Youth

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Paolo Sorrentino/Starring: Michael Caine, Harvey Keitel, Rachel Weisz, Paul Dano and Jane Fonda

Paolo Sorrentino has established himself as one of film's premier visual stylists, as is evident with his new film Youth; a beautifully surreal story that induces a state that is something akin to narcotized bliss. It is also a film that challenges our perceptions; leaving us unable to properly sort fantasy from reality; dreams from waking consciousness. It leads us many places and when we think we have a firm grasp of what may be happening or what we may have seen, its final scene reminds us of how foolish we are to believe everything we see.
And as one might expect, youth and old age are pervasive themes but Sorrentino also has much to say about artists and how they are often helpless in controlling perception of their own work.

Sorrentino's story takes place in an alpine resort, where an American film director named Mick Boyle (a terrific Harvey Keitel) spends time working on the skeleton for a story with his creative team for his next project. Also at the resort is Mick's British friend Fred Ballinger (Michael Caine; also terrific); a celebrated composer who is approached by the Queen's emissary to request a performance of the works for which he is most known; music he believes to be his most accessible. The scene where the emissary pleads with Ballinger reveals the composer's stubbornness, as he refuses the Queen's request. Why Ballinger would refuse such a prestigious performance is revealed later.

As we get to know some of the resort guests, we also get to know the resort and its breathtaking surroundings. The majestic spread of mountain peaks and the green, grassy hillsides provide a beautiful backdrop for the dramas that unfold in and around the hotel.

Among other people we meet at the resort is a young American actor named Jimmy Tree, who, like Ballinger, is famous for work he is not especially proud of; that of a robot in a big budget Hollywood production. Another artist in retreat is a rotund man who we can guess is some sort of musician of international renown. His very presence elicits stares and later a mob of autograph seekers.

But we see other guests and the hotel personnel, whose mysterious lives beg examination but remain riddles for our tantalized imagination. One such example is a couple that provides bemusement and amusement for Fred and Mick, who bet on whether the the silent, uncommunicative pair will actually speak to one another at dinner. Seemingly suffering from mutual loathing, we discover later the couple feel anything but.

But at the story's center is Fred and Mick's friendship, which stretches back decades. Now in old age, the friend's keep tabs on the other's health; going so far as to share information about their latest micturition. While Fred wanders about the grounds and enjoys the resorts spa accommodations, Mick brainstorms with his young collaborators as they try to hammer out a story from volleyed ideas.

Sorrentino's storytelling methods are never conventional. As the story progresses, we begin to wonder if what we are seeing is real or some kind of dream. Strikingly odd images, such as one of expressionless guests walking slowly in a queue or a medium shot of reclining patrons in a pool make one feel the hotel is some sort of strange afterlife or weigh station for souls.

Ballinger's daughter Lena (Rachel Weisz), who also serves as his assistant, leaves the resort to join her boyfriend-who also happens to be Mick's son-on a Malaysian holiday, only to return when she discovers he is in love with another woman. The awkwardness of the problem become uncomfortably acute for Fred and Mick, particularly when Lena's boyfriend shows up with his new paramour.

Adding to Lena's misery is her relationship with her father, which has never been ideal. A poignant scene comes later in the film during Fred and Lena's massage, when she expresses her disappointment and anger about Fred's failings as a father. What comes to light are his numerous infidelities and his dalliance with a man; all at the expense of a wife who overlooked his unsavory, extracurricular activities. The shot of their ill-clad bodies are an apt visual metaphor for truths laid bare; naked truths in near naked bodies.

Images of youthful bodies juxtaposed with old and infirm frames are common; always calling attention to the film's overarching theme. Fred and Mick, though hardly blind to the youthful allure of the goddess-like perfection of female bodies who lounge near the pool, never try to mitigate their fading virility by trying to seduce them. In a Hollywood movie, Fred and Mick would try to bed the young women to salve the egos of the male audience.

One of my favorite scenes in the film takes place on the summit of a ski-run, as Mick and his young team look out over the incredible alpine peak expanse. In trying to explain to the young gathering how one's perspective changes as one grows old, Mick has one member of his group peer through both ends of an observation scope to vividly illustrate his point.

While Ballinger receives the Queen's emissary again for another summons, Lena's heartbreak takes an unexpected turn into good fortune. Meanwhile an actress Mick collaborated with many times in the past and whose participation in his movie guarantees it being made arrives at the hotel to give him disappointing news. The conversation that follows unearths old animosities and unbearable truths.
As for Ballinger, we see what has become of his wife during a scene where he pays her a visit in Venice. The way he lovingly gazes at his wife tells us the marriage wasn't necessarily the disaster Lena has portrayed it to be.

The film ends with a tragedy and a triumph though the last shot leaves some doubt as to whether anything we've seen is truth, a dream or merely the product of imagination.

As in his film The Great Beauty, Sorrentino's fascination with the themes of youth/beauty is very conspicuous. And in exploring said themes, he never succumbs to sentimentality nor does he try to spin the grim realities of aging into something fuzzy and golden. For Sorrentino, old age dispenses many bitter and ugly truths about one's life and relationships, which we disguise or rewrite into palatable lies. And as the characters try desperately to stave off old age and physical atrophy in the hotel's saunas, swimming pools and massage rooms, so too do they mend and rehabilitate truth to allow themselves to live.

Aside from the lovely camera work, the performances ground an otherwise otherworldly film. Harvey Keitel gives one of his most affecting performances while Michael Caine's Ballinger has a past that is almost irredeemably messy; a flawed history expressed in his weary face. Rachel Weisz almost steals the show with several, fine scenes; most notably in her angry monologue during said massage.

I haven't seen another film like Youth in this year-end movie season. In fact, I haven't seen a film like Sorrentino's in some time. His style almost seems like some kind of throwback to a time when filmmakers weren't afraid to marry story to surreal imagery; as we see so often in David Lynch's films.

What we ultimately see onscreen is magical and intoxicating. In a season of exceptional films, Sorrentino's stands on its own. He has firmly established himself as one of Italy's major cinematic talents in the 21st century.

The Big Short

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Adam McKay/Starring: Ryan Gosling, Steve Carell, Brad Pitt, Christian Bale, Melissa Leo, Marisa Tomei and Hamish Linklater

I thought all the horrors of the economic recession of 2008 had been dramatized in film. The Company Men, Margin Call and the more recent 99 Homes have all given movie audiences a taste of what preceded or followed the near collapse of the American economy; a tragedy whose impact is still being felt domestically and abroad. But with director Adam McKay's The Big Short; adapted from Michael Lewis' non-fiction book of the same name, we learn there is still much to say--and learn--about the subject. And what may or may not be surprising to the viewer is that a film about said crisis can still elicit a powerful gag response. McKay's film, which is at times darkly comic, is absorbing from the opening bell while challenging us to fathom the abstruse minutiae of the housing market's rise and fall. Unlike the aforementioned films, The Big Short makes an earnest attempt to educate the viewer about the hows and whys of how the bubble burst.

Though the story is factual, McKays's characters are wont to tell us when the story strays into the fictitious with into-the-camera asides that lend the film an element of stage theatricality.

The story is told from the perspective of several Wall Street outsiders. One of them; a numbers prodigy and former doctor named Michael Burry (Christian Bale), is a hedge fund manager who foresees the imminent collapse of the mortgage lending market; a prediction for which he asserts much confidence. Unable to find anyone who will heed his warnings, Burry buys what are called credit default swaps (CDS). I'm not nearly qualified to explain the nature and functions of CDS', though characters in the film make an earnest attempt to illuminate the audience. In essence, they allow the holder to profit from defaulted housing loans.
Burry is seen as a loon when he visits several investment firms; Goldman Sachs among them, to buy up CDS' in mass quantity. His bulk purchases draw the attention of Wall Street and a major investor under Burry's consultation, who is less than happy with what he sees as investment disaster in the making.

But not everyone believes Burry is out of his mind. An investor named Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling) sees that Burry's prognostication is worthy of attention, which prompts his own high volume purchase.

A misdirected phone call brings Vennett's investment to the attention of a trader named Mark Baum (Steve Carell), who, along with his fellow group of traders, becomes intrigued with the sudden interest in CDS traffic. We learn early that Baum is a man of unassailable integrity; his crusade against foul play and fraud on Wall Street is his most salient characteristic. Sometime later, Vennett meets with Baum and his team and in explaining his interest in CDS, he also takes the time to explain the intricate workings of sub-prime loans.

Skeptical of Burry's prophecy, Baum and his team embark on a fact-finding mission to Florida; a hot-spot for housing loans. Among those Baum and his colleagues encounter are a couple of arrogant real estate agents, who divulge their unethical practice of loan disbursement to those who would otherwise be unqualified. Baum's probing questions reveal disquieting facts about said lending practices, which the two men hardly feel the need to hide. Baum's associates confirm the real estate agents' claims when they visit an upscale home in an upscale neighborhood; where they find one occupant living beyond his means. This is followed by an absurdly funny scene where Baum visits a gentleman's club to talk to a stripper who has also benefited from lax housing loan practices to secure not one but several loans. Confident that what they've found confirms Burry's warnings, Baum initiates his own purchase though his superiors balk at what they believe to be a foolish investment.

A couple of young novice investors; Jamie Shipley (Finn Wittrock) and Charlie Geller (John Magaro) also hope to purchase CDS' but a lack of reputation and standing on Wall Street stands as an impediment. Needing investment capital to achieve their goal, the two men seek a Wall Street player who might vouch for them and serve as their entree into the lofty world of investing. The man they approach is an eccentric retired banker named Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt), who sees Jamie and Charlie are on to a solid, money-making scheme but also recognizes their success might come at the expense of the American economy.

In time, as the collapse approaches, all the parties invested in the CDS purchases begin to realize the magnitude of fraud involved the housing market decline, which they rightly attribute to the banking system. And when the collapse actually occurs and the economy goes to hell, we see its horrific effects as Wall Street personnel are dismissed from their jobs en masse while many of the unemployed are forced to join long queues of those looking for work in the hourly-wage world.

And as the collapse commences, Burry, Baum and Rickert are all very aware of what is to come while the more amoral Vennett, seen sitting at his desk alone; stares contentedly at a 47 million dollar check; the noxious fruit of his investment.
Given the widespread unscrupulousness of Wall Street, it is astonishing to find anyone felt any of the mess to be sordid and immoral.

McKay's film gives us a valuable and penetrating portrait of the causes and the aftermath of the 2008 economic collapse. This is accomplished with an outstanding script, expertly adapted by McKay and screenwriter Charles Randolph. The jargon and terminology of the Wall Street world is never an impediment to the drama. Without oversimplifying the material, McKay ensures we can follow along without succumbing to the dizzying developments, which never seem to be completely comprehensible (at least to me).

The ensemble cast is one of the best I've seen this year. Ryan Gosling, Steve Carell, Christian Bale and Brad Pitt are all outstanding, as are the supporting cast. Carell's growth as an actor is proceeding swimmingly; showing us his flair for drama, which began with Foxcatcher.

McKay never adopts a self-righteous tone; the story itself speaks volumes about the evil perpetrated by the American banking system. We see a particularly affective scene near the end, where Shipley and Geller's exuberant celebrations are squelched by Rickert's sober reproach, who remind them that their windfall from their CDS' comes at the price of the lost jobs and homes.

The end subtitles tell us something about the aftermath. Rather than being punished, the bankers behind the disaster were instead bailed out by the American people. To render an already horrid tragedy ludicrous, the unrepentant bankers also received staggering bonuses. Another subtitle tells us about how Burry proposed informing the government how he came to anticipate the collapse, only to become the the subject of an investigation.

The Big Short is easily one of the best films of the year. Its intricate but riveting plot keeps our minds alert while showing us--contrary to what we've been taught--crimes do go unpunished, particularly those on Wall Street. It also demonstrates that accountability has become a whimsical notion in America. If only McKay's brilliant film could bring about some arrests...that would be lovely.

Happy Holidays from Al's Omniflick!

I want to wish everyone Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy Hanukkah and Happy Saturnalia and a wondrous New Year! I hope you stop by in 2016.

Where to Invade Next

Director: Michael Moore

I had written Michael Moore off after his last couple of films. I had grown tired of his antics and worse still, his tendency to play fast and loose with facts. He has always had an axe to grind and has chosen his targets well, but he more often than not makes extraordinary leaps of logic when more thoughtful analysis might be more effective. Moore's penchant for drawing connections that seem related on the surface; like America's gun problem and its military spending, is only one example of his imaginative but flawed reasoning. His critics, which are hardly relegated to the right, are justified in castigating him for his ability to make interviewees look stupid while documentary film-makers are wont to dismiss his work as sensationalist and un-documentary-like. He alienated my sympathy in Bowling for Columbine, when, after being allowed into Charlton Heston's home, he tried to shame the actor for being a spokesman for the NRA by showing him a photo of a young black girl who had been shot in Detroit. The image of a dejected Heston walking slowly away from the interview and the subsequent shot of Moore placing said photo in his yard was the pinnacle of self-righteousness indignation and misplaced incrimination.
So I was less than enthused to see Moore's new film; Where to Invade Next; expecting it to be more of Moore's propaganda but I have to say I was shocked to find how much I liked it. Though one should always be skeptical of his conclusions, those Moore arrived at in his film will bear scrutiny.

When first reading the title to his latest film, I thought Moore's target might be the U.S. government's misguided military interventions and failed foreign policies. The real subject of his film deals with Europe's successes in social development and securing the well-being of its citizens and how America has failed in comparison. Why do European governments seem to devote more money and resources to making people's lives better? How does a small country like Finland continually rank number one in education while the world's economic colossus is a dismal twenty-nine? Those riddles and others are the focus of Moore's new film.

The film begins in a humorous, Moore-esque manner as he pretends to answer a summons from the Pentagon, who seek his counsel as to where America should invade next. Armed with the stars and stripes, Moore sets out to "invade" Europe.
One of his first stops is France, specifically Normandy, where Moore shows us what I thought might be a typical dish served in a French restaurant; only to discover the delectable plate of food is in fact a typical French-school meal. Moore joins a group of school children at their lunch table and as Moore observes, the children are taught not only valuable eating habits, but how to comport themselves during a meal. We see a student act as designated server and we also see the meal itself, where the default beverage is water. Moore talks to school officials to get an idea as to how the French manage to serve meals that are not only healthy but exceptionally delicious. He discovers the school officials are meticulous, thoughtful and creative in how they plan the meals. To see the children's faces when Moore shows them pictures of what American kids typically eat in school cafeterias, which look unappetizing and unhealthy in comparison, is a terrific moment Moore doesn't miss on camera. The incredible-looking meal is interrupted by Moore, who half-jokingly opens a can of coke at the table. While most of the kids refuse the drink, one girl bravely takes a long pull but remains unimpressed. The very sight of a coke at the meal might induce a feeling of revulsion in the viewer.

We see Moore visit a couple in Italy to illustrate how the Italian government contributes to the well-being of its own citizens. We learn from the couple that eight-weeks of vacation is government-mandated while the extra time allotted for newlyweds and women with newborns is the norm. As surprising are the lunch breaks average Italians enjoy, which are typically two-hours. The health and happiness of the citizenry is regarded by the government and Italians as basic rights.

Continuing his tour of the Europe, Moore finds himself in Finland, where he (and we) learn how the number one-ranked educational system in the world has achieved that distinction. What is especially surprising, as Moore discovers, is that the principles behind its success are really American. An interview with faculty and students in a Finnish high school is particularly astonishing, as Moore is flabbergasted to learn homework is frowned upon while extracurricular activity is highly valued.

In Slovenia, Moore shows us that the notion of accrued debt from the costs of college is almost unheard of. In further pursuing this phenomenon, Moore finds that a previous attempt to introduce tuition was met by violent protests. The American students Moore interviews, who have chosen to study in Slovenia, cite the absurd cost of tuition in the U.S. as their reason for pursuing a degree abroad.

Moore also visits Iceland and learns how a female-driven entrepreneurial spirit helped save the country from economic ruin. Moore reminds us of the Iceland's relatively recent financial crisis, where a group of bankers defaulted on loans that nearly collapsed the economy. The fact that that the men responsible for the debacle were subsequently sentenced and sent to jail is a fact Moore doesn't hesitate to contrast with the American economic downturn; where accountability was nil.

Moore is careful to mention that every country has it own share of problems but where they succeed only helps to highlight America's conspicuous failures.

Perhaps the most moving moment in the film is Moore's interview with a young Tunisian woman who offers her perspicacious view on what America can learn from not only her country but others as well. Her incredible monologue prompted scattered applause in the audience.

An astonishing fact, stated earlier, is that many of the ideas implemented by the respective countries have an American origin; which several foreign interviewees are keen to point out.

I found Moore's film to be his most sobering and his least factually suspect. Readings of news periodicals from the past twenty-years will support most of his claims. In fact, most of what Moore addresses in his film is hardly new or news; he merely illuminates.

Though Moore's humor is a key component in all his work, his funny jabs and barbs are deployed sparingly, as are his said antics, which sometimes got the best of him in his previous films.

In examining some of Europe's sociopolitical successes, Moore is really commenting on how America is failing its people in the areas of healthcare, education, economic well-being and even our prison system, which has become an apparatus of oppression.

I thought I knew what was in store for me before I saw Moore's film. I didn't realize that I would still be thinking about Where to Invade Next weeks after the screening. What Moore has to say about America's failings couldn't be more timely. If only someone would listen.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: J.J. Abrams/Starring: Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Oscar Isaac, Adam Driver, Domhnall Gleeson, Andy Serkis, Anthony Daniels, Peter Mayhew and Max von Sydow

The most anticipated movie of the year is flooding multiplex theaters nationwide and the legions of fans who have lined up to see it might have shared my anxieties. Would the new Star Wars movie be the colossal embarrassment the last trilogy proved to be or would it redeem the saga? Would many of us feel like fools the morning for having purchased tickets over a month (like I did) before?
I think the majority of those who saw the film opening night are slowly exhaling; knowing the latest installment of the ongoing Star Wars isn't a let down and is, in fact, quite entertaining. The next question that might have entered your mind (as it did mine) was, is it a great movie; a commensurate achievement on the scale of the original series? In my estimation; it isn't, I'm sorry to say, but the new trilogy (I'm assuming it will be a trilogy, unless the studio decides to keep this cash cow grazing forever), based on what I saw in Star Wars: The Force Awakens, shows tremendous promise. With a batch of new, exciting characters, which includes the series' first, really strong female lead, J.J. Abrams has the tools to build on the new film's success (it isn't premature to call it a success; box-office records are sure to be broken and the early critical notice is mostly positive).

Abrams' approach to reviving the series was simple yet clever; tell a story that resembles the original; introducing new characters while resurrecting the old ones.
The familiar opening subtitles tell us that the shards of the Empire has been reconstituted as the First Order; a diabolical rebellion that threatens to unseat the Republic. The First Order is intent on not only crushing the forces marshaled against it but finding and killing the Jedi Master Luke Skywalker; whose strange disappearance remains a mystery. Finding Skywalker becomes the First Order's highest priority. Meanwhile, Princess Leia (now General) Organa (Carrie Fisher) has dispatched her top X-Wing pilot; Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) to retrieve part of a map that serves as a clue to his whereabouts.

In this new film, we meet a new crop of characters. Among them is the Vaderish Kylo-Ren (Adam Driver), whose black mask and sinister voice remind us of his evil forebear. He and his colleague, General Hux (Domnhall Gleeson), serve as the First Order's leadership.

We also meet FN-2187, or Finn (John Boyega) as he is rechristened later in the story. Raised to be a stormtrooper, Finn finds himself at odds with the First Order's murderous agenda, as he is unable and unwilling to assist in the wholesale slaughter of a resistance cell; led by Poe Dameron. When Kylo-Ren and his stormtrooper force annihilate said cell in their search for the map, Finn refuses to participate in the killings. And while on-board a First Order battleship, he affects his own escape with the help of Poe; who has just undergone torture at the hands of Kylo-Ren, who hopes to find the whereabouts of the map he has hidden in his loyal droid BB8. Poe and Finn's escape from the battleship via a commandeered TIE-fighter is one of the film's exciting highlights. Unable to fully escape the ships deadly array of weaponry, Poe and Finn crash land on a deserty planet named Jakku; an arid wasteland not unlike Tatooine. Finn is unable to find Poe in the wreckage and sets off in search of civilization; abandoning his stormtrooper uniform in the process. Also in search of the town is BB8, who wanders the sands alone until he meets one of the film's most inspired characters: Rey (Daisy Ridley). Rey is a gritty, young woman, who is forced to survive on the planet's unforgiving surface by scavenging the massive interiors of old Empire battleships, which lie half buried in the deserty sand. The diminishing returns of Rey's hard work is evident when her salvaged junk earns her little in the market, where a shady buyer offers her a pittance for her haul.

In her wanderings, she encounters BB8 and points him in the direction of the town but when he hesitates, Rey offers to guide him herself. When the buyer offers her a handsome price for the droid, Rey nearly accepts but after looking upon his almost helpless, roly-poly frame, she takes pity and decides to keep him. She also meets Finn, who has just wandered into camp. The two engage in a brief melee after she learns Finn is from the First Order but softens once she learns he is a deserter. As the First Order has eyes and ears everywhere, a unit of stormtroopers land arrive on Jakku to locate the droid. Needing a vessel to escape, Rey shows Finn a battered, decrepit ship, which turns out to be the Millennium Falcon (the sight of the ship roused the audience into hearty cheers; the first of many). How it came to rest on Jakku is explained later. A novice pilot, Rey manages to get the ship off the ground but is forced to evade the TIE fighters, who give furious chase. Meanwhile, Finn uses the ships weaponry (of which we are very familiar) to help keep the TIE fighters off the Falcon's tail.

Rey manages to pilot the Falcon off the planet and before long they encounter a larger ship that pulls the Falcon into its bay. Minutes later, we learn the larger ship is owned and manned by none other than Han Solo (Harrison Ford) and Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew) who haven't abandoned their pirating ways. We learn from Han how the Falcon came to be lost and his reunion with the ship is another of the movie's terrific moments. Finn and Rey, who express awe when they learn the identity of their host, are also astonished to learn that the exploits of Han, Luke and Leia are all true.

As trouble is wont to find Han, his ship is boarded by several parties demanding some form of recompense or satisfaction. Before the ship can be seized, Finn and Rey inadvertently open the cargo doors, which unleash a deadly, tentacled creature that roams the ship, devouring everything in its path. Han, Chewbacca, Finn, Rey and BB8 manage to board the Falcon in time but not before the creature latches on to the ships hull. Only a jump to light speed rids the Falcon of the hideous creature.

Han soon learns of the map in BB8's possession and is quick to point out its crucial, missing piece. Aware of the map's importance to the First Order, Han pilots the ship to a planet where General Leia is holed up in the Resistance headquarters. Having been somewhat estranged from Leia, Han is uneasy about the imminent reunion.

Meanwhile, General Hux and Kylo-Ren brief Supreme Leader Snoke on their progress and their success in locating the map. The audience becomes privy to a surprising development, where we learn Kylo-Ren's father is none other than Han Solo. This surprising bit of information is made more poignant by the fact that he wishes to destroy his father and assume his grandfather's mantle; that of Darth Vader.

Han and friends are welcomed into the Resistance fortress and the touching moment where Han and Leia embrace is a moment all Star Wars fans will truly appreciate. In Leia's company is C3PO and a silent R2D2, who refuses to communicate until he is in the presence of Luke. It comes to light that R2D2 is also in the possession of the missing part of the map; making his cooperation crucial to the search for his master. In a quiet moment between Han and Leia, they share regrets about their son; formerly known as Ben, succumbing to the dark side.

I think up until the point, I found the movie very well paced and fresh. The old and new characters are seamlessly united and the film feels very faithful to its origins.

The latter half of the film, which features an assault on the First Order's new weapon; a Death Star-like spheroid (but far more massive) that delivers a planet-shattering blast, seems like a reprise of both the original Star Wars movie and The Return of the Jedi. Of course the weapon's defenses must first be lowered in order for the assault to commence, which means a coordinated infiltration of the weapon. I think Abrams could have done better here.

And in the film's climactic third act, Kylo-Ren squares off with Finn and Rey respectively after they find Luke's light-saber. Rey's latent Jedi powers begin to surface, which include her ability to use the Force. She is able to harness her new-found power and use it effectively (and quite humorously) to escape Kylo-Ren's torture chamber.
And in a scene that rivals Spock's death in Star Trek II for being shockingly tragic; a heartbreaking loss occurs, though it would have been difficult not to have seen it coming. In the final moment of the film, we finally see the man who seems to have inspired all the kerfuffle, which also brings the story to an end; leaving us to anticipate the next chapter.

There is so much I liked about the new movie. I really like the characters of Rey and Finn and think its high time the series had a female lead. Daisy Ridley seems more than suitable to be Rey. And though the first trilogy had an African-American in the cast, it's nice to see someone with John Boyega's talent play a central role in the new series.

And though the visuals and sound effects are comfortably familiar, it would be great to see J.J. Abrams utilize Industrial Lights and Magic's potential to create something dazzling or break some some new ground. We all know that much of the first trilogy's success was predicated on spectacular effects. Of course this shouldn't be the creative focus for the next films but it wouldn't hurt to update the look. I'm pleased to say the creatures look more real with state of the art CGI.

Now that we know The Force Awakens isn't The Phantom Menace (again, sigh of relief), where will Abrams guide the series? Will it carry on indefinitely? Should this current series be a trilogy, tetralogy, pentalogy or hexology? One thing is for certain, after 40 years, the fans haven't lost their yen for everything Star Wars.

As much as I enjoyed the movie (how much of my reaction can be attributed to seeing it in a sold-out theater?), I think Abrams has a way to go before the series can reach its true potential. Watching The Empire Strikes Back again recently, I was reminded of its successful amalgamation of story, characterization and effects. The new series should reach for that level of excellence. It isn't a coincidence that both Empire and the new film were co-written by Lawrence Kasdan.

The Force Awakens is a good start but not an excellent one. I won't include it in my favorite films of 2015 list. To me, it is still outclassed by The Martian; a powerful sci-fi film that wed excellent effects to a smart, solid story. Still, I have to say my interest in Star Wars has been revived. I'm sure many other fans feel the same.

You're off to a good start, Abrams. Now take the series higher.

Chi-raq

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Spike Lee/Starring: Teyonah Parris, Nick Cannon, Samuel L. Jackson, John Cusack, Wesley Snipes, Angela Bassett, Jennifer Hudson, D.B. Sweeney and Dave Chappelle

One never knows what Spike Lee will come up with though it's a sure thing that the subject matter will focus on African-American issues, of which he has many trenchant things to say and express. In his latest film, he combines social commentary with drama, farce and song and dance and achieves a synthesis that is imaginative, informative and ultimately entertaining. Chi-raq may be his most inspired film in years and most daring, as he not only adapts Aristophanes' Lysistrata, he also turns it on its head by setting in present day Chicago.

Aristophanes' play; set during the Peloponnesian War, tells the story of a group of women, led by Lysistrata, who attempt to end the bloody conflict by refusing their men sex. Lee's story takes place on a different battlefield; one just as violent and bloody: the gang wars in Chicago's streets. As the wars rage in the streets, bodies of bystanders begin to accrue until Lysistrata (Teyonah Parris) decides she has seen enough. Though the story is Aristophanes', the conflict depicted in Lee's film is drawn from recent events in Chicago. What distinguishes Lee's film from the Greek dramatist's is how he chooses to tell his story. What they have in common is the theme of female empowerment.

One may immediately notice, from the film's opening lines, is the dialogue, which is declaimed in a rhyming, lyrical manner that is faithful to both Aristophanes and hip-hop.

Subtitles at the beginning of the film offer the audience sobering statistics about the casualties of gang violence on Chicago streets, whose numbers exceed the total number of casualties from both the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars.
Chicago, or Chi-raq; as its referred to by city inhabitants, is the battleground of two warring gangs: the Spartans and the Trojans. Lysistrata's boyfriend and local rap star; Chi-raq (Nick Cannon), is the Spartan leader whose forces battle the Trojans and their leader Cyclops (Wesley Snipes).

Serving as the story's narrator is the hip Dolmedes (Samuel Jackson); who appears periodically in immaculate duds to help the narrative along.

Fed up with the death toll from the Spartan/Trojan gun battles, Lysistrata conceives the aforementioned plan whereby the women from both sides of the conflict deny their men sex as a radical approach to ending the violence. Thinking they can merely transfer their amorous activities elsewhere, the men find all the women in the community; including strip clubs, have joined Lysistrata's strike as well. Denied their carnal pleasures, the men try to turn the tables on the women only to find Lysistrata has organized the women only too well. Before long, she and her women army seize control of an armory.

As Lysistrata's plan takes effect the men scramble to find a way to free themselves from the lockout. Joining the call for a cessation to the violence is Father Mike Corridan (John Cusack); a white clergyman who is sympathetic to Lysistrata's plan. Corridan's emotionally-charged sermon at a funeral honoring a gang-war casualty serves also as an invective about the problem of gun-related violence in black, urban America. Meanwhile, Lysistrata finds her movement has become a national and international phenomenon.

Though we see several dance numbers where Spartan and Trojan women shake their booty provocatively, Lee never lets us forget the very serious issue at the heart of the film.
And though Lysistrata's solution to the violence is fanciful at best, it makes for a terrific premise for a film, which Lee exploits not only for maximum entertainment but to express a cogent message.

Chi-raq shows how Lee can be a feverishly-imaginative director. Setting Aristophanes' play in modern day Chicago and substituting a gang-war for the Peloponnesian conflict is refreshingly original.

Teyonah Parris is a delightful Lysistrata; her scalding sexuality and powerful presence make the men seem boyish. We don't often have a chance to see Angela Bassett in films, but here she is quite terrific and lends her own stalwart presence to the proceedings.
I suppose Lee could have knocked twenty minutes or so off the running time but that's a minor quibble. Some critics I've read think John Cusack's sermon is a significant mistake but I understand Lee must have felt a funeral oration delivered by a white man might make a more powerful impact. I haven't made up my mind about it but I didn't find it to be a glaring error (if it is one).

I took Lee's message to heart but also had a great time watching a movie that employed multiple-genre conventions to to forge its own significant, interpretation of Aristophanes. I think it was a mistake to release it during big-screen spectacle season but maybe it will hold its own. We can only hope.

Carol

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Todd Haynes/Starring: Cate Blanchett, Rooney Mara, Kyle Chandler, Sarah Paulson, Jake Lacy and John Magaro

Already widely acclaimed is Todd Haynes' Carol; his powerful adaptation of Patricia Highsmith's The Price of Salt. Haynes' fascination with the rigid moral landscape of 1950s' America was evident in his film Far From Heaven, which not only explored the thorny issue of race relations but the closeted world of homosexuality. The inherent drama in watching characters from a far less tolerant time risk social condemnation is also the subject of his new film. It's easy to understand why he would find storytelling potential in the period's social landscape.

Rooney Mara plays Therese Belivet; a young woman working as a clerk at a toy store in New York City in the early 1950s. While waiting behind the counter, her eyes come to rest on an elegantly dressed, strikingly beautiful woman. The woman approaches the counter to inquire about merchandise but buys a toy train set after Therese makes a soft sales pitch. The fact that two women would negotiate the sale of a train set; a toy almost exclusively the domain of boys, tells us the two women are hardly bound by conventions. The train serves as kind of foreshadowing, for in the transaction, we see ample evidence of a mutual attraction, especially after the woman compliments Therese on her silly Santa hat.

The woman calls Therese a few days later after the train is delivered to invite her to lunch, which she eagerly accepts. Outside her job, we see that Therese is involved in a shaky relationship with a young man named Richard (Jake Lacy); who almost seems passive in his courting efforts. Therese also finds herself an object of affection for Richard's friend Dannie (John Magaro), who attempts to kiss her late one night in the newspaper office where he works.

Richard gives Therese a camera to pursue her interest in photography, which she hopes to parlay into a job at a local paper as well as an artistic endeavor.

Sometime after, we see Therese and the woman; Carol (Cate Blanchett) sitting in a restaurant; making small talk before their lunch. When Carol orders a martini with her lunch, Therese's innocence and indecision become glaring when she hesitates to order for herself. Therese's callow charm seems no match for Carol's seductive elegance but the two women are drawn to one another, nevertheless. When Carol asks Therese what she wants from life, the young woman offers an honest assessment of her own life when she says "I don't even know what I want for lunch."

We see Carol's personal life is in flux as she and husband contend with their separation. Though Carol seems intent on a divorce, her husband Harge (Kyle Chandler) tries to save their marriage, only to be dismayed by her resistance. Her husband's ire is partly inspired by Carol's attraction to women; one of which involves her old friend Abby (Sarah Paulson). Her preference for women results in Harge restricting access to her daughter; an unpleasant development that will fester as the story unfolds.

Things become more serious when Carol invites Therese over to her home. During the evening, the women learn much about one another. Carol is made aware of Therese's artistic side as the younger woman avails herself of the piano and demonstrates her interest in photography.

Carol's casual-seeming sex appeal, which is partly conveyed by form-fitting dresses, casts a spell on Therese. Physical contact finds its way into the evening festivities; particularly during a scene where Carol stands behind Therese; an ostensibly innocent shoulder-touch becomes charged with sexual potential. Though such a gesture would hardly seem shocking to our 21st century eyes; the act carries risk and danger in a 1950s' milieu.
The evening is interrupted by Carol's angry husband, who is well aware what is happening between the two women. Harge, infuriated by the sight of Therese, tries desperately to reclaim his wife's affections while making veiled makes threats to Carol about their daughter's custody. The women's evening is cut short after Carol becomes distraught after her heated exchanges with Harge.

As their relationship becomes more involved, Carol invites Therese to take a road trip to Chicago; another invitation she readily accepts. The trip strains Therese's relationship with Richard, who sees Carol as nothing more than a crush. When Richard tries to dissuade her from leaving, Therese becomes uncharacteristically defiant as she asserts her independence.
The scenes between Carol and Harge and Therese and Richard highlight the ways men once exerted their socially-sanctioned authority over women with impunity.

We can guess what will transpire on the trip, as the two women consummate their relationship; their passion finding full expression in bed. But the women also discover their time together has been monitored by a private detective in Harge's pay. The damning evidence of Carol's relationship is to be Harge's means to gain full custody of their daughter.

As their relationship is threatened and reduced to a state of ambiguity, the final scene powerfully and wordlessly captures the deep emotions the two women share. Therese and Carol fix their gaze on one another across a crowded room and though their future together is uncertain, the scene itself is beautiful and moving.

We can attribute part of the film's excellence to Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara, who fearlessly inhabit their respective roles. I expected nothing less than tour de force acting from Blanchett but Rooney had much to prove to me. In previous roles, she's always seemed emotionally stiff, as if she rejected the Stella Adler and Stanislavsky methods for the Asperger's School of acting. But here she nails the role; showing us Therese's transformation from a young woman who isn't sure what she wants to becoming an assertive woman who is more than equal to her more worldly lover.

But of course the film's artistic success is also due to Haynes' impeccable direction and camera work. His habit of filming conversations where one actor is blocked out of the picture reminded me Edward Hopper's paintings, where we sometimes see the face or body of only one interlocutor. I also noticed how he nearly pushes a character off the screen by having them occupy a frame's edge.

The film's production designer should also receive a lion's share of credit. I was often astonished at how no detail of the period was left to chance.

We might forget that films about gay/lesbian/transgender issues have become more common these days and as a consequence; less shocking. A film like Carol; which will play shortly in multiplexes across the country, will probably raise few eyebrows, which is compelling evidence of progress.
Haynes has never shied away from material about the socially marginalized. Films like Poison, Safe, Far From Heaven and now Carol, feature characters who either live in self-imposed social exile or are forced to. I'm sure future his projects will be no different.

Haynes' film will no doubt figure into most critics top-ten lists for the year. It certainly earns a place in each.

Krampus

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Michael Dougherty/Starring: Adam Scott, Toni Collette, David Koechner, Conchata Ferrell, Emjay Anthony and Stefania LaVie Owen

In this season of manufactured goodwill and canned cheer comes a comedy/horror flick called Krampus; which proves to be neither funny nor scary. The film seems like a Hollywood studio's anemic attempt at cynicism and mordant satire. It at least takes a stab until the film's sentimental message about family unity and happiness surfaces. I'm not a fan of family-gathering holiday movies. I can't think of one that is worth the time or admission price. A recent film in this this woeful genre was Love the Coopers, which got its ass heaved from the multiplexes before it could wither and rot (I guess no one really loved the Coopers, eh?). Krampus Wants to be darker but the story clings too stubbornly to genre conventions.

Two families gather for the Christmas holiday season. One of the families; nuclear and typically suburban, play host to their relatives; a course, uncultured family of gun enthusiasts who couldn't be more unlike the people putting them up. The host-father; Tom (Adam Scott), is the antipodal version of his wife's brother-in-law Howard (David Koechner). Where Tom is refined and liberal-seeming, Howard represents conservatism and maleness at its most brutish. Even his daughters; a tough pair who make fun of Tom's son Max (Emjay Anthony) for writing a letter to Santa, seem more like Howard than their mother Linda (Allison Tolman), who is sister to Tom's wife Sarah (Toni Collette). The family's initial contact is awkward and unpleasant as Howard and his family show little but disdain for their hosts. Even their initial dinner together becomes one of discord as Howard complains about the food. Adding another dysfunctional element to the mix is Sarah's Aunt Dorothy (Conchata Ferrell), who makes herself an unwelcome presence from the get go.

Howard's family is but one problem Tom's family faces, as his own threatens to fracture from its own lack of unity. The lack of inter-familial connection and a general feeling of malaise becomes the prevailing mood. Just when relations couldn't become more strained, the neighborhood suffers a power-outage during a blinding snowstorm. When Tom's daughter, Beth (Stefania LaVie Owen) sets out for her boyfriend's house after he fails to answer her texts, she sees a monstrous behemoth leaping across house roof-tops, wreaking havoc. Before long, she learns the thing has unholy minions (no, not those minions), who join their master in his agenda of terror. When she fails to return, Tom and Howard set out on their own mission with Howard's arsenal of guns. When the men arrive on the scene, they too encounter the strange creatures; including one that almost drags Howard away. Terrified by what they've seen, the men return home to alert their families. After the family seals themselves in, they eventually learn the creature's identity. Omi, Max's German grandmother, tells them about Krampus; a demon she inadvertently summoned during her childhood; who has returned to unleash hell on the holiday season. The demon's return is supposed to be a kind of reckoning, but for the characters, it serves as an opportunity to unite the family and remind them about the true meaning of Christmas.

Aside from Krampus' imaginative depiction, the movie is just a bore. It is never frightening and hardly (if ever) funny. The syrupy message about family is trite but the writers at least saw fit to give the film a bummer ending. About mid-way through the film, any pretense of being a darkly funny movie gives way to self-seriousness that bleeds all the fun from the story.

Though the film opens with a slo-mo sequence inside a large retail store, where mobs of shoppers snarl and scrap for merchandise on what is presumably Black Friday, the rest of the film doesn't live up to the beginning's nasty promise. Krampus is too timid to go for the throat. Rather than skewering the holiday for all its hypocrisy and phoniness, it really wants to sell us the idea that Christmas really used to be about love and family togetherness.

If the much-anticipated films of the season; The Revenant, Star Wars, Carol or Joy had opened the same day I saw Krampus, I might have waited or not bothered to see it at all. The movie was really just an alternative to The Peanuts Movie; one of the few late Fall releases I just can't summon any interest (or squander dollars) to see. I really hope there isn't a Krampus 2 but as the movie demonstrates, some curses never never die.

The Lady in the Van

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Nicholas Hytner/Starring: Maggie Smith, Alex Jennings, Jim Broadbent, Dominic Cooper, Gwen Taylor and Frances de la Tour

Adapted from the stage play of the same name, The Lady in the Van tells what the opening subtitles refers to as a mostly true story. Famed British playwright Alan Bennett was a character in his own play and is now again in director Nicholas Hytner's film adaptation. The film version is a confluence of considerable talents; Bennett, filmmaker Nicholas Hytner (The Madness of King George, The Crucible) and Dame Maggie Smith, who always seems to be brilliant in whatever she's cast.

The play is based on Bennett's own experiences; as he became a kind of host to a homeless woman named Margaret Shepherd (Maggie Smith); who parked her shabby van in various street locations in Camden Town, London until it came to rest in the playwright's driveway during the 70s' and 80s'.

When the film begins, we see Margaret eluding a police officer on a rural road after we hear what sounds like a terrible accident. We never see the accident itself nor do we know any specifics; we only see Margaret elude the police car that gives chase to her van. The accident, and the fact that Margaret takes flight, assume a greater significance as the story unfolds.

Later, we see Margaret living in the same van in a street in Camden. Her shabby, unwashed appearance and her van's ragged condition rapidly become an eyesore for the residents of the street; particularly for playwright Alan Bennett (Alex Jennings), who has just purchased a house. Warned about Margaret's vexing tendency to squat her van where she will, Bennett becomes well-acquainted with the old woman after she imposes on him to use his restroom. The disgust Bennett feels is made manifest in the following scene when we see him give his toilet a thorough scrub-down.

Who is this woman who is curt, ill-mannered and thinks nothing of venting her hostility on the residents of the street? Bennett's story gives us some idea and in doing so, shows us a troubled woman with a fascinating past whose life is one of self-imposed squalor. But as talented a writer Bennett may be, his story--and Margaret--fail to hold my attention or sympathy. Though Smith plays the dickens out of the character and though certain aspects of Margaret's life are interesting, the character nevertheless remains a noxious pest who demands everyone accommodate her whims and overlook her accumulated filth. I found my patience sorely tried as I watched Margaret rage at her neighbors and everyone who dared to approach her van.

Equally annoying is Bennett's doppelganger, who he talks to incessantly. As it becomes clear Bennett intends to make Margaret the subject of a play, his other begins to express his qualms.

As the story moves along; Bennett writes and tends to his plays on London's West End while also enduring Margaret's difficult personality and habits. But he also begins to learn about her past. He discovers she once drove an ambulance in World War II and was an accomplished pianist who studied under a world class musician in Paris. The darker part of her past comes to light when he also learns Margaret was a nun in a convent, where her musical abilities were sternly suppressed by intolerant nuns.

But the film isn't only about Margaret but Bennett himself. We see the difficulties in his own life as he is forced to commit his aging mother to a nursing home when she becomes ill and stricken with dementia. One of the film's bitter ironies is Bennett becoming Margaret's caretaker while his mother suffers from want of her son's attention.
Bennett's romantic status becomes an minor issue as it becomes abundantly clear that Bennett seeks a man to fill an emotional void. Male colleagues from the theater and strange men become a common sight at his home. The men sometimes peer into Margaret's van, only to be given an angry brush-off.

What was supposed to be a temporary stay in Bennett's driveway becomes a long-term, residential nesting as months stretch to years. As a result, Bennett becomes to understand if not condone Margaret's bad behavior; including her slovenly ways, which become increasingly vile as time goes by. Bennett is appalled to find feces in his driveway, an indignity he bears with superhuman equanimity. He also puts up with frequent visits by a social worker, who brings Margaret supplies and chides Bennett for not being more charitable.

The accident we hear but do not see at the beginning of the film becomes a source of almost crippling guilt as Margaret's frequent visits to confession fail to offer assuage her conscience. The guilt is compounded by frequent visits of the officer (Jim Broadbent) who witnessed Margaret flee the scene of the crime and who also shakes her down for hush money. What actually occurred during the so-called accident is finally revealed near the film's latter half.

In getting to know Margaret, Bennett also becomes aware of other aspects of her life, including her brother, who has had difficulties of his own dealing with his troublesome sister.

Bennett manages to bring Margaret's story-and a significant part of his own-to a neat conclusion and in the end we see that, in spite of the the problems she visited on Bennett, he acknowledges her impact on his life, which is more significant than he imagined.

I can understand why Bennett was inspired to write about Margaret but I have to admit, I found the film--and her--irritating. I give credit to Bennett and his neighbors for their ability to tolerate her presence but I found her insufferable beyond endurance. I spent most of the film feeling impatient with Margaret. There are charming pests and ne'er do wells in cinema; people who aren't necessarily likable but are nevertheless stimulating company but Margaret ain't one of them. Bennett wants us to find this homeless woman, with her complicated past, compelling. But even Maggie Smith's terrific performance couldn't rescue Margaret from being an irritant. The fact that she seeks absolution from a church that for all intents and purposes squelched her musical talents does make for more interesting irony but there is little else about Margaret I would want to know about. But though I found the film to be tiresome, I might recommend it to someone if for nothing more than to see Maggie Smith.
I didn't care--as stated earlier--for his eccentric use of a Bennett-double, which didn't really help illuminate his interior life.

The Lady in the Van probably plays better onstage than on a movie screen. After all, Bennett's dramatic medium is the theater, not the cinema, and plays seldom make a successful transition to the big screen. Some stories can only be told in live theater; Hytner's is one of them.

Victor Frankenstein

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Paul McGuigan/Starring: James McAvoy, Daniel Radcliffe, Jessica Brown Findlay, Bronson Webb, Andrew Scott and Charles Dance

One might wonder, while watching Victor Frankenstein; the latest interpretation of Mary Shelley's story, why the world needed another adaptation when so many are so forgettable. Try to remember, if your memory is sound; I, Frankenstein, from 2014. That film, which starred Aaron Eckhart as some sort of superhero Frankenstein; was silly and moronic. If you can't recall the film, it's because it begged you to forget it. Director Paul McGuigan's Frankenstein adaptation isn't quite as bad but it uses every means at its disposal to be forgettable too. In fact, it would rather you didn't wait a day or two after the screening to slip your mind; it demands immediate oblivion.
Though it has a game cast; talented James McAvoy as Victor Frankenstein and Daniel Radcliffe as Igor, and a willingness to tweak the classic story, it nevertheless plays like a tiresome comic book version of Shelley's masterpiece. In fact, much of the inspiration for the story comes not from the novel but Guy Ritchie's inane Sherlock Holmes movies. The look of 19th century London and Victor Frankenstein's bewildering hand-to-hand fighting prowess made me think of Ritchie's ridiculous reimagining of Holmes; who emerged as an action hero in the director's witless interpretation.

McGuigan's story doesn't open with a shot of a castle on a hillside enveloped in stormy atmosphere, but in a circus. An enormous tent is set against the gray, dingy Victorian London skyline. Among the circus performers is a hunchback (Daniel Radcliffe); whose deformity is an indispensable part of his clown persona. When not enduring degradation, which is meted out by cruel management personnel and colleagues alike, he studies human anatomy and medicine. He also moons over the trapeze artist Lorelei (Jessica Brown Findlay), who suffers a fall during her act. Her broken clavicle, which prevents her from breathing properly, is immediately tended to by the hunchback and a patron who happens to be a doctor. The doctor; Victor Frankenstein (James McAvoy), lends his expertise though he is impressed by the hunchback's knowledge of human anatomy and his ability to diagnose the problem. They perform a temporary fix before Dr. Frankenstein offers the hunchback a place in his laboratory. Of course this means escaping from the circus, which becomes a challenge, as the management refuses to part ways with the hunchback. The two escape to Dr. Frankenstein's lab, where the hunchback's hump becomes the focus of Dr. Frankenstein's immediate attention. Through a violent, painful-looking process, the Doctor is able to cure the hunchback of his hunch and correct his severe slouch. He even assigns him the name Igor (borrowed from his former assistant) to help conceal his identity from the circus management.

The two men form an immediate bond and it isn't long before the Doctor shares the secret of his experiments and research (which we already anticipate): the creation of a man from disparate, anatomical parts, which will then be stimulated into life by harnessed electricity. The men set to work on the project and are able to secure funding from an unscrupulous investor named Rafferty (Bronson Webb), who has his own agenda. An obstacle to the project is Inspector Turpin (Andrew Scott), whose religious zealotry makes him the Doctor's hostile foe.

After Igor's make-over, he happens to meet Lorelei at a ball, where his cosmetic overhaul makes him a handsome prospect for her attentions. And while Igor and Lorelei sew the seeds to romance, Dr. Frankenstein tells anyone who will listen about his research in a stentorian voice that is one setting past irritating.

After the Doctor's first creation ends in disaster; his work draws negative attention, which forces him to move his experiments to a new location. Igor, however; becomes disillusioned with Frankenstein's work, which hastens his departure. As the Inspector becomes more aggressive in his plans to thwart Dr. Frankenstein, another attempt at creating a living, breathing entity takes place at a castle-like location. The second attempt serves as the film's climax as Igor, Turpin and Rafferty turn up at the Doctor's new laboratory. Carnage and destruction reign as the new monster vents his rage on everyone in the laboratory.

In the epilogue, we discover the Doctor; who is now a kind of fugitive, seems to have learned nothing from his ill-advised experiment. He also seems un-chastised and unrepentant.

The film's attempt to address the moral and ethical implications of Dr. Frankenstein's efforts to create life takes place during his heated exchanges with Turpin. Though the Doctor's position is ostensibly one of reason; his atheistic convictions turn out to be pretty flimsy as he makes some concessions to the existence of God.

If Shelley's novel serves as a cautionary tale about scientific hubris, McGuigan's is less a warning about scientific overreach than a warning against its suppression by the reactionary attitudes espoused by religion. That seems refreshing but the fact that Victor Frankenstein emerges emotionally and psychically unscathed from his disastrous experiment tells us he has little or no conscience and will remain the reckless, unheeding clown he seems to be throughout the film. Echoing Hollywood's negative attitudes about science, the film ultimately reinforces the notion that scientists are not to be trusted. Only Igor seems to grasp the ominous implications of their work.

Aside from the film's re-imaginings,Victor Frankenstein sinks into a morass of silliness. The look of Victorian England might be gloomy and gray but the film feels almost farcical at times. James McAvoy and Danielle Radcliffe are terrific actors but they are asked to give depth to characters that have motivations but no discernible interesting, interior lives. McAvoy's Frankenstein is an exhausting, hyperactive child who is all Id and no super-ego.

Maybe there should be a moratorium on Frankenstein films. Other than Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein, I can't think of a version that is worth re-visiting other than James Whale's original 1931 film. Though far from being the worst Shelley adaptation, Victor Frankenstein is very much like the monster the Doctor tries to resurrect; something dead that should have stayed dead.

Macbeth

Director: Justin Kurzel/Starring: Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Paddy Considine and David Thewlis

Australian director Justin Kurzel, who helmed the visceral and deeply disturbing The Snowtown Murders, returns with his much-anticipated film adaptation of Macbeth. Film versions of Shakespeare's play stretch to infinity and it is likely more will come, so what distinguishes Kurzel's from other interpretations? For one, Kurzel's version features the magnificently intense Michael Fassbender in the lead role. Stunning visuals are yet another attribute. It is certainly something to look at but how do the drama and more importantly; the dialogue, fare?

One problem I've had with Shakespearean film-adaptations in the past is mumbled or inaudible dialogue. It's a problem I have with Kurzel's film too. Aside from the play's characters, who stand as some of the most famous in theater; Shakespeare's words, for me, are what really make him master of all playwrights. Whenever I see any production of Shakespeare, I want to hear the dialogue clearly expressed. In Kurzel's film, much of the dialogue, including soliloquies, is robbed of its power and poetry.
Any character or play should be open to creative interpretation and performed accordingly; an artistic edict both Michael Fassbender (Macbeth) and Marion Cotillard (Lady Macbeth) embrace fully. But famous, key scenes suffer from either said unintelligible muttering or weakly-conveyed meaning. The famous Is this a dagger I see? soliloquy is expertly expressed but one has to strain to hear the words, whose clarity waxes and wanes. The monologue is key to understanding Macbeth's manic ambition but its impact is severely diminished if one has to strain to hear the words. It wouldn't have hurt to provide subtitles.

In another famous scene, Lady Macbeth's Out damned spot fails to capture the madness and guilt gripping her mind. The words are spoken in a curiously reserved manner. The choice to make the dialogue sound more natural rather than stagy is a nice touch but in accomplishing that goal much of Shakespeare's dialogue is unheard, leaving those familiar with the play to fill in what fails to find our ears.

Aside from Fassbender's charismatic fury, another of the film's strong attributes are the film locations. The stark beauty of the British and Scottish landscapes; majestic mountains and vast, grassy plains, make excellent, dramatic settings.

The visual aesthetics: the bleak, gray gloom and the eerie fog from which the witches emerge are stylized touches that nicely serve the story's moody forebodings.

One may notice the costumes in the film for their naturalistic, spare look. We never see regal finery or any garments adorned with vivid colors. Even Macbeth's crown is a drab headdress.

Though I found Michael Fassbender to be an awe-inspiring Macbeth, I thought Marion Cotillard to be a disappointingly mild Lady Macbeth. I think Cotillard is an excellent actress and is one of my contemporary favorites but I never got the sense she was the cunning and conniving force behind her husband's rise to power. Her Lady Macbeth seems passive and though she isn't meek, she comes across as a wife who has little influence on her husband's diabolical designs for the crown. Other characters, such as Paddy Considine's excellent Banquo and David Thewlis' Duncan, are played with distinction.

It is apparent Kurzel's aim was naturalism; an aesthetic I admire. He wanted us to feel the blood and dirt of the tragedy rather than showing us gaudily-costumed characters strutting about, chewing Shakespeare's words to death. His approach succeeds handsomely but the film fails miserably where it should be strong. Shakespeare's words are everything. Without the dialogue's poetic brilliance, we would merely have an interesting story about a man with Machiavellian ambitions. Kurzel understands poetry in all its visual expressions but he hamstrings the words and that, my few and dear readers, is what keeps the film from achieving a level of greatness it nevertheless strives for.