty) makes the film's climax far more satisfying, as he and Chastain wholly give themselves over to their perfect Gothic sensibilities. Mia Wasikowska is less satisfying than the other two, though she does work hard for her starring role. It's hard to watch the mesermizing subtleties of Hiddleston and Chastain, and then want to pay attention to Wasikowska's constantly pained expression as she wanders the evil house. I suppose, given her character's profound misfortune, I shouldn't fault her for that, but it just doesn't make for an interesting character. And her designer didn't help, placing her in a shapeless pale nightgown for most of the film and leaving her long stringy blond hair to fly around her puffy shoulders. Does it work to make our hero appear a floating white cloud? Yes. But the ghosts cut a more imposing figure on screen, which is probably not a good thing.

Speaking of the ghosts, I was a little put off by some of the CGI. I mean, thank heaven the ghosts were as stylized as the rest of the film, but perhaps a bit more variation would have sufficed. Neon-red skeletons floating out of pools of clay are creepy, sure, but only when you see them once or twice. After the sixth time, it's a bit less effective. Rather, let's go back to the first scene, where we see an ebony ghost, desiccated and smoking, palpably haunting the little girl's sleep. Much more enticing for me than a parade of bright phantoms floating in the air and pointing to various parts of the house.

Then again, the jump-scares of the ghosts only last a brief time, and it is not long before the real terror of the film introduces itself. Sure, the horror comes from spousal lies, devious plans, and murderous motives, but the terror is far different than I expected. The ghostly pop-outs are creepy, but cannot hold a candle to the surprising brutality that commands the film from the halfway point on. The physical violence, all captured on the screen, is often so surprising and vicious I had to close my eyes more than once. And the blood that ends up spilled is obviously the darker side of the "Crimson Peak" imagery.

It's "The Fall of the House of Usher" meets The Haunting, with a Tim Burton-level flair and a rock-solid aesthetic vision. Can you beat it? Hell no. Chastain's performance during the climax is easily the most terrifying thing I've seen in months. Del Toro's attention to detail and mastery of the genre is unparalleled. I lost myself to this nightmare, and I would gladly do it again.

IMDb: Crimson Peak

Pan (2015)

Score: 1.5 / 5

Between Joe Wright, Hugh Jackman, and pretty cool aesthetic premise, I was looking forward to this film almost as much as Crimson Peak. So what happened?! Pan has to be the worst cinematic disappointment for me in years.

Okay, it's not all bad. Hugh Jackman takes gleeful pleasure in being a pirate, though he's not even on screen very long. And Garrett Hedlund is pretty. And some of the visuals are stunning.

That's it.

I knew we were off to a bad start when the film opened on a Dickensian orphanage run by fat, grumpy old nuns. From there the children are whisked away by pirates in a flying ship to Neverland, but not before causing chaos in the London skies and sailing through a bizarre limbo that would fit into Oz the Great and Powerful (2013) or Alice in Wonderland (2010). But Neverland itself is hardly better, as we see crowds of children laboring under the pirates singing Nirvana and Blackbeard (Jackman) snorting cocaine. I mean fairy dust. Apparently it keeps him looking "young" as long as he grinds it and inhales it regularly, though this important detail is only seen in one brief scene.

The plot is as straightforward as they come. Peter is on a quest to find his mother, who he learns was the great hero of the island natives and lover of the Fairy Prince. Eventually he leads the fairies and natives into victorious battle against Blackbeard and this pirates. Along the way, he befriends Garrett Hedlund as Hook (an odd name, as he as full use of both hands) and Tiger Lily, played by Rooney Mara. I don't really have a problem with the controversial casting of Rooney Mara -- who is to say what the native skin color of a fantasy island population may be? -- though the almost completely whitewashed cast is unfortunate.

What I do have a problem with is the stupidity of the film. The dialogue is inane and made me groan more than once: "The boys are lost, sir." "Then they are lost boys." Or "I lie sometimes. It's called being an adult." Beyond the dialogue, even the plot doesn't flow. Good thing the same body of water that hides enormous crocodiles also provides trippy visions for exposition; it's convenient, though apparently there's no concern about the monsters they escaped only moments before. In one scene, huge vicious birds attack our protagonist, and in another he seeks them out to help fight the pirates. Worst for me, in the climactic battle where Peter is destined to fight and kill Blackbeard, he simply leads the fairies in flying around the ship. He does absolutely no fighting. In fact, the only heroic thing he does in the whole film is fly to save Hook from falling into an abyss.

I could handle the strange production design if it were consistent, but it's not. I could handle steampunk pirates or neon-colored white natives if they fit into a larger aesthetic vision, but they don't. I could handle wild and spectacular CGI sequences if they supported a reasonably intelligent plot, but they don't. I could handle terrible dialogue if the characters were interesting, but they're not. And I could handle awkward camera angles and jerky, illogical editing if anything else in the film worked, but it doesn't! Actually, the really weird thing about the swooping camera shots is that they often happen when there is little or no action going on. Why waste the dynamic shot on scenery? Especially scenery that's mostly computer-generated??

The whole thing is a hodgepodge, big-budget waste of resources that brings nothing new to the imaginative world of Barrie's Peter Pan. Sure, it's not the worst thing to watch with your kids or maybe if you're under the influence. Yes, I might watch it again sometime to try and find something useful in it, or maybe just to enjoy Jackman's maniacal grin and feathered costume. I mean, pirates are my weak spot. Especially when they have a deep voice like Garrett Hedlund.

But do yourself a favor and save your money for a Halloween costume.

IMDb: Pan

The Martian (2015)

Score: 4.5 / 5

Coming on the heels of two Big, Serious space dramas, The Martian had a lot of room for error. But its great victory is that it has nothing in common whatsoever with those other films; indeed, the few moments it creeps toward resembling either Gravity or Interstellar, the filmmakers jerk it off in another direction, playing off our expectations and keeping us in constant awe. (For example, the climax involves two individuals floating around in space; it comes straight from Gravity, but ends up in a very different place.)

Where Gravity had a lot of thematic, well, gravity and allegorical import, The Martian avoids morbidity in its brave wit and dry humor while keeping its characters grounded and rational. And where Interstellar lost itself in abstractions and morbid sentimentality, The Martian keeps things fiercely realistic and logically based. I'm using words like "rational" and "realistic" to hone in on something else, too. I know almost nothing about space science, and the filmmakers are clearly targeting people like me, but I followed the reasoning behind every step of this film. I couldn't speak to the factual details, but keeping a clueless person like me so entranced for two and a half hours of science-speak is a feat. Especially considering that most of the dialogue concerns various technologies and potential plans to rescue Matt Damon.

I don't know what I was expecting, but none of the actors in this film suffered like I anticipated. Here we have a man who has had no human contact in over a year (though Mars days and Earth days are different, so I don't actually know), and he stays completely sane, rational, and even humored the entire time. Maybe we're too used to melodrama and wildly unstable characters, but I was taken completely aback by his characterization. I still can't decide if I liked it or not, but it was very different, and for now I'm fine with that. And that's to say nothing of Damon's abilities; though Jessica Chastain, Jeff Daniels, and Chiwetel Ejiofor have some nice moments, it is Damon who carries the weight of the film. When he starts crying during the climax, I totally lost it. And it was nice to see him have some fun and do fresh work.

And speaking of fresh work, I'm glad Ridley Scott came back to form after Exodus: Gods and Kings. That was a hot mess. But this is a tight-wound thriller that feels less complicated than it is. That's something Scott has always been able to do well, and in such a way that it looks easy. Here, he relieves what could easily have become plodding plot points by speeding along from place to place with nice (though a bit too many) subtitles for time and location, and connecting scenes with a delightful soundtrack of disco music. He also, and bravely, I think, introduces important concepts and then only minimally references them as we go along. We only see our hero figure out how to talk to the scientists on Earth once; after that, we just figure it got easier and happened more often. Or we only see him learn how to make water once; after that, we just assume it becomes routine. These crucial plot points move us along, and then we forget about their continued importance as Scott pushes us into new waters every ten minutes or so. It's a gamble, and one that succeeds brilliantly.

One last thought. This is a fine film. It's definitely not on my space-adventure favorites list because I do prefer my sci-fi to be pretty dark and artsy. And yet it still won me over because of the obvious intelligence and energy that went into making it. It's one of those rare pictures that I just believed. I only occasionally thought of Matt Damon or the others as performing. It's all raw, shallow, and tight, which makes it work remarkably well in a genre of melodrama and abstractions. And, of course, when ABBA's "Waterloo" started playing right before the climax, I was in heaven.

IMDb: The Martian

Sicario (2015)

Score: 5 / 5

I get really excited every time some of my favorite artists team up to do a film, and Sicario is no exception! Visionary director Denis Villeneuve (Prisoners, Enemy), legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins (Prisoners, Doubt, Fargo, The Shawshank Redemption), and recent composer Johann Johannsson (Prisoners, The Theory of Everything, Foxcatcher) rock this daring and haunting crime thriller in ways I only dreamed they might. It was a total moviegasm experience for me, and my hands are still shaking from it.

Imagine what would happen if Zero Dark Thirty (2012) and Traffic (2000) had a baby, and you can grasp the direction this film takes. It's a brutal peek into the drug trade and cartel culture, and it relentlessly forces us to face the horrors we so easily permit. It's about the little compromises we make every day that push us farther and farther away from civilized life and into the deserts of chaos and cruelty. It's a web of policy and procedure, a critique of corrupt or misguided law enforcement, and a tragedy of one soldier's fall from innocence.

That soldier, played with great vulnerability and compassion by Emily Blunt (The Young Victoria, Into the Woods), is an FBI agent determined to win the war on drugs by the book. But, as she soon learns, her idealism is far from practical and far from successful. After a traumatic incident in one raid, which starts the film, she joins with Department of Defense agents to hunt down the head of a cartel and bring him to justice. She sees her team lie, torture, and murder their way to the top of the cartel, and becomes privy to secrets that destroy her faith.

Of course, director Villeneuve is keenly aware of his female protagonist as the heart and soul of the film, and so he keeps us trained on her. For every horror she faces, we see it only as it relates to her. In fact, most of the violence and dead bodies we see only briefly, before turning to see her reactions to them. It's a gamble, and one that pays off brilliantly. And that's not to say we don't see plenty of the other actors as well. Josh Brolin (No Country for Old Men, W.) is his typical gruff self, though here I found him more compelling and inscrutable than usual. And Benecio Del Toro (Traffic, Che) blew me away yet again as the dangerous loose cannon of the team, guarded behind his facade but vicious and terrifying when necessary.

Cinematographer Roger Deakins -- I can't even say how much I love his work -- fashions the drama with an eye for gravity and weight, shown most obviously in his repeated longshots of the desert landscape and views down from aircraft. He takes his time with every scene, painting a portrait with varied lights and colors that build to a climax that parallels the plot. By the time we actually reach the climactic raid -- underground and at night -- he throws convention to the wolves and douses us in thermal vision and night vision lenses. The interplay is provocative to say the least, aand by the time it was done I felt as though I had tried some of the drugs the characters were hunting.

The whole movie is a trip and a half, a spiritual descent into hell, and one that left me bewildered but satisfied. And the score by Johann Johannsson isn't intrusive at all; the only memorable part is an increasingly hypnotic drone that thrums on through the film, a mysterious and unsettling sound that feels tied to an idea of impending doom. If this all sounds a bit heady, it's because it is. And designed to be so. Handled by others, this film might have become mired in complex dialogue absorbed with the details of the crimes and organizations involved, in muddled editing and ambiguous plotlines juxtaposed with vague or unnecessary characters, or in sentiment and politics. Instead, we get a clear, if artistic, picture of a very specific world in which very real people grapple with huge abstract concepts. And it's all done beautifully, which is obviously the most important part.

IMDb: Sicario