Get Hard

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Etan Cohen/Starring: Will Ferrell, Kevin Hart, Craig T. Nelson, Alison Brie and John Mayer

First-time director Etan Cohen's Get Hard is an intermittently funny raunch-fest and like most Hollywood comedies, it can't establish and maintain a comedic pace that is entirely satisfying. Its failings can't be ascribed to its cast, because the film's strength lay in its two leads; funny men Will Ferrell and stand-up comic Kevin Hart; who know their way around a funny line and a gag. The film does manage to reach for the outrageous at times but more often it settles for quick and easy rather than comically inventive.

The story centers on James (Will Ferrell), a very successful trader who is offered a promotion by his boss Martin (Craig T. Nelson). Success comes at a price, for a disgruntled rival is vehemently opposed to James' good fortune.

The woman behind James' climb to the financial Empyrean is his fiancé--and boss' daughter--Alissa (Alison Brie). Alissa's Lady MacBeth ambitions tolerate no dithering or indecision on the part of her man and she is less than sympathetic when she finds her fiance is under arrest on charges of securities fraud. Slave to the lavish lifestyle she and her husband enjoy, Alissa lets nothing obstruct her pursuit of material needs.

Meanwhile, Darnell (Kevin Hart), a struggling foreman of a car-cleaning service, who wields an irrepressible entrepreneurial spirit, comes into contact with James, whose vehicle is in Darnell's care. Looking for an investor for his own car-cleaning business, Darnell approaches James for $30,000, only to be condescendingly brushed off. It is slightly amusing to see James panic when Darnell knocks on his car window; thinking a robbery is in progress.

After James is sentenced to ten years in San Quentin, he panics, knowing his time in jail won't be served in a cushy Federal prison, but the formidable San Quentin penitentionary. Aware that his chance of escaping rape and violent assault behind bars is very slim, he decides to enlist Darnell's help in how to survive prison life, holding to the bigoted notion that most black men have served jail-time. Incensed, Darnell takes umbrage until James offers money for his services that matches the investment he needs for his business. The wrinkle in Darnell's plan is that he has never been incarcerated. Unwilling to lose the money, he consults a cousin who has served time.

Immersing himself in his mission, Darnell transforms James' lush home into a simulated prison environment. He also has the house staff, who aren't exactly fond of their boss, assume the roles of prison guards and fellow inmates.

This is ripe for comedic plunder but Cohen never fully exploits its possibilities. Darnell spends more time trying to toughen a weak, cowardly James for the eventualities of both anal and oral rape.

In a sequence that shows some daring, Darnell and James visit a gay hangout for the express purpose of James propositioning a man to perform fellatio. Unfortunately, the subsequent scene where James finds himself on his knees before another man in a bathroom stall plays too long and is leached of its humorous potential. While James recoils in fear and loathing, Darnell resists the advances of a man back at the bar. The whole scene smacks a little of homophobia but it earns points for its willingness to pursue raunch to extremes.

The film would like to be about James' gradual conversion from heartless capitalist to hero sensitive to class struggle and racial disparity. Somehow a lowest common denominator comedy featuring a character like James always seems to be somewhat incongruous. Dumb Hollywood comedies would do better to stick to the tasteless jokes and leave socially conscious messages to more sophisticated satire.

So eventually both parties work out their respective issues and a campaign to smear James comes to light; no earth-shattering revelations here. Some gags hit home while others are dead on arrival or delivery. Ferrell and Hart manage to keep it all afloat long enough for the film to reach the end credits. Alison Brie makes an interesting shrew but Craig T. Nelson is unfortunately only asked to hit his marks.

It's interesting to note that a group of teenagers sitting in front of me at the late show were actually smoking weed. The teens desperately fanned the big, billowy clouds of smoke to avoid detection. I don't remember seeing anyone attempt anything so brazen in a movie theater, but I thought, good for them, maybe they'll find the movie uproariously funny now. I wish they had passed their magic wand back to me; I could have used it. No such luck; I was forced to watch it all with my senses intact. Maybe the young folks had the right idea. Keep that in mind if you feel an uncontrollable impulse to see Get Hard.

Or maybe skip the movie and just get stoned.

3 Hearts (3 Coeurs)

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Benoit Jacquot/Starring: Charlotte Gainsbourg, Chiara Mastroianni, Catherine Deneuve and Benoit Poelvoorde

You know you're watching a French film when a middle-age man initiates a conversation with an unhappy but beautiful middle-age woman, then after walking and talking all night, agrees to meet her a week later in a Parisian park, only to arrive late to the meeting, thus missing what might have been. We know instinctively, from our experiences watching French cinema, that the thwarted assignation will have powerful ramifications. But I'm not being dismissive of what the French do so well; I'm actually praising the French for excelling in telling stories that are both intimate and riveting. In Benoit Jacquot's 3 Hearts, we have both qualities in abundance.

Benoit Poelvoorde stars as Marc Beaulieu, a Parisian tax auditor who finds himself in a small French town for the night. Out late in the deserted streets, he meets a woman, Sylvie Berger (the beautiful Charlotte Gainsbourg) walking alone. He asks her for directions to a hotel as a pretext for conversation. The pair end up spending a romantic evening strolling, until dawn arrives. Mutually enchanted, they agree to meet in Paris the following week. But though Sylvie is punctual, Marc is held up in traffic and arrives too late. Dejected, Sylvie walks away sadly while Marc, staring at an empty park chair, thinks about his stifled opportunity.

In another scene, we see Sylvie bidding on antiques at an auction. She wins a beautiful but expensive mirror for the family antique store, in which her sister Sophie (Chiara Mastroianni) acts as proprietress. Shortly after, as her heart-broken sister leaves for America, Sophie tends to the store's financial troubles, which are many and dire.

After having sought advice on the store's troubled finances in the town tax office, Sophie stands in a corridor, overcome with anxiety and tears. Marc, who happens to be serving in the offices on an out-of-Paris assignment, happens to notice Sophie sobbing and stops to offer an ear and some sympathy. Wanting to help and maybe get to know Sophie, he agrees to help her with her books. After fixing a potentially pernicious problem, a romance burgeons and before long, Sophie finds herself leaving her boyfriend for Marc. A courtship follows in which Marc meets Sophie's mother, Madame Berger (Catherine Deneuve, Mastroianni's real-life mother). And while the happy couple's relationship hastens toward marriage, Sophie shares her joy with Sylvie via Skype while Marc just narrowly misses being seen onscreen.

The audience may know where this is will lead and although the plot seems a tad bit gimmicky, Director Benoit Jacquot doesn't let the story become a silly contrivance. As Sophie and Marc make wedding arrangements, the audience dreads the imminent moment when Sylvie will learn Marc is to be her brother-in-law. Having seen Sylvie's picture on Madame Berger's wall, Marc is well aware of his predicament. And before the wedding commences, Sylvie finally learns of the groom's identity when she accidentally sees him on another Skype call. Her reaction is powerful and the scene wrenching.

A subplot involving the Mayor of the town who, after presiding at Marc and Sophie's wedding, is the subject of one of Marc's audits, which reveals illicit irregularities. Marc's refusal to help someone so close to the Berger family betrays a hypocritical devotion to his own mercurial principles, which he was quick to overlook when re-auditing Sophie's records.

When Sylvie arrives for the wedding reception, the tension is almost overpowering.

The suspense is heightened further as we wonder if Sophie will learn of Sylvie and Marc's past and whether the revelation could destroy the marriage. Jacquot, like many excellent French directors, knows how to make a relationship drama burn. He keeps the roiling pace steady but it helps to have an exceptional cast at the call. Gainsbourg is a fascinating actress. She can project vulnerability and coiled rage at the same time. Mastroianni is no less intriguing while I wish Deneuve had had more to do. Poolvoorde is another physical contradiction; he has a buffoon's face one moment, a thoughtful and compassionate mien the next; an appropriate contrast for someone who has gotten himself--inadvertently--into a tangled mess.

When the situation becomes nearly unbearable, Jacquot wisely keeps the outcome as messy and unresolved as the triangle itself. The final scene shows us an affective what if scenario; something neat, tidy and romantic to play against the Gordian knot strangling Marc, Sophie and Sylvie.

I was drawn into the story. A few scenes made me squirm and I couldn't help but be moved by the idea that a failed rendezvous could bring about so much misfortune for three people. Is the film a singular achievement? No, but it sears nevertheless. One may feel the story relies too much on a hard to swallow Macguffin, to wit; the coincidental meeting of Marc and Sophie but one need not slavishly adhere to the strict demands of reality to be carried along by the story.

It seems so little French cinema crosses the oceanic divide these days, so seeing Jacquot's drama is a bit of a relief. I hope more are forthcoming; American films are quite toxic this time of year.

Cinderella

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Kenneth Branagh/Starring: Cate Blanchett, Lily James, Richard Madden, Helena Bonham Carter, Stellan Skarsgard, Derek Jacobi, Nonzo Anozie, Holliday Grainger, Ben Chaplin and Sophie McShera and Rob Brydon

With myriad iterations of the Cinderella in film and television, one might expect a live action interpretation to be superfluous and unnecessary. But Kenneth Branagh's Cinderella proves any fairy tale can re-told if inspiration and heart serve as guides. I'm happy (and surprised) to say this version succeeds amiably, which is no small accomplishment, given the universal fondness for the Disney version. How Branagh pulls off this creative coup is due in part to breathtaking visuals, fine casting and maybe best of all, outstanding costumes, which are beautifully designed spectacles of color and texture.

I must admit that I came to the film with low expectations. Re-tellings or re-interpretations tend to be drearily revisionist, CGI nightmares or misguided attempts to make said stories seem contemporary and hip. Some horrific examples from recent years are Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Sam Raimi's Oz the Great and Powerful. I realize both films are more retellings that anything else, but the two films share an awareness of their more successful predecessors, which doesn't help.

If one is to take on a beloved story like Cinderella, it helps to cast actors with presence and quirky charm. Who better to fill the shoes of the iconic wicked stepmother than Cate Blanchett, who plays the character as if she invented it. Of course we need a disarming couple to play the put-upon heroine and the charming prince. Lily James from Downton Abbey and Richard Madden from Game of Thrones make an attractive, fairy tale pair who don't rely solely on their youthful comeliness to give their characters warmth and spirit.

Branagh doesn't tweak the story or characters much, which is a sound approach. We see Ella (the Cinder appendage comes later) and her loving family residing in their idyllic country home. Ella enjoys harmonious relations with nature and as one would expect (demand?) her mice are always about to provide companionship. But tragedy befalls the family when Ella's mother passes away. Her father (Ben Chaplain) remarries and suddenly Ella's halcyon life is upended when her new stepmother (Blanchett) and her insufferable new stepsisters Drisella and Anastasia (played with diabolical glee by Sophie McShera and Holliday Grainger) become permanent fixtures in her home. Unfortunately for Ella, her father is often away on business, leaving her in the company of her step-family, who have little love for their new digs and even less for their new step family member. When an accident claims her father's life, Ella suddenly finds she is little more than a scullery maid for her new step-family.

Slaving around the clock, Ella manages to escape the cottage one day for a ride in the forest. There, she encounters a handsome prince (Madden) who is busy leading a stag hunt. Incensed by the idea of a woodland creature being stalked, Ella convinces the Prince to halt the hunt. Fairy-tale sparks fly and though Ella returns home knowing very little about the prince, she feels a resonant buzz from the encounter.

Back home among her wicked step-family, Ella's ash-soiled face becomes the butt of her stepsisters jokes, which earns her the sobriquet Cinder-Ella.

The rest of the film is more or less faithful to the classic story; the invitation to the ball, which serves as a means for the prince to choose a princess, Cinderella's confinement during the ball, the fairy godmother's fateful appearance, etc.

So what does Branagh's Cinderella do to earn its own relevance? Simple: it cares about the characters more than CGI. But what CGI we do see is deployed with discretion and taste.
Branagh, as a seasoned director of Shakespearean adaptations, understands stimulating characters and dialogue make for more compelling drama than the visual rubbish. Having directed big budget, CGI-dependent Hollywood fare like Thor and live action drama like Henry V, with its Kurosawa-like battle scenes, it's probably safe to say Branagh respects humans more than special effects wizardry.

Another quality in this production are the memorable costumes. The staggeringly beautiful designs make a powerful impression. Cate Blanchett was quite striking in her various dresses, which not only suggested elegance but sex appeal. This wicked stepmother had some delicious curves the dresses accentuated quite nicely. Blanchett's lovely blue eyes and camera-loving red hair must be a cinematographer's delight and a costumer designer's muse. Costumer designer Sandy Powell, whose impressive resume includes many Scorsese films and the costume dramas Shakespeare in Love and Hugo, intoxicates our eyes with vivid, tactile colors. Though I wasn't a fan of Hugo, I can still recall Powell's gorgeous costumes. In Cinderella one can admire the beautiful finery; the shiny embroidery, the stunning ball gowns that blossom like flowers, Cinderella's other-worldly blue dress and the offbeat humor of Anastasia's and Drisella's polka-dotted skirts. Though Lily James is quite lovely in her ball gown, I wanted to see more of Blanchett in the seductive green she always seems to be wearing.

Fairy tales are only as good as the villains who inhabit them and the film is well served by Blanchett, who is deliciously diabolical. Her slithery saunters are sexy; she's a witch in satiny fabrics and she's pleased to be so. She has a lot of fun with the role and she doesn't waste the opportunity. Helena Bonham-Carter as the fairy godmother is another bit of inspired casting. Her ever-eccentric presence is perfect for the character and she is quite amusing.

I enjoyed Cinderella. I'm hardly conferring masterpiece accolades on Branagh's film but it is true to its fairy-tale status. It has humor and aesthetic appeal and will beguile both the young and old.

Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem

**Spoiler Alert**

Directors: Ronit Elkabetz, Schlomi Elkabetz/Starring: Ronit Elkabetz, Simon Abkarian, Sasson Gabai, and Menashe Noy

One of the extraordinary qualities one may notice in the Israeli/French production Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem is its ability to tell a spellbinding, powerful story within a claustrophobic setting; namely, an Israeli courtroom. And among many of the film's wondrous attributes is its story, which might leave one wondering how such breathtaking yet deceptive simplicity could translate to a deeply moving courtroom drama. The title suggests a woman's condemnation, which becomes all but fact in a story depicting the rabbinical court and its female-hostile, rigid interpretations of divorce. The story is mainly an indictment of a system predicated on religious dogma that denies women self-determination while reducing them to the status of chattel.

The ferociously talented Ronit Elkabetz; the film's co-writer, co-director and star, is brilliant as a middle-age wife named Viviane Amsalem, who is fed up with her failed marriage and her husband Elisha, (the terrific French-Armenian actor Simon Abkarian) who refuses to grant her a divorce.

When the film begins, we hear only male voices and for awhile, we see only men in a courtroom. The opening makes a strong statement about the male-dominated, rabbinical divorce court. We learn it is nigh impossible for a woman to be granted a divorce in Israel without the husband's consent. And though divorces are the domain of civil courts in the west, in Israel all divorces are adjudicated by Rabbi's, who also serve as arbiters of morality.

During the hearings, we understand Viviane and Elisha have been married for years and have four children to show for their troubled marriage. We learn Viviane hasn't lived with her husband for sometime; residing at her sister's home with three of her kids and supporting herself as a hairdresser in her own salon.

Serving as her attorney is Carmel Ben Tovim (Menashe Noy) while her husband is represented by his brother, Rabbi Shimon (Sasson Gabai). With a male-dominated courtroom: three rabbinical judges, two male attorneys and Elisha, Viviane seems caught in masculine vise with little hope or means of being properly heard. In the early scenes, the three rabbis presiding over the case regard Viviane menacingly; granting her moderate freedom of expression in her testimony.

As the hearings are prolonged needlessly by Elisha, who has no intention of divorcing his wife, his contempt for Viviane's position is made manifest in his repeated failures to appear before the court. While Viviane becomes increasingly frustrated, she points out to the judges that in America, repeated failures to appear would hasten a divorce but the rabbis', intent on adhering to rabbinical law, enable Elisha to delay a court judgement, thus obstructing progress. The intertitles inform us of elapsed time between hearings, which leaves the audience and the rabbis' infuriated as Elisha's stubborn refusals to grant his wife a divorce become unbearable.

A film's setting confined to a single room poses a herculean challenge to the actors and the directors, who must rely on strong performances and a solid script to shoulder the dramatic tension. Fortunately for the cast (and audience) the Elkabetz siblings know precisely how to keep the camera movements unobtrusive and make the audience both spectator and participants in the hearings.

Outstanding performances are uniform. Ronit Elkabetz herself is unforgettable as Viviane. So often we see weariness, anger and exasperation on her beautifully mysterious face, which conveys much of her character. Her eyes and the jet black hair are so expressive and so striking, it takes little effort for the audience to share her agony.
But the rest of the cast also more than meet the challenge with astonishing performances of their own. Abkarian is exceptional as the immovable husband while Sasson Gabai and Menashe Noy are riveting as dueling attorneys who are caught up in the emotional firestorm.

As months become years, the hearings continue ad nauseam as the court summons witnesses from both parties to assert or deny the marriage's soundness. Some witnesses who appear to testify for one party inadvertently help the cause of the other. Viviane's brother appears on her behalf, only to present testimony supporting her husband. Viviane's sister also offers testimony, which quickly degenerates into a funny monologue that neither helps nor hinders the hearings.

And as the hearings become a protracted ordeal, Elisha's remains steadfast and in being so, we cannot but empathize with Viviane. We also recognize the weight that Viviane and women bear in world courts where rule of law is based on religious dogma that inevitably minimalizes women's rights.

The question that we ask ourselves throughout the film is whether Viviane will ever be granted a divorce. I never divulge an ending and I won't do it here. All I will say is that I left the theater feeling ambivalent about the outcome but a film like Gett would feel false if it had ended in any other way.

The setting is very austere, as is the strategic lack of color. Black and white hues pervade. We even see the absence of color in Viviane's courtroom attire until a visually arresting, feminine red dress makes a powerful statement; defying the masculine blacks and whites both judges and advocates wear defensively. Eventually, Viviane's sartorial expression expires until she too is bullied into a black and white compliance.

Gett is so well conceived and the story executed so compellingly it is hardly premature to say it will be among the year's best. It is an unforgettable film with an unforgettable heroine, whose dignified opposition to the court and its inherently monolithic, religiously-based, female-hostile laws serves as one of the more courageous battles I've seen in cinema in some time.

This is a great film; no doubt about it.

An Honest Liar

Directors: Tyler Measom and Justin Weinstein

James Randi, A.K.A. The Amazing Randi, has spent much of his life as a magician; either as an entertainer or, as he's applied his art for the past 40 years, as a debunker of paranormal claims and one who exposes charlatans who would deceive the credulous for profit. He is also a proponent of science and reason and has earned a considerable degree of fame as a indefatigable crusader for critical thinking as well as the enmity of those who have been unmasked by his saber-sharp scrutiny.

In directors Tyler Meason and Justin Weinstein's new bio-documentary An Honest Liar, Randi's life and career bear close examination. Comments from magician peers, such as Penn and Teller, mingle with personal interviews and footage from T.V. appearances to create an engaging portrait of a man whose dedication to his craft has lead him down some dark paths. But the film isn't merely a biopic, it is also a study of deception in its many guises and how everyone; including Randi, is susceptible to it in some form or another.

From his early years in Toronto, we learn Randi abandoned school to join the circus in hopes of applying his burgeoning fascination with Harry Houdini, mind-reading and magic into a nascent career. Honing his craft, Randi earned considerable fame as a magician; making appearances on American T.V. and venues around the world. Though he retired from performing in his 50s', Randi found another useful application for his craft: exposing tricksters and frauds who claim to possess psychic, healing or channeling powers. In his own words, Randi partially explains the powerful effect his early fortune-telling had on audiences when he recalls being accosted by people on the street who offered to pay him for his alleged knowledge of the future. The fact that one would confuse his show-tricks for genuine soothsaying made him aware of the frightening, exploitative possibilities of his craft.

And so began the Amazing Randi's crusade to expose paranormal con-artists. We see footage of Uri Geller, the Israeli, self-proclaimed telepath and psychokineticist who duped millions into believing he could bend spoons with his mind. Knowing Gellar was to make an appearance on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, Randi acted as a consultant to the show's prop handlers on how to set up a test to thwart Gellar's trickery. Not only was Geller not able to perform, he didn't even make an attempt; claiming to Carson and a national audience that he "wasn't feeling it." Thinking Gellar was finished as a paranormal flim-flammer, Randi was dismayed to find the incident had little effect on his career. But Randi never gave up; seeking other opportunities in T.V. appearances and books to expose him. Another absorbing sequence in the film involves an elaborate plan to expose the faith healer Peter Popoff, who employed forceful means to convince audiences his curative powers were divinely bestowed. He also employed a devious and nearly imperceptible technical trick to make them believe he knew their ailments beforehand.

It's unusual to see Alice Cooper make an appearance in the film but the rock star explains how he consulted Randi to devise optical tricks for his concerts, including being guillotined on-stage.

Randi's partner, the Venezuelan artist Jose Alvarez/Deyvi Pena is another talking head, as he discusses how he collaborated with Randi to expose channelers.

In a poignant, ironic shift in the film, we learn Alvarez's identity wasn't exactly on the up and up. Though the audience is shocked by the revelation, Randi insists he was always aware. Nevertheless, it is quite fascinating that a film about a man who makes his living exposing deception would be with a man who deceived the authorities.

To Measom and Weinstein's credit, the directors include interviews with Randi's nemesis; Gellar himself, who remains unapologetic about duping the public and who still insists his powers are genuine.

The film also addresses the burning question about why and how people allow themselves to be deceived. Many of those interviewed weigh in on the subject but one of the most compelling points-of-view comes from a former associate of Randi who says (paraphrased) "It isn't that people want to believe, they need to."

I already knew much about Randi's career (and have been a fan for a long time) but the film still proved to be very entertaining and enlightening. There was much I didn't know about his personal life that I found intriguing, particularly his relationship with Alvarez/Pena, a pairing that seems unlikely until we learn something of the Venezuelan's life.

And what about Randi's continuing crusade; which carries an offer of one million dollars to anyone who can prove they possess paranormal powers? Though dismissed by some as being self-righteous and smug, others believe (including many in the film) him to be a knight of logic and reason. Is Randi guilty of trickery himself? As one magician explains in the film, unlike paranormal con-men who employ tricks to bilk the credulous, Randi uses his own to protect those same people. As aforementioned, the film inspires thought about deception and how we are all patsies in one way or another. After seeing the film I made a point to a friend that everyone is bamboozled by our so-called leaders, who more often than not prove to be bigger charlatans with fewer scruples than Gellar and the loathsome Peter Popoff.

An Honest Liar is certainly worth the time. If it isn't a masterful documentary, it is nevertheless an affective film.

Run All Night

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Jaume Collet-Serra/Starring: Liam Neeson, Ed Harris, Joel Kinnaman, Boyd Holbrook, Bruce McGill, Vincent D'Onofrio, Common and Nick Nolte

Liam Neeson scans his never-too-old-to-play-Mr. Badass character and faxes it to theaters in director Jaume Collet-Serra's Run All Night. Watching the nonsense unfold on-screen left me struggling to recall a role where Neeson hasn't played a former CIA operative or cop who is nigh unstoppable as an avenging angel or a tough on the run who can beat the hell out of everything that isn't nailed down or in Collet-Serra's last film Non-Stop, an Air-Marshall with kick-butt credentials. But his character Jimmy Conlon in Run All Night is different from the last half dozen, leather-jacket clad heroes he's played. How? Well, in this film he...let's see...uh...wait a minute, I know: he doesn't wear a leather jacket. See...startling contrast, right?

Sarcasm aside, Neeson hasn't exactly been too discerning with his choice of roles the last decade. Is it entirely his fault? Are there many interesting roles for middle-age men these days? Given the fact that Pierce Brosnan, Denzel Washington, Neeson, Keanu Reeves and now Sean Penn have made or are set to release films featuring themselves playing aging action figures, the pickings must be alarmingly slim.

In Collet-Serra's film, Neeson plays not a cop or a former CIA agent, but a mob hit-man who is beggining to hear the creak of his advancing years. His boss, Shawn Maguire (Ed Harris) is an old friend from his youth. Maguire's hot-headed, impetuous son Danny (Boyd Holbrook) is the Sonny Corleone of the Maguire family.

In an early scene, Jimmy watches Danny dole out cash to two New York City cops. When Jimmy enters the office to borrow $800 for a home repair, Danny doesn't disguise his disdain when he says "I don't know why my dad keeps you around." And to further humiliate Jimmy, he makes it a condition that he play Santa Claus at his father's Christmas party. When Jimmy begs Danny to spare him the indignity, the offer becomes a take it or leave it proposition.

While Jimmy performs less than admirably as Santa at the party by drinking and making passes at a fellow mob member's wife, Danny is busy negotiating a drug deal with an Albanian drug lord. The Albanians want the Maguires to exert their influence on the dock unions to facilitate the shipping and receiving of their heroin.

After Danny organizes a meeting between his father and the Albanian, the elder Maguire informs the drug dealer that his business is legitimate, which leads to his firm and prompt dismissal from the premises. Question: if the Maguire business is indeed legitimate, then why the shake-down payments to the cops?

Events take a violent turn when the miffed Albanians come to collect advanced money from Danny. Coincidentally, the Albanians are driven to the meeting by Jimmy's estranged son Mike (Joel Kinnaman), who moonlights as a livery driver but is in no way connected to the underworld. The coincidence seems a bit much but it isn't a major transgression against plausibility.

After the Albanians forcefully demand their money, Danny responds in kind; brutally dispatching both Albanians. When Mike witnesses the murders, Danny gives chase and before he meets the same fate, Jimmy arrives to plug his boss/friend's son. Of course it isn't long before Maguire uses his far-reaching resources to discover (though erroneously) Mike was behind his son's murder. Recognizing the threat to his son, Jimmy meets with Maguire to petition for his life, only to be told he will come after Mike with everything he has, with the threat extended to Jimmy. So begins the hunt and evade plot that only becomes more ridiculous with every passing minute.

Naturally the movie is also about Jimmy reconciling with his son and assuaging Mike's anger for having left the family when he was young. We learn Jimmy left the family to spare them his rough and tumble way of life; a move he sees as some sort of compassionate gesture.

Taking place during one night (hence the title), it is fairly apparent where the story will go; the father and son play hide and seek with Maguire's thugs while protecting Mike's wife and children.

But Jimmy is no tulip; he manages to fight off and kill everyone on his trail until Maguire calls for another hitman named Andrew Price (Common) to finish off his nemesis.

Did I mention the stock character, Detective Harding (Vincent D'Onofrio), who has devoted part of his career to bringing down Jimmy for his prodigious body count, and who is also hot on his trail? In a strange and yet another comical plot development, Jimmy beseeches Harding for help in bringing down Maguire; offering up the list of men he's rubbed out as compensation.

Sillier and sillier the story becomes. Why Maguire would hire a purported crack assassin, who proves to be nothing more than a clumsy oaf with little cunning or finesse, is a perplexing conundrum.

Another eye-roller is the scene where Jimmy chases Maguire through a train-yard. The sequence is troubling for many reasons. The setting is such a action movie chestnut and doesn't add a crumb of suspense or tension to the story. As Jimmy and Maguire stalk one another around the yard, I wondered why didn't one or the other merely look under the carts to locate and shoot or wound his foe. And if Maguire was so enraged by his son's death that he was willing to kill his old friend and his son alike, while sacrificing nearly all his crew in the process, why does he run and hide from Jimmy at all? Why not stand his ground and avenge his son?

I didn't care much what happened to any of the characters, even Jimmy. I guess the screenplay deity presiding over this film demanded that every character adhere to time-honored cliches and not stray from a rigid story outline. I can't hold the cast responsible. At times, Harris and Neeson manage to free their lines from must have read as vacuous on the page. Harris can make a compelling bad guy if he's given solid dialogue and a character to work with. D'Onofrio and Nick Nolte are mostly wasted. It's almost as if both their characters were penned into the script after the final draft was submitted. Another talent wasted is the terrific character actor Bruce McGill, who is reduced to playing what must have read in the screenplay as Tough Guy #1.

Collet-Serra's directorial tic in his new film is the series of stylish, pull, pan and zoom shots that play throughout the film. The camera pulls up from one setting to an aerial shot of the city then pans to another location before zooming in on another. It's a gimmicky, visual quirk that becomes quickly irritating after it's employed a few times.

As the film wound down, I found myself often chuckling and sighing heavily at the nonsense on-screen until the mess mercifully ended.

I think President Obama should devote a State of the Union Address to Liam Neeson's career rut.

Please Mr. Neeson, I think you're a terrific, charismatic actor; no more tough guys with guns for awhile, okay? Give some other actors an opportunity to play these clowns for a change. Hollywood, I implore you too to cast against type in these roles. Why not let Lena Dunham play the badass for once? I know, it's dumb, but it could it be any worse?

While We're Young

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Noah Baumbach/Starring: Ben Stiller, Naomi Watts, Adam Driver, Amanda Seyfried and Charles Grodin

The anxieties of a childless middle-age couple and their heady re-visitation of youth is the narrative focal point of director Noah Baumbach's new film While We're Young; an amusing, thoughtful comedy/drama that has much on its mind. But Baumbach's film isn't just about youth/maturity parallels but the process of film-making, particularly documentary film and the fuzzy distinction between detached objectivity and the unethical manipulation of subjects and events that purports to be so.

Ben Stiller plays Josh, a documentary film-maker of some renown who is married to Cornelia (Naomi Watts), the daughter of a more famous documentarian Leslie (Charles Grodin). While the filming of Josh's current project drags on, Cornelia assists her father on his own film. We learn early on that Josh and Leslie hardly have an affectionate son-in-law/father-in-law relationship. It doesn't help that Josh feels some measure of inferiority to Leslie as a film-maker; a major source of animosity and resentment.

Josh's film calls to mind the documentary Woody Allen's character in Crimes and Misdemeanors toils over; a high-minded, highly intellectual project that has little chance of engaging any movie-audience.

But Josh has other anxieties; namely his and Cornelia's childlessness in their network of parenting friends. Though Josh and Cornelia's thoughts on being parents are decidedly ambivalent; they actually cringe when they see their best friends, Marina (Maria Dizzia) and her husband (played by former Beastie Boys member Adam Horvitz) fuss with their infant. As they witness the less romantic aspects of parenting, they try to convince themselves they've made the right choice in not having children.

While feeling the pressure of middle-age imperatives, Josh meets a young, hip, twenty-something couple named Jamie (a terrific Adam Driver, who for once has a role that isn't a chalk outline) and Darby (ditto for Amanda Seyfried) who audit his continuing education film course. A conversation is struck following class, where Jamie expresses his reverence for Josh's work and mentions his own film-making aspirations. The couple invite Josh and Cornelia out for dinner, whereby Jamie extends his reverential sentiments to Cornelia for her father's extraordinary work.

Josh and Cornelia become smitten with their new friends' creative energy; even succumbing to their powerful influence. Jamie has Josh buy a hat too young for his head while Darby leads Cornelia to a hip-hop dance class. Josh and Cornelia go so far as to join the young couple in a spiritual cleansing, which entails sitting among a circle of strangers, imbibing a hallucinogenic substance, then vomiting into buckets before having visions of Ancient Egyptian gods and related nonsense.

And the closer Josh and Cornelia and Jamie and Darby become, the further the older couple find themselves drifting from their own friends and their middle-age lifestyle. Cornelia follows Marina to a mother/child music class but ultimately flees in a panic. An awkward scene where Cornelia and Josh show up at Marina's place, only to discover a party in progress to which they haven't been invited, reinforces their disaffection.

But Josh and Cornelia find that their romanticized notions about their young friend's lives may be wildly distorted. Josh often finds he must pick up checks at restaurants every time he dines with Jamie and Darby without any reciprocity. Also, Josh is initially rapturous over Jamie's documentary but gradually becomes disillusioned when he discovers his documentarian's code of ethical conduct isn't shared by his young friend. In time, he also finds that Jamie has few qualms about being dishonest in his film-making.

If one has seen a number of Baumbach's films, one is well acquainted with his acerbic sense of humor and nuanced characters. Very few inhabitants of Baumbach's world ever come off as entirely unlikeable or charming. His characters, like people in the real world, sometimes evoke our sympathy and other times weary impatience. Sometimes they seem virtuous and other times annoyingly self-interested.

In time, Josh realizes Jamie, who very often exhibits a**holish behavior, isn't the amoral jerk as he has him pegged. He is merely, in his own words; "young."

A sequence early in the film subverts our preconceived notions about the habits of the young and old when we see Josh and Cornelia's dependence on electronic media juxtaposed with shots of Jamie and Darby's embrace of throwback culture and gadgets; to wit: typewriters rather than computers and record albums rather than cds'. Also, Jamie and Darby unironically appropriate music and songs once dismissed as cheesy now rehabilitated as cool, like Survivor's "Eye of the Tiger."

Baumbach's film is all about the young/old divide and one man being caught in its interstices but it also has much to say about how Josh's approach to film-making may be antiquated. The methods of master documentarians like Albert Maysles and D.A. Pennebaker no longer apply. Objectivity in film-making, as Josh discovers, isn't an absolute.

The performances are uniformally terrific. Ben Stiller has shown a range in both films he's made with Baumbach he seldom demonstrates in other movies. Watts is always someone to see while Seyfried finally plays someone not a bubble-head. Driver almost steals the show while it is a relief to see Charles Grodin return to the big screen. In a non-comedic role, he turns a morsel of meat into a steak.

The seamless, ever-shifting tone in the film, from loopy to tart humor to drama is Baumbach's trademark.

But in spite of my praise for the film's qualities, it is still a Noah Baumbach film and I must say I've never been a fan. His film, as his others, can be amusing but there is something always missing that keeps his work from being fully realized; as if they only exist as interesting bits and parts. While We're Young felt like something substantial when I first walked out of the theater, but shaking off the pixie dust, I found his film had little resonance.

It may be a hit in the art house movie circuit, but I myself remain unimpressed. I wouldn't dissuade anyone from seeing it and in fact, I might encourage viewing if the alternatives are Chappie or The Second Best Marigold Hotel. But if Crimes and Misdemeanors happens to be playing on T.V., well...

The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: John Madden/Starring: Judi Dench, Bill Nighy, Dev Patel, Maggie Smith, David Strathairn, Celia Imrie, Ronald Pickup, Diana Hardcastle, Tina Desai, Shazad Latif, Lillete Dubey, Tamsin Greig and Richard Gere

The (mostly) merry band of senior expatriates are back in John Madden's The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, which apart from an unwieldy title, offers no surprises and no departures from the safe, the pleasant and the bland. At least dementia didn't work its way into the story. Or maybe that would have helped.

One might feel like a right bastard dismissing a movie mainly conceived for an audience in their dotage; one that is so inoffensive and like one of the characters, Sonny Kapoor (Dev Patel), so eager to please. So I'll tread lightly because though I'm no spring chicken myself, I'm hardly the target audience for the film.

This time around, an American has come to stay. The mysterious Guy Chambers, played by Richard Gere, may or may not be a hotel inspector appraising the The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel for a possible American investor who Sonny and Muriel Donnelly (Maggie Smith) hope to coax into pouring dollars into a prospective franchise in Jaipur, India. The film opens with the ever curmudgeonly Muriel and her young, Indian partner Sonny motoring on the San Diego freeway to meet said potential investor Ty Burley (David Strathairn). Sonny's overly-ingratiating manner and manic motor of a mouth almost hobble their modest proposal until Muriel intervenes. Unfortunately for Sonny and Muriel, an agreement or promise is denied them as they return to Jaipur.

Back in Jaipur, we reacquaint ourselves with the permanent fixtures of the Marigold Hotel as Sonny conducts a morning roll-call to insure none of the occupants we have come to know have passed during the night (the morning roll call also serves as a kind of running gag). Still around are Evelyn Greenslade (Judi Dench), Douglas Ainslie (Bill Nighy), the ferocious flirt Madge Hardcastle (Celia Imrie), Norman Cousins (Ronald Pickup) and Carol Parr (Diana Hardcastle) and of course Muriel, who can never answer morning roll call without a grumble. Sonny and his fiancee Sunaina (Tina Desai) manage the hotel and see to the needs of all who stay.

The film then does its best to create a story where each of the character's problems and desires make up multiple narrative threads. The situations:

• Sonny and Sunaina's marital plans are threatened by Kushal, a potential rival for the fiancee's affections, who instructs the couple on their wedding dance moves and whose purchase of another hotel jeopardizes Sonny's plans for his franchise.

• Muriel, who receives a devastating diagnosis; the details we're never made privy to. She never shares the grim news with the other hotel guests but our awareness of her condition casts a pall of gloom over the entire film.

• Evelyn, who resists Douglas' very subtle courting initiatives. The two spend the entire movie flirting then backing off one another. Evelyn also accepts a position with a big time textile exporter, which provides her an income and a sense of purpose. Douglas must contend with his estranged wife, who has returned to India to formalize their divorce.

• Madge Hardcastle, who woos everyman who doesn't wear a wedding ring. Though several wealthy Indian men serve as strong candidates, she ultimately finds her man where she least expects.

• Norman Cousins, who first believes Carol, the love of his life, is a target of an assassination attempt, which means clinging to her side at all hours of the day and tailing her, only to discover a truth less life-threatening but nevertheless unpalatable.

• Lavinia Beech (Tamsin Grieg), a newcomer to the Marigold, whose seemingly casual nature masks something more sinister. Lavinia, like some of the other occupants of the Marigold, finds romance, which is fulfilled by romancing Sonny's rival Kushal.

• And Guy Chambers, who, like Lavinia, may not be who he appears. And like Lavinia, he too is smitten by a native's charms. That he falls for Sonny's mother (Lillete Dubey) complicates life at the Marigold, for Sonny believes Guy is secretly the inspector whose assessment of the hotel will make or break his plans. While Sonny toadies up to Guy, he is also adamant about driving a preemptive wedge between his mother and the American.

It is difficult for a filmmaker to make a multi-thread, multi-character story compelling, though director John Madden and screenwriter Ol Parker make an earnest attempt. The operative word here is attempt, for very few of the stories are able to hold one's interest for very long. Every story proceeds according to a narrative blueprint and every conflict in the story is sorely stretched to give the illusion of dramatic arc. It becomes abundantly clear that many of the narrative threads could be resolved in minutes if the characters were simply allowed to pull their heads out of their asses. If Evelyn and Douglas simply asked one another, "Is this going to happen, or what?", we might be spared the tedium of watching two people play a coy game that carries little drama or romance. Given their ages, one might think they wouldn't want to waste precious time in a protracted state of doubt. This criticism might also apply to Guy and Sonny's mother, who play a similar, romantic cat and mouse game with few surprises.

But this is the The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, not an Alain Resnais drama, so the anticipation of character nuance is unreasonably unrealistic.

Even with little twists, which never register as shocks, it is very simple to chart every story and character. Will Sonny and Sunaina overcome premarital jealousy and strife? Will Sonny find a way to buy Kushel's hotel to secure funding for his chain? Will Norman and Carol survive their marital crisis? What will become of the other characters? Do you really need to ask?

The film has its charms: the scene where Madge and the lover she's long hoped to find make a connection as they drive through the city, ostensibly to meet one of her suitors, is one of the film's few, touching moments. I liked all the scenes with Bill Nighy and Judi Dench, in spite of being woefully underwritten. Muriel is often fun with her tart witticisms. And I like that Muriel keeps her condition a secret, which gives the film a touch of gloom to counteract its sweetness. And it isn't only Muriel who must contend with the hovering specter of death but all the denizens of the hotel, who face the formidable foe of time. The film needs a ticking clock's lurking menace because without it, The Exotic Marigold Hotel would be a treacly sweet Nirvana without end.

Which brings me to the inevitable question: will there be a Third Best? There will be if box office receipts have their say. Weekend business was very healthy. And in spite of the franchise's pretty blandness, don't we want to see Evelyn and Douglas marry? Is it worth another film?

I keep coming back because I find Smith, Nighy and Dench to be colossal talents who are always worth the admission price. If only they had more to work with.

The Lazarus Effect

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: David Gelb/Starring: Mark Duplass, Olivia Wilde, Sarah Bolger, Evan Peters and Donald Glover

It's hard to square the film The Lazarus Effect; a yawner of a horror flick which strains itself (but not too much) to be scary, with director David Gelb's terrific, 2011 documentary, Jiro Dreams of Sushi. What could the two films possibly have in common? Not much, save for Gelb's direction. While the documentary is a fascinating look at a sushi chef who pursues perfection, The Lazarus Effect is a story about a group of young scientists who resurrect a doggie and a great looking chick, with what should be horrifying results. No, they don't try to resurrect sushi but I wish they had.

Gelb's feature film debut is a bit of a clunker but it didn't start off that way.
Mark Duplass and the lovely Olivia Wilde play corporate-funded, university scientists (who are also engaged) Frank and Zoe; who have developed something known as the Lazarus Serum. When said serum is injected into the brain of a deceased recipient and stimulated with electricity, the subject is miraculously brought back from the dead.

When the film begins, Frank and Zoe, along with their student assistants, Clay (Evan Peters) and Niko (Donald Glover) and a student documentarian Eva (Sarah Bolger), have recently tested the serum on a dog. As the dead pooch rests on a table, the serum is injected into his brain while voltage is applied. At first the experiment seems a failure until the dog violently spasms into life. Though the group toasts one another for their dramatic success, the audience is left wondering how and who would fund such an insane project. Though Frank explains in Eva's documentary how the serum has practical applications--something about helping EMTs' do their jobs--the idea that a group of scientists would abandon their original project to pursue something so wacky and without corporate or academic oversight seems more than just a little preposterous. But Duplass and Wilde do their level best to give the story credibility and they do pretty well, considering.

But of course all horror films about the hubris of science and scientists playing God will inevitably become cautionary tales and this movie is no exception.

The dog soon shows abnormal behavior, like appetite loss and sudden, violent, rage-filled outbursts which unnerve the group. But other than a scene where the dog stands menacingly over Zoe while she sleeps, he doesn't do much else to terrify the crew other than wrecking the lab kitchen. I think an intervention by dog whisperer Cesar Millan might have been in order but I don't think he handles doggie un-dead.

The project suffers a major setback when the company that supplies the groups research grant is bought out by a rival. Operatives of the new company invade the lab, seizing all data relating to the project. Desperate to retain ownership of the Lazarus serum and all rights pertaining to its creation, the group breaks into the lab to recreate the experiment on film. While another dog rests on the table (how and where the scientists appropriate dead dogs is never explained), the experiment proceeds but in applying voltage, Zoe is accidentally electrocuted. While futile efforts are made to resuscitate her, a desperate Frank decides to use the serum on his fiancee, much to the horror of his assistants and Eva. When the experiment works, Zoe, like the dog, begins to show signs of not being quite right. She anticipates what people say and her fingers begin to show signs of something resembling necrosis. She also stares creepily at one of the assistants.

And sure enough, some sort of power failure keeps the group imprisoned in the lab (a lab wouldn't have fail-safe escapes in case of fire or other disasters?), which means Zoe, who has now become the chick version of the undead, begins attacking the group.

Earlier in the film, we learned Zoe is tormented by nightmares about a traumatic childhood incident involving her inability to free neighbors from their burning apartment. After her resurrection, the nightmares attain verisimilitude as the filmmaker Eva finds herself projected into in the burning hallway of Zoe's childhood memory. We also learn that Zoe's soul may not have made the transition to the afterlife, which is supposed to explain her wraith-like condition. But how can the dog's predicament, which is identical to Zoe's, be explained? Does he suffer from some sort of doggie guilt from an incident in his past? A time he mauled a mailman's leg perhaps?

Ultimately, as the audience may have guessed from the trailer, Zoe goes on a rampage that doesn't spare anyone (save the dog). A frail attempt at a plot twist comes at the end but by then, I was too bored and un-scared to care much about the outcome.

Of course science and scientists are scapegoated (yet again) in a movie while religious notions about the afterlife and tunnels of bright light are given credence. In Hollywood movies, scientists are never to be trusted while anyone espousing any religious, quasi-rational view about the here-after is to be perceived as level-headed. That may never change. But, it shouldn't take the intellect of research scientists to know resurrecting one from death is a knuckle-headed idea. It's disturbing to consider that someday someone may actually fund such a project.

I think Duplass and Wilde are talented actors who deserve a better movie. In time, they will no doubt find more inspired scripts and director David Gelb will surely find better material to showcase his talents.

I'm sorry to say The Lazarus Effect has nary a scare in its short running time.

But hold on, what happened to the dog? Was that ever explained?

Wait a minute, I see him...there he is...he's in my yard! No...go away...nice doggie...please...I'm sorry I said that stuff about the mailman...No, not my throat...please, let me live to see the sequel...AAAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGGGGGG!

Wild Tales (Relatos Salvajes)

**Spoiler Alert**
Director: Damian Szifron/Starring: Dario Grandinetti, Maria Marull, Ricardo Darin and Leonardo Sbaraglia

The Oscar-nominated Argentine film Wild Tales, which only just arrived at a local theater, is so irresistible, with its absurdly comical situations and characters who often seem trapped in some sort of O.Henry-like universe. Having now had the distinct privilege of seeing it, the thought that I could have missed it makes me shudder. Very few films from 2014 were as alive and riveting as director Damian Szifron's masterwork. You might instinctively recoil from my fulsome praise, but trust me, you'll exhaust yourself searching for superlatives to apply to Szifron's film.

Divided into six, twenty-minute vignettes, the stories run continuously without intertitles and with only a brief fade between tales to serve as narrative demarcation.

The story that precedes the opening titles takes place on a commercial airline. A man strikes up a conversation with an attractive woman sitting across the aisle and before long, the two discover they happen to share a mutual acquaintance with a man from their pasts who they wronged in their respective ways. Soon, the rest of the passengers find to their amazement that they all know the man in question and have also served him ill. In a brilliant comic twist, the passengers discover the man they all know is locked in the cockpit and hell-bent on crashing the plane. Meanwhile, an elderly man sitting with his wife in their backyard notices the jet is headed in their direction and as it edges near, it becomes certain they won't escape the collision. A freeze-frame of the jet touching down--on the couple--is accompanied by the film's title. The darkly funny opening, which blends comic sensationalism and mild surrealism, gives the audience the sense that anything can and will happen in the vignettes that follow.

The other stories hardly disappoint. In another tale, a man of some means attempts to pass another motorist on a quiet, country road. The other driver swerves to avoid being passed. When the man negotiating a pass finally executes the maneuver, he gives the other driver the finger and shouts an insult. Shortly thereafter, his tire goes flat and while fixing it, the other driver arrives. What follows is a hilarious tale of road rage that morphs into a melee. How it ends is no less absurd than what comes before, as the driver's mutual hostility becomes sidesplittingly funny.

In the third tale, a young woman and her friend run a roadside diner. When the younger woman recognizes a patron who once did her father grievous harm, she contemplates retribution before reconsidering. Unfortunately, her tougher, less scrupulous partner urges her to place rat poison in his food. As the man eats heartily, the two women begin to ponder the poison's efficacy. When the younger woman's conscience gets the better of her, the man's son arrives to share a meal with his father. The tangled situation reaches a violent, fever pitch then concludes in a denouement where we see the younger woman and the son sitting side by side in an ambulance, contemplating the aftermath.

At this point in the film, Szifron has gained our full attention as the audience eagerly awaits the next tale. His wonderful, twisted sense of irony is firmly established as the fourth tale begins.

An engineer specializing in demolitions finds himself at odds with his city's maddening bureaucratic apparatus. On his way home to his daughter's birthday party, his car is towed and impounded. Sorely vexed, he joins a long line of motorists paying parking fines. In an effort to contest the ticket with an unyielding and unsympathetic clerk, he claims lawful abidance, only to become hostile when his pleas fall on deaf ears. To make his life more miserable, he finds he has arrived late to his daughter's birthday for which his wife and daughter show little patience. His further attempts to challenge the ticket result in a minor cause celebre, which leaves him jobless and on the outs with his family.
Driven to extremes, he uses his skills in demolitions to avenge himself on the city's DMV, with humorous and again, O.Henry-esque results.

The fifth tale in the film takes a more serious turn as the son of wealthy man is involved in a hit and run that leaves a pregnant woman and her unborn daughter dead. Desperate to keep his son from a lengthy prison sentence, the man, his wife and his lawyer hatch a devious plan whereby their long-serving groundskeeper will claim responsibility for the crime while receiving substantial remuneration from his employer. But as the crime sparks a media frenzy, the lawyer and the groundskeeper are overcome with greed, demanding more money for their involvement. Feeling squeezed and extorted, the father tries to urge his son to confess. The end result proves to be tragic as the devious scheming comes to naught.

The last tale recovers the film's oddball sense of humor as a young bride discovers her husband's infidelity during her wedding reception. Worse still is the presence of the other woman as an invited guest, who her husband has taken to chatting up during the festivities. How the young bride responds to the outrage makes for delightful chaos as the wedding reception becomes bedlam. And what seems like an irrevocable mess for both the couple and the families begins to show slow signs of recovery in the aftermath.

Szifron, with only a few films under his belt, shows directorial mastery and a showman's knack for spectacle; leaving the audience with a giddy sense of wonder. This includes his talent for not giving the audience too much of what it wants--or expects. He knows when and how to end each tale. Before we can collect our wits and catch our breath, we're carried headlong into the next story.

What is the connective thread? What are the themes? The film tells stories that show mankind at its most animalistic. Over the opening credits, we see various wild animals, which is entirely appropriate. Szifron recognizes man is hardly different than his bestial brethren in its savage pursuit of self-preservation and self-interest. But he also recognizes the foibles, flaws and characteristics that are peculiarly human: a sense of cruelty, vengefulness and jealousy. But a few of our nobler traits also emerge, such as our capacity to love and forgive, as the bride in the last tale proves. Though we are the deadliest species the world has ever known, we are also blessed with a conscience, as the young woman in the diner and the father whose son commits a vehicular homicide attest. If we are animals, Szifron may be saying, we are also a fascinatingly complex mammal; a primate both savage and cunning--as the Engineer effectively demonstrates--but one also capable of lethal folly.

Some of the films also take a stab at class conflict, which is subtly and cleverly depicted in the road rage and vehicular homicide vignettes.

Szifron manages to celebrate, condemn and lampoon humanity beautifully in his six tales. Watching Wild Tales is an intoxicating experience. The film also has resonance and may leave you feeling like you just stepped off one of those amusement park centrifuge rides. You exit the ride feeling light-headed and exhilarated...and you feel like doing it again.