Rooney Mara

Lion

Stranger than fiction. Sometimes real life events are so incredible that they seem like works of fiction. I’ve had a few moments in life where I found myself in the middle of something epic. But those were just moments. Imagine a life that rivals some of the greatest stories you’ve ever heard. Such a life belongs to Saroo Brierley, an Indian-born Aussie from humble yet extraordinary beginnings.

Lion begins with a window into the world of Saroo (Sunny Pawar, Love Sonia), an impoverished, adorably resilient five-year-old boy. He and his older brother Guddu supplement their mother’s meager income by panhandling on the streets of their small enclave, a tiny village in India. I was transported to another world, both morally and culturally. Saroo’s learned resourcefulness was a byproduct of the apathetic environment in which he lived. Yet his spirit was one of innocence and joy.

In my travels to Indonesia, I witnessed firsthand how those with the least have the most love in their hearts. It shines forth like a beacon, and that’s the quality young Saroo radiated into the world. All is well until one fateful day threatens to snuff out that little light. While waiting at a train station for his brother to return from securing work, Saroo inadvertently becomes trapped on a train and whisked hundreds of miles away. He disembarks in the congested city of Calcutta, where he does not speak the language and cannot describe his home. Lost in a shuffle of insidious indifference, Saroo fends for himself in a manner no child should have to. Danger lurks around every corner, as he narrowly escapes one pitfall after another.

Through sheer serendipity, Saroo finds himself at an orphanage, where a new family is eventually brokered. In yet another seismic shift in his life, he is adopted by an Australian couple, John (David Wenham, Goldstone) and Sue Brierley (Nicole Kidman, Secret in Their Eyes). This time the change is one that brings peace and healing, as John and Sue give Saroo the love and security he so desperately needs, filling his childhood with joy once again.

Fast-forward 25 years and Saroo (Dev Patel, Chappie) is a fresh-faced young man coming into his own. He has a girlfriend Lucy (Rooney Mara, Carol) and has nestled into a secure life. But no matter how wonderful things have become, Saroo can’t escape the nagging memory of the life he once knew. He longs to find the mother and brother whom he believes never stopped searching for him. Hampered by poverty and a deficient local infrastructure, it was virtually impossible for Saroo to have been reunited with his family after he came to be stranded in Calcutta as a child. Now that he is an adult, he embarks on the emotional journey to find his family. Saroo is torn between wounding his adoptive parents and satisfying his own longing to reconnect with a forgotten part of himself, toiling away in frustration in an effort to pinpoint the area in which he grew up.

I frequently extoll the virtue of film’s ability to illicit emotion and remain with the viewer long after watching. The most powerful films feel like an emotional investment. As I’m oft to repeat, the beauty of film as an artistic medium lies in its ability to transcend outward differences and to convey the profound depth of the human experience. With all that’s going on in the world, it’s nice to experience something good about the human condition, to connect with another story on an emotional level. Lion was a beautiful film, and I felt deeply moved and emotionally invested in what I was watching. One of the year’s best.

Grade: A+

Side Effects

Known as the “master of suspense,” Alfred Hitchcock is considered a true pioneer of the contemporary thriller.  He popularized the idea of the “femme fatale,” a woman whose beguiling attributes rendered men helpless, often with deadly consequences.  So, when someone references Hitchcock or describes a film as “Hitchcockian,” I’m curious to see the supposed hallmarks of one of my favorite directors.  When I heard one of the stars of the new movie Side Effects describe it as reminiscent of Hitchcock – I was convinced to give it a look.

Side Effects is Steven Soderbergh’s (Contagion, Magic Mike) latest addition to a prolific career.  I’m a fan of his slick cinematography and the occasional languid feel of some of his movies, and Side Effects was no exception.  The movie features Channing Tatum (The Vow, Magic Mike) and Rooney Mara (The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo), as Martin and Emily Taylor, a young couple trying to rebuild their lives after Martin’s release from prison for insider trading.  Separated for five years, the couple is eager to reunite, and they seem very loving and loyal to each other.  Emily appears devoted, having stood by Martin during his fall from grace.  However, soon after his release Emily falls into an inexplicable depression.  I suppose some jittery anxiety is normal, as the pair hasn’t been intimate in quite some time.  Yet Emily’s mood doesn’t comport with what should ostensibly be a very happy time in their lives.  After she commits a dangerous act that shall remain nameless (you’re welcome), she comes under the care of Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows), a psychiatrist who believes she may simply be feeling overwhelmed by Martin’s return.  Eventually he gives her a prescription, but she continues to deteriorate both rapidly and publicly.  She melts down at a black-tie party in front of their friends, and she needs consolation from a co-worker at her job.

Throughout her struggle, Martin remains patient and understanding as Emily listlessly goes through the motions of everyday life.  She tries one prescription pill after another, as nothing seems capable of snapping her out of her funk.  People suggest different medicines to her, and Banks gives her a sample of a drug called Ablixa (http://www.tryablixa.com/) after consulting briefly with her former psychiatrist (Catherine Zeta-Jones, Broken City).  What follows is a series of events that will leave you shocked and scratching your head.  The movie really shifts gears about halfway through, and I understand the Hitchcock comparisons.  There was an intimate, dream-like quality to the film that made it feel mysterious and slightly foreboding, and I appreciated that aspect of the movie.

Despite the intriguing plot and expert cinematography, I found a lot to be desired when it came to performances.  To be fair, it was only Channing Tatum that left me underwhelmed, yet again.  I think he’s very good-looking and charming.  According to some, he’s even the ‘sexiest man alive.’  Unfortunately for Tatum, this was a trait that served him better in Soderbergh’s last film, Magic Mike.  Here I found him serviceable, at best.  There just never seems to be much beneath the surface, with him.  By no means do I think he’s unintelligent, but his performances always strike me as one note, failing to resonate.  Rooney Mara, on the other hand, was convincing as a troubled, unstable young woman.  Perhaps it’s her diminutive stature, but she always seems vulnerable, and I thought her physical make up served her well in the role.  Her character required a duality that she ably conveyed.  Lastly, Jude Law was effective as the well-meaning doctor who genuinely wants to help Emily but is clueless as to what deeper issues may be bubbling under her troubled veneer.  The pacing was a bit slow in certain spots, but this was remedied by the final act.

I’ve tried to reveal as little as possible, but I’ll leave you with a solid recommendation for this tense thriller. Side Effects was sexy, mysterious, and suspenseful.  Amidst a sea of Oscar contenders currently in some theaters, I thought it was a welcomed reprieve.  Grade: B+

 

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

When it comes to words, I’ll admit that I have a flair for the dramatic.  When I love something, the superlatives flow. Not too long ago I watched a movie on Netflix streaming and proclaimed it one of the best movies I’d ever seen in my life.  That’s that flair for the dramatic I was talking about.  But this time I meant it.  The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was a slice of noveau noir that any Hitchcock fan would love.  Even the Swedish dialogue and English subtitles didn’t bother me, and that’s saying a lot.

Based on the popular Millennium series’ book of the same name by author Steig Larsson, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was the harrowing tale of Lisbeth Salander, a computer hacker with a disturbing psychological and criminal history.  Out on some sort of parole, she augments her legit income by moonlighting as a free-lance hacker.  In this capacity she encounters journalist Mikael Blomkvist, while performing a background check on behalf of a wealthy financier named Henrik Vanger.  Vanger wants the journalist to find his long lost niece but must ensure that Blomkvist is fit for the job, given some recent legal troubles.  Lisbeth is hacking Blomkvist, so when he begins to investigate the Vanger disappearance, she does too.  Eventually they team up for what proves to be a mysterious journey into the depths of human depravity.  Lisbeth is dark and brooding on the surface, but her exterior belies a compassion and fortitude that most of the world doesn’t see.  Fiercely resilient and protective, she is a survivor in every sense of the word.  Her physical appearance is a study in contrasts: a thin seemingly fragile frame juxtaposed with harsh piercings and a jagged Mohawk.  Jet-black hair and alabaster skin complete the shocking picture.  In turn, Blomkvist becomes an ally, friend, lover and protector.  His warmth and her initial icy disposition eventually meld together in a natural way, and their chemistry is palpable.

I apologize for rambling on like that, but I needed to convey all of these things about the original version so you’d understand why the updated version from David Fincher (The Social Network, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) just doesn’t measure up.  The Swedish version was released in 2009.  Are we really remaking 2 year old movies now?  Why, because arrogant Americans can’t bear to read subtitles?  The Swedish version was amazing, and I can understand a phenomenal filmmaker like Fincher wanting to introduce the story to new audiences.  However, when something is fantastic, you have to stay true to it because it’s inherently difficult to improve something that’s already great.  There is source material to work with here.  I have not read the books in the Millennium series, but everyone says that they are fantastic.  Great literary material and a great original cinematic interpretation.  Yet I feel that Fincher found a way to come up short, by comparison.  I saw the movie with two friends who had both read the books but not seen the Swedish version.  One really liked Fincher’s take (I think b/c she had nothing to compare it to) and the other didn’t think it stayed true to the books.  That, my friends spells disappointment.

Despite my dissatisfaction with the movie itself, I want to be clear that I thought the casting and the performances were excellent.  Rooney Mara (The Social Network) and Daniel Craig (Dream House) were great in their roles.  I attribute any lack of chemistry between the two to Fincher, not to their acting.  The original movie did a better job of fleshing out each character’s background and motivation.  We understood why they were drawn to each other and why Lisbeth was so broken after all that she’d endured.  She was a tormented character, and that was not conveyed as ably in the remake.

Perhaps if I hadn’t seen the original version I could let this one stand on its own merits, but I just can’t.  Some things are better left untouched.  When I watched the original I felt like I was watching something special; it was enthralling.  This 2011 version was just another day at the movies: good, but not great.  Try to see the Swedish version first, if you haven’t read the book.  2009 version: A+ 2011 version: B