The Accountant

A portrait of high functioning autism, or Batman with a Gun

the-accountant-posterAny points “The Accountant” earns as a portrait of high functioning autism are quickly erased when Gavin O’Connor’s film simply becomes Ben Affleck as Batman with a gun. The film hardly blends genres but mashes them up into a complex, albeit fun and thrilling action caper.

Affleck plays Christian Wolff (not really his name), an accountant in Plainfield, IL who secretly reviews the books of the worst criminals and drug cartels in the world. Born with a gift at math, puzzles and logic yet stifled socially due to his autism, he’s a natural at deciphering where lost money has gotten to and in turn keeping a low profile. Christian lives alone in a drab, undecorated, ranch house. He prepares three symmetrically cooked fried eggs each night for dinner, performs physical therapy on his body while blaring heavy metal and pops a Xanax at exactly 10:01 each night.

O’Connor could’ve stopped at having Christian be a meticulously perfect mathematical prodigy and, later, an assassin, but exploring his childhood dealing with autism gives him a provocative past, a cause and a vice to overcome throughout the film. And yet it becomes squandered when Christian’s father begins giving him super soldier training in martial arts and sharpshooting. His origin story is less of coping with a disability (or as someone who is differently abled, to be more accurate and politically correct) and more of a ruthless father (Andy Umberger) who pushes him to be a weapon. One version feels relatable to parents, and the other sounds like “Batman Begins.” Continue reading “The Accountant”

Revisited: Up in the Air

Jason Reitman’s third film reflects how he has evolved into the filmmaker he is today, for better or worse.

Up in the Air PosterFew directors other than perhaps M. Night Shyamalan (and even he still has some admirers) have experienced such a dramatic shift from critical acclaim to cinematic whipping boy than Jason Reitman.

Once considered an indie darling with thought provoking films like “Thank You For Smoking” and charming affectations of the high school experience like “Juno”, Reitman took a rapid nosedive in respect with his last two films, both unseen by me, that any mention of his name seems to illicit furrowed brows. Like Bono and U2 in 2014, Reitman’s past marvels have been marginalized and erased by their current transgressions to be made into the most hated in America.

The first misstep was “Labor Day”, an uncharacteristic melodrama and romance known for a pie-making scene that’s just about the worst metaphor for sex and romance ever captured on film. His most recent, 2014’s “Men, Women and Children”, was seen as Reitman sinking even further out of touch with humanity than ever before. It’s an unsettling portrait of suburbia that uses grave self-importance to treat the Internet, smartphones and all modern technology as the roots of all evil. Lambasting the film was like critics taking revenge on the fact that “American Beauty” ever won Best Picture.

Up in the Air” however, Reitman’s third film, was once considered his crowning achievement, and released at the tail end of the first decade of the 21st Century, felt like a brilliant, touching, satirical portrait of the Way We Live Now. How did this guy fall out of touch so quickly? What caused critics to turn against him so fast?

The truth is that “Up in the Air” is not as out of line with the themes of “Men, Women and Children” as you might expect. In fact you might even say that “Up in the Air” reflects a natural progression of a young independent director evolving as an artist and storyteller.

George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a man whose job it is to fire people for a living, brought in by other companies as a way of easing the transition by means of placement services and George Clooney’s charming, calming reassurance. Reitman earns points by turning the story into a documentary on a crumbling economy, with companies being downsized and people losing their jobs left and right. Reitman interviews non-actors and has them react to their termination in a way that reflects a semi-documentary style that Richard Linklater would recreate later in “Bernie“.

But Reitman is more interested in making Bingham into a charming louse, preaching the idea of ditching all the belongings we shove into our metaphorical “backpack” in order to live a more efficient and productive life. He relishes the little touches of customer loyalty that keep his life in orbit, he’s casually racist and stereotypical when selecting security lines to wait in, and he scoffs at the idea of marriage or anything else as an institution. He and his alter-ego “with a vagina” Alex (Vera Farmiga) both get off on comparing the weights in their rewards cards and on how many collective miles they’ve racked up over time.

ryan-alex

Clooney and Farmiga have steamy chemistry, and Reitman’s dialogue allows them to zip along like Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell in “His Girl Friday” or some other classical screwball comedy. Separated from that context however, Reitman makes Clooney and Farmiga come across as frustratingly smug, condescending to people with bulky suitcases, collapsable strollers and those who rent from that awful new car rental place with terrible kiosk placement.

The idea that most people don’t talk the way Clooney and Farmiga do is something that first rubbed people the wrong way with Juno McGuff, as though her early 2000s slang and wit made her appear pretentious. Reitman there however had the crutch of Diablo Cody’s wickedly ridiculous and infectious script. Here they’re likable but difficult; they’re the kind of people you want to hate, and Reitman doesn’t seem to mind.

Ryan however is gradually revealed to be a shockingly unhealthy person. Without emotional connections of a meaningful sort, he’s without real ambition or direction in his life, and in the film’s final shot, he can be seen standing in front of an immense departures board completely lost as to where to go or what to do with the tiny backpack of belongings he has to his name. As a storytelling device, it works gangbusters, turning this business professional into an actual human with grace and humor over time.

up_in_the_air_jason_reitman_george_clooney_movie_image_03

But as a philosophical statement, it’s a plea for the more traditional American Dream. The one thing Ryan does take seriously is when his younger self Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick in her breakout role) seeks to digitally disrupt his industry, firing people via video technology and saving her company a whole lot of time, money and awkward, face to face encounters with disgruntled employees. Knowing how people react in this situation, he’s appropriately wary of the rise of new technology and change. But of course this isn’t just about break-ups through text message or firing through Skype; it’s about America, and how technology gets us further away from the human interactions and precision that allow Ryan to do his fastidious job so well.

It all comes to a head when Ryan travels to Milwaukee to attend his sister’s wedding. Ryan’s family is as quick as Natalie at calling his BS about throwing away attachments, and the images of love and marriage provide a gooey change of heart for Ryan that maybe love and a normal life on the ground would be for him.

Natalie even has an interesting scene with Alex and Ryan shortly after her boyfriend has broken up with her that subtly reflects Reitman’s conservative values. “I don’t want to say anything that’s anti-feminist,” she says, “but sometimes it feels like, no matter how much success I have, it’s not gonna matter until I find the right guy.” There’s nuance to this exchange for sure, but how might this line go over in 2015?

Reitman has spent the whole of two hours subtly picking away at the technological institutions that can transform business and people’s lives, opting instead for the nuclear family in the Middle America that is Milwaukee. Is this so different than starting “Men, Women and Children” in “outer freaking space” as a scary metaphor for the rise of the Internet? Most would agree that “Up in the Air” is a much better film, and that even if Reitman shares some different values, this is an emotional, compelling, competently told story by a filmmaker with his feet on the ground and his head out of the clouds. At the very least though, revisiting “Up in the Air” has been a revealing experience as to just how this promising director at the top of the world started to lose his footing.

Into the Woods

Rob Marshall adapted Stephen Sondheim’s 1987 musical in this mash-up of classic fairy tales.

Into the Woods PosterDo we really need another movie or show that reimagines old fairy tales? How many different ways can we tell the story of Cinderella? Stephen Sondheim’s musical “Into the Woods” first premiered in 1987, but since then the spirit of taking beloved childhood properties and twisting their meanings to play up the dark imagery and fables at their core has exploded into pop culture. It hardly seems new to suggest that the Little Red Riding Hood story has gross undertones of, perhaps, pedophilia or otherwise. Ooh, how sinister.

And yet here we have Rob Marshall’s live action film adaptation of “Into the Woods”, which reimagines the fairy tales yet again but has defanged them even further. Marshall’s film is hardly as subversive or as slyly perverse as its subject matter, either by Sondheim or Brother Grimm, suggests. And like all the worst film adaptations of Broadway stage musicals, it pays more lip service to the theater than it does to cinema. “Into the Woods” often looks cheap and visually uninteresting, stimulated only by some above average singing.

Sondheim’s story is a mash-up of several popular childhood fables, Cinderella, Jack and the Beanstalk, Little Red Riding Hood and Rapunzel, all brought together by a baker and his wife (James Corden and Emily Blunt) who cannot conceive a child. They’ve been cursed by a witch (Meryl Streep) and can only break the spell by collecting four items, one belonging to each of the fairy tale characters. Their paths intersect in one of those frustrating cast numbers that look great when everyone is participating and moving on stage, but meander and jump around as a result of incessant film editing.

Streep is really the star of the show, going big and broad and bold in the way only she can and owning her songs. Constantly she’s stalking and hunching over with a grimace and dominating the screen. She’s only matched in hammy overacting by Chris Pine as Prince Charming, who may be both the best and worst part of the film. He has a so-dumb-it’s-amazing number called “Agony” in which Sondheim’s composition itself is dripping in self-aware swells, only enhanced by Pine nonchalantly brandishing his chest and tossing around his golden locks as though he were blissfully unaware of his masculinity.

Marshall however plays it mostly (ahem) close to the chest, allowing the actors to do all the heavy lifting. Say what you will about 2013’s ugly looking “Les Miserables,” but the film at the very least had a style. Some of the sets look flat out cheap, and by the film’s climax involving giants descending from the beanstalk, Marshall tries to pay homage to the original production by hiding them within the scenery, but it looks more like the budget simply ran short.

Only by “Into the Woods’s” end do the characters start to get a sense of depth as flawed figures. One song points the finger at every character and their intersecting mishaps, and it reveals themes of parenting, family, abandonment and more.

Surely Sondheim’s original production has its ardent supporters for this very reason, but Marshall just wants to put the musical on the big screen again. Hollywood has lamented the loss of popularity for the movie musical, but part of that decline might stem from only making films that can have a slavish devotion to a beloved source material. Put an original property in Marshall’s hands, and he’s talented enough to do more with what he’s done to Sondheim.

2 ½ stars

Drinking Buddies

“Drinking Buddies” is a minimalist romantic comedy made perfect by Olivia Wilde’s charming performance.

If the term “mumblecore” has lost whatever initial meaning it had, it now simply refers to a minimalist style. Joe Swanberg, one of the pioneers of the filmmaking movement, has with his latest film given way to name actors while still trimming the fat of Hollywood rom-coms. “Drinking Buddies” is edited with the crackling urgency of something in the French New Wave while retaining the charm and warmth that will make it a hipster classic.

Olivia Wilde has acquiesced perfectly into the indie scene as Kate, a communications lead at Chicago’s Revolution Brewing. She has a more-than-just-friends relationship with Luke (Jake Johnson), one of the brewers, and they’re perfect together. Yet the practical impasse to their being together is a pair of serious relationships that are healthy, but not nearly as picturesque.

Each of them bring their respective significant others to a cabin in Michigan, and the already obvious attains some added sexual tension. Chris (Ron Livingston) is a bit older and more mature than Kate, and Jill (Anna Kendrick) is dorky and cute, but not always in the cool way, and she doesn’t gel with Luke nearly as well. Continue reading “Drinking Buddies”

End of Watch

The most obvious thing to notice about “End of Watch” is that the whole movie looks like it was put through a tumble dryer. Even in calm, dialogue driven moments, the found footage cinematography is as erratic, lopsided, messy and claustrophobic as any movie I’ve ever seen.

But “End of Watch” is an interesting film, one that rings true in its shoptalk and streetwise mentality. It’s a shame director David Ayer had to add this cinematic gimmick to a story and characters that already feel very real.

“End of Watch” is a buddy cop drama that plays more like behind the scenes vignettes in the vein of “COPS” than a typical genre picture. It follows two beat officers in South Central Los Angeles, Brian Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Mike Zavala (Michael Pena), on their day-to-day patrol as they slowly become the unsuspecting enemies of a prominent Mexican drug cartel.

Their immediate difference from most movie cops is their honor. The pair of them are exemplary officers, and an opening monologue by Gyllenhaal gives the job a new level of profundity that deems them more than protectors of the law. They go about their job with a love for their work, explaining how paperwork is the lifeblood of their career or showing respect for their superior officers. They address the camera directly about the procedure of a house call to the point that the film feels like a training movie. It is so much a movie about respecting an officer of the law that when Zavala fights someone man to man and lets him off easy, the movie gives us a scene of the same gangbanger saying that these cops are “straight up gangsta.”

And yet the common tropes associated with cop movies, like justice, honor and morality: all these things take a backseat to the idea that being part of the police is like being part of a family, a brotherhood.

More so than a cop movie, “End of Watch” is a bromance. Its best moments are casual, joshing conversations in the front seat of the cruiser between Taylor and Zavala about girls, the difference between Latinos and whites, sex stories and whatever else might come up between two bros. Gyllenhaal and Pena have such wonderful chemistry together. When they get in that cop car, they’re brothers. No one understands them better.

I think cops might see themselves in the camaraderie of these two characters, even if they don’t believe the extent of some of their crime scenes. Not all of the film is badassery. There are the moments inside the station and waiting for hours as the detectives wrap up that pepper these officers’ lives.

But then there’s that damned camera. Taylor pins two spy cameras to his shirt pocket and to Zavala’s, but the movie has cameras everywhere, on the dashboard, in Taylor’s hand, in the criminals’ hands, and all of them are jostled upside down and in every direction to no end. Later the film turns into a lame POV, first person shooter video game, and we’re denied a single, coherent wide shot or proper lighting. I hate that this is what digital cinematography has become. It’s not getting us any closer to reality by turning the camera on its head and not showing us what’s going on.

That’s what is so irritating about “End of Watch.” Ayer’s pacing is delicate and suspenseful, but he spoils the moment with his vigilante journalism style. His characters are likeable and true, but they’re occasionally insufferable frat boys without something more interesting to say than a string of four letter words (the movie probably sets a new record for f*ck and motherf*ckers). It’s the honorable cop story we should have but the indecipherable movie we shouldn’t.

2 ½ stars

50/50

They say laughter is the best medicine, but it’s not an appropriate treatment for cancer, even though it has no cure. “50/50,” a dark dramedy about a 27-year-old who contracts a rare spinal cord cancer, isn’t being “jokey” at our expense. It finds laughs through blunt, direct practicality and acceptance of a bad situation.

Through the unfortunate plight of Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), “50/50” finds characters who address his cancer head-on and reveal themselves as the healthiest people of all. Continue reading “50/50”

Up in the Air

Jason Reitman’s third film “Up in the Air,” like “Juno” before it, is a socially relevant, timely masterpiece that speaks and relates to adults everywhere with its intelligence and charm.

Up in the Air PosterSociety has become streamlined. The best and brightest function like clockwork, the most tech savvy and connected people operate with speed and efficiency, and the only people with anything meaningful or important to say have done away with all the excess waste in their lives and need not say anything at all. Jason Reitman is one of the few left to not function this way, and he still has a great story to tell.

Reitman’s third film “Up in the Air,” like “Juno” before it, is a socially relevant, timely masterpiece that speaks and relates to adults everywhere with its intelligence and charm.

The film’s hero is Ryan Bingham, as portrayed in one of his best performances by George Clooney. Bingham’s job is to fire people for a living, and he is the best at what he does because he has a way with words, creates no attachments and has micro managed society to the point that he understands the way people think and act. To attain this level of success, Bingham has become a pioneer of the air, attaining more frequent flyer miles than almost any person, and his universally connected status ensures that he can spend all his time without ever being grounded in one place.

It’s his way of life, and his extremely methodized system keeps the business world turning as the economic downturn threatens jobs across the country. In addition to some actors like Zach Galifianakis and J.K. Simmons, Reitman did his research and cast some genuine, recently terminated people for Clooney to fire. These moments and performances are remarkably truthful in their bleakness and emotion. For these scenes alone, Reitman and “Up in the Air” will become a landmark for the ways in which humans face an ever growing problem.

And while the economic theme of the film serves as a mighty overtone, I have not even begun to discuss the psychological depth Reitman’s screenplay has. The film provides Ryan Bingham with two reincarnations of himself. “Just think of me as yourself with a vagina,” says Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga), a middle-age pioneer of the air that enjoys comparing car rental plans with Bingham and gets turned on by his American Airlines Concierge Membership Card.

Alex has such a warm demeanor about her character. She serves such a nice role in modeling and embodying the similarities of Bingham to paint him as so much more than a character type. As Alex, Farmiga syncs up perfectly with Bingham’s rapid fire dialogue and witty persona, and it gives Farmiga the first opportunity to really do comedy. Who would have guessed her more solemn, dramatic background could honestly allow her to go head to head with George Clooney, one of the most charming men on the face of the Earth? The two have an excellent chemistry.

Then there is Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), a hotshot straight from Cornell hoping to revolutionize the art of firing people, modeling Bingham 20 years ago. Natalie wants to begin firing people through video chat, grounding all the people in the air and saving a fortune on travel fees. Not only will this drastically change Bingham’s life, he feels it is a harsh thing to do to a person in such a tough situation.

But just as much as Natalie will grow under Bingham’s wing, her common dreams of building a relationship and a home life will make Bingham rethink his drifter lifestyle.

The discussion of this topic gives “Up in the Air” its weight. Through the similar personalities and yet polar ideas of both Natalie and Bingham, the film finds a note of great comedy as the two actors let loose their argumentative chops. But it also strikes some dramatic chords in the way the discussion makes us think.

Bingham makes a speech several times throughout the film about living life with an empty backpack. When we jam all the possessions, institutions and even people into our lives, they slow us down like a heavy backpack. Bingham and his lifestyle are idealized throughout the film. We root for the success of his freedom. And although such freedom is unrealistic and ultimately a lonely way of living life, the film does not attempt to completely change Bingham through melodrama and the clichés of love and friendship.

What I got from the film is that the institutions, the traditions and the little things in life, they can be meaningless and are a waste. The people, although they offer the most burdens of all, are the only things worth carrying. To say people and connections are the most significant things a person needs is fairly generic, and “Up in the Air” even challenges that theory. But it also seems to say, “If your backpack is empty, what’s the use in carrying one?”

These were the things I thought about during “Up in the Air,” which is a beautifully cinematic experience, a mature comedic affair and an emotional ordeal. Reitman is one of today’s best directors at getting people thinking. Even his comedy, as “Up in the Air” is rich and funny, is material suited for intelligent people as it has a vein of truth and thought to it.

Of all of Reitman’s leads, Clooney is perhaps the best at making his audience ask questions of his character and performance. Clooney is wonderful here, displaying more charm and conversational physique than ever. But his Ryan Bingham is something Clooney is often not: vulnerable. There is more pain to be sensed here than when he stood in front of his car exploding in “Michael Clayton.”

And the reason for Clooney’s frailty and nakedness is in Ryan Bingham’s bleak future. “Up in the Air’s” ending is a difficult read, but I view it as a rebirth. A rebirth is the service Bingham is offering to all whom he fires. And through his thought provoking screenplay, Reitman is doing the same for his audience.

4 stars