Showing posts with label Olivia Wilde. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Olivia Wilde. Show all posts

Thursday, March 5, 2015

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!

Monday, July 14, 2014

Third Person



**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Paul Haggis/Starring: Liam Neeson, Olivia Wilde, Adrian Brody, Mila Kunis, James Franco, Maria Bello, Kim Basinger, Loan Chabanol and Moran Atias

I wasn't a fan of Haggis' Oscar-winning film Crash; I found it overrated, over-cooked and underwritten and I have to say I had the same reaction to Third Person. Both boast show-offy multiple character plots which occasionally intersect but seem forced and often phony. His new film has an impressive cast and exciting locations: Rome, Paris and New York. Beautiful people in beautiful locations. Should be enough, right?

Liam Neeson plays Michael, a Pulitzer-prize winning author who is having an affair with a beautiful, younger woman named Anna (Olivia Wilde) who is both repelled by and attracted to the writer. As a writer herself, her interest in Michael isn't relegated to romance; she also seeks his authorial approbation, which he is reluctant to give after reading a short story she has submitted to him. Meanwhile, Michael is estranged from his wife Elaine (Kim Basinger) though he talks to her almost daily. She is well-aware of his affair with Anna but refuses to abandoned the marriage.

Another story is set in Rome, where a shady businessman Scott (Adrian Brody) steals fashion designs from top Italian designers for knock-offs manufactured in sweat-shops. He becomes involved with a gypsy woman (a culture known more appropriately as Roma) named Monika (Moran Atias), whose daughter is being held by Romanians. To get her daughter back, she must come up with 5,000 euros or risk her 8 year-old becoming a prostitute. Scott offers to help and in doing so, becomes hopelessly entangled in the dangerous effort to recover her daughter. As the story develops, it becomes increasingly clear Scott may be the target of an elaborate scam though he has fallen in love with Monika.

In yet another story, Mila Kunis' Julia is battling James Franco's Rick for visitation rights for her son, whose life she unintentionally imperiled when she demonstrated how he could possibly suffocate playing with a sleeping-bag. Though Rick is adamant about Julia not seeing the boy, Rick's girlfriend Sam sympathizes with the mother and eventually aids in her attempt to see him. Julia is her own worst enemy, as she can't hold a job for any period of time and is generally a mess. Assisting her legally is Theresa (Maria Bello); a tough, pragmatic lawyer who has little patience for Julia's irresponsibility.

You know Haggis will somehow have the various storylines and characters mingle in many contrived, unnatural ways. When Julia, working as a maid, scribbles an important address of where she is to meet her lawyer and Rick for a custody hearing, she accidentally leaves the paper in the hotel room, which just happens to be Michael's. He uses the same paper to write down his wife's phone number, which falls into Anna's hands then ultimately, back into Julia's later. Haggis works hard to make all this seem seamless, but like Crash, it screams overwrought plotting.

It also becomes strange when we know Julia is working in the Parisian hotel where Michael and Anna are keeping rooms though her custody hearing is in New York. This isn't a filmmaker's embarassing flub but another plot device too clever for its own good. How she can be in two places at once becomes clear later in the film, as does the other oddities in the story. What also is brought to light is why the stories all share a common theme of children in extremis.

It is Michael and Anna's story that serves as the sun in this solar system. Michael's head-games, in which Anna is a willing participant, begin to grow tiresome as the two lovers are on again, off again while his wife pleads for his return. We also learn Anna has been hiding a secret; one that offers a cliched explanation as to why she prefers older men like Michael. It comes off as cheap Freudian fallback and is an eye-roller.

Eventually everything and everyone is absorbed in the denouement which is one more Haggis-ism I couldn't endure. I guess I give him points for the attempt.

Because the stories are labored, many of the actor's performances appear over-boiled, but the the final scenes may explain that as well. Noone in the cast comes off as all that sincere though they try hard to sell their characters. Neeson, a very skilled actor, has trouble playing a convincing writer. Though his publisher informs him the quality of his writing has declined and finds his latest work unpublishable, he writes a chapter of new novel, which shamelessly co-opts his lover's personal life as content. This is all fine and good, but Michael's prose is so hackneyed, it couldn't even pose a qualitative challenge to Judith Krantz, though his publisher doesn't seem to notice.

I think Haggis would like to manage the multiple character/storylines with the skill, precision and power Altman once did in films like Nashville or Short Cuts. Unfortunately he lacks that directors unerring instinct for character and plausible, multiple plot streams.

When everything wrapped and the credits scrolled, I left the theater thinking how stunning Olivia Wilde looked, then I thought about what I needed from the A&P.