Score: **** out of ***** (A-)
Long Story Short: Prisoners, a film with some big names but relatively little hype, is a thriller with bigger intentions. Directed by newcomer Denis Villeneuve, the lead actors, Jackman and Gyllenhaal, really make the emotional impact and suspense work beautifully. Although the film invites your guesses, it leaves the mystery of whodunnit - and whatwillJackmanbecome - a secret up until the very end. Perhaps too much for parents of young kids to take, but for the rest of you, excellent entertainment.
Well, I guess that was a relatively short "drought" for movie reviews! With the fall film season right around the corner, there should be still more reviews coming in. I'm not expecting a fall season as good as 2012's, but hopefully there will be some interesting movies. Again, in choosing films I tend to balance my interest in the premise and actors with its critical reception. In choosing Prisoners, that balancing weighed heavily on the critics and the actors involved; I don't usually go for missing persons-type films. However, Jackman and Gyllenhaal are great, and Jon Stewart seemed genuinely enthusiastic about the film when interviewing Jackman, so I gave it a try. Prisoners was directed by Denis Villeneuve and stars the aforementioned actors.
Prisoners begins on a gray Thanksgiving day with the Dover family - father Keller (Jackman), mother Grace (Bello), teenaged son Ralph, and young daughter Anna - going to visit fellow nuclear family the Birches. All seems normal, with Mr. Birch trying to loosen up the more serious Mr. Dover, and the families' kids pairing off to play with their closer-age counterpart. Several hours pass, and Keller decides to check on his young daughter, but the older kids haven't seen her or the Birch's young daughter. They quickly check the Dover's home (in the same neighborhood), but they aren't there, either. The older kids bring the parents to check out an RV that the young kids had seemed interested in earlier, but it's gone, too.
Frantic, the families call the police; the search for the kids and the RV begins, with the RV being found within hours. The driver is a strange young man, but also mentally handicapped, and he doesn't understand what's going on. Detective Loki (Gyllenhaal) takes the lead on the case, and tries to reassure the families, particularly Keller, that he is doing everything he can - yet there is frustratingly little to go on. As Loki painstakingly gathers little clues that may or may not go anywhere, Keller decides to pursue the one "lead" that the police have already discounted...
The cast of Prisoners is fantastic, portraying a very realistic set of normal characters thrust into the most stressful of situations. Hugh Jackman as father of missing daughter Anna is a co-lead, and he plays brilliantly against type here. Jackman tends to be either the nice guy, or even when rougher around the edges (Wolverine), is intelligently sarcastic. Keller, however, is a simple, blue-collar family man driven by his emotions. He is a "good guy" in that he is determined to find his daughter, but Jackman does a great job of only slowing realizing the dramatic consequences of his character's actions. Gyllenhaal as Detective Loki is the other co-lead (I'd say they're equally prominent), and although he doesn't get the same level of emotional development, the realism of his acting is extremely impressive. The case evolves from being just another job to a personal quest for him - sounds like a cliche, but Gyllenhaal makes it work like few, if any, others can. Somewhat sullen, or maybe just reserved, Jake still makes Loki a guy you definitely are rooting for.
Paul Dano plays Alex Jones, the mentally handicapped driver of the RV. Wow, does this guy give you the chills every time he appears on screen. It's a fairly small - though crucial - part, and Dano really disappears into it; despite this, Alex is a passive character most important for how the other characters deal with him. There are some other big names in this film, although none have really big roles; Viola Davis and Terrence Howard play the equally stricken Birch parents who are most intriguing when comparing their reactions to the Dovers'. Melissa Leo plays Alex's aunt, and Mario Bello is Mrs. Dover - each has a few important scenes.
Prisoners is ostensibly a thriller, as the characters - and audience - try to solve the crime before it's too late for the victims. But the film is also a deep, intriguing, and disturbing look at how normal people can respond to life-altering events. Both of these aspects are given roughly equal attention, working together nicely and keeping the 2.5 hours running time sufficiently varied. Prisoners is not a horror film, but I felt tense for most of the film, fearing equally either a surprise attack or gruesome discovery at every other turn (the script does a great job of making it come true only often enough to get you to expect it). At the beginning of the film, a very simple but dark musical undertone heightens this tensions immeasurably (didn't notice it later on, but I may just have missed it). It is difficult to get any specific sense of direction, either for the personal or thriller aspects of the film, which I think was a great idea - not just because it makes it harder to guess what will happen next, but also because that's just how life works. If by now you're thinking, boy, this sounds a little too grim for me, fear not: it has a (reasonably) happy, or at least satisfying, ending.
***
Prisoners is a great film, although it falls short of a straight-up "A" for me. As I said, it works very nicely to have both thriller and personal/emotional elements to this film. However, the two kind of go their separate ways as the film progresses, and so when it switches between the two, it's not as smooth a transition as it could be; you're thinking, OK, now what's happening with Keller/Loki now? Also, while I think the ending is good in several ways, it's also a little anticlimactic and ultimately the explanation for the whole crime is maybe a little too neat and not a perfect fit for the rest of the film. Still, I'm basically nitpicking: although the two films are very different, Prisoners shares The Butler's gift of great performances. You just can't wait to see what Keller/Jackman and Loki/Gyllenhaal do next. The suspense is phenomenal, and, while I'd been prepared to witness extensive scenes of brutality, they really show just enough to give you the impression you need and then focus on the mental and emotional aspects again. Final verdict: if you do have small children right now, you may want to hold off on this for the moment (or risk nightmares). Otherwise, highly recommended.
Summer Tennis Season
With good new film releases looking to be sparse for a few weeks, I thought it would be a good time to look back at the summer's tennis season. For my purposes, this will be the span from Wimbledon, at the end of June, through the U.S. Open, which concluded just last weekend. I'll give a recap of those Grand Slam events, then give a little summary of the top men's and women's players.
Wimbledon 2013
This year's tournament was one of the most bizarre in a long time, with upsets and injuries galore in just the first few days. Rafael Nadal: out in the first round (in straight sets!). Serena Williams: overwhelming favorite, out in fourth round. Sara Errani: #5 seed, out in first round. Maria Sharapova: out in second round. John Isner, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, and Victoria Azarenka: retired in second round due to injury. And most shocking of all by far: Roger Federer, seven-time champion, lost in second round. Unbelievable. Without the top players around (especially for the women: #4 Radwanska was the highest seed to make the quarterfinals), Wimbledon was significantly less fun this year.
Meeting in the men's final were top-seed Novak Djokovic and second seed Andy Murray. After not dropping a single set in the tourney, Djokovic was taken to five sets by powerful del Potro before prevailing. Murray also was brought to the brink by unranked Verdasco. In the Finals, it was all Murray as he won in straight sets (6-4, 7-5, 6-4). No one knew what to expect from the women, which ended up seeing #23 Sabine Lisicki and #15 Marion Bartoli in the Final. Lisicki got there by beating the top remaining seed Radwanska in a 9-7 third set. Bartoli got there with little trouble, beating young American Sloane Stephens among others. It was all Bartoli in the final, winning 6-1, 6-4 (she would announce her retirement after the tournament).
U.S. Open 2013
The U.S. Open went much more according to plan. The biggest surprises may have come before it even began, with Tsonga and Sharapova withdrawing due to injuries, and legend Roger Federer getting his lowest seed in years at #7. The seed seemed appropriate, however, when Roger went down in the fourth round, ending his worst summer of tennis in probably more than a decade. Other surprises included former #1 ranked Lleyton Hewitt making the fourth round after taking down del Potro. American men's best hope Isner flamed out in the third round. Errani, Wozniacki and other top 10 women's players lost before round 4, but nothing too shocking happened here.
Djokovic ended up in the Final again - he appeared in each of the Grand Slam finals this year - where he faced Nadal. After #9 seed Wawrinka shocked last year's champ Murray in straight sets, he took Djokovic the distance in five sets before losing. Nadal cruised through in straight sets (never having to face rival Federer). In the Final, Nadal was dominant, winning 6-2, 3-6, 6-4, 6-1. On the women's side, we also ended up with #1 (Serena) versus #2 (Azarenka). Serena torched her way to the Finals, losing three total games in the quarters and semis. Azarenka played a little more against unranked opponents, but still beat them in straight sets. The Final ended up being one of the most competitive in recent women's Grand Slam history - at least in the first two sets, before Williams shut down Azarenka in the final set, 6-1.
Player Notes (# in parentheses is player's current rank):
(1) Novak Djokovic: my favorite player had another strong year, getting to the Finals of each Grand Slam though "only" winning one of them. He started the year at #1 and still is, but Nadal is closing fast. It speaks to just how dominant he was in 2011 that this is considered a somewhat disappointing year, coming up just short at several tournaments, especially the Grand Slams. Djokovic is still great, no question, but even I could tell that he just wasn't playing with the same confidence against top players (esp. Nadal) that he had in that historic 2011 season.
(2) Rafael Nadal: after an injury in the summer of 2012, Nadal missed months and many, including myself, questioned whether he could return to top form. Well, consider that answered. After missing the Australian, Nadal won just about everything, especially on his favored clay surface. Wimbledon was disappointing, but he played better than ever on hard courts, winning master's level events in Canada and Cincinnati before taking the U.S. Open. Remarkable come back season.
(3) Andy Murray: it was an up-and-(mostly)-down year for Murray. After losing to Djokovic again in Australia, Murray struggled in the clay court season, missing the French with an injury. He did win Wimbledon, the first Brit to do so in decades. When the season returned to the hard courts, Murray began to struggle again, though, and his defense of the U.S. Open title ended with a whimper in the quarters. 2012 was his break out year, and Murray will need to continue to stay hungry.
(6) Roger Federer: shocking to see this low a number beside Roger's name. Rumors of his decline have been floating (incorrectly) for several years now, but in 2013 they were warranted. Getting to the semis and quarters in Australia and France was OK, but losing in the 2nd and 4th round respectively at Wimbledon and U.S. Open, historically his strongest tourneys, was shocking. Not only have Djokovic, Nadal and Murray separated themselves from him, but Roger is increasingly vulnerable to non-elite players, too.
(1) Serena Williams: not surprisingly, my least favorite player remains the dominant one in the women's game. Williams had a somewhat slow start to the year, which isn't unusual. She won the big tourneys leading up to and including the French, however. After a shocking loss at Wimbledon, she came back with a vengeance on hard courts, winning Canada, Cincy, and the U.S. Open with little resistance. Azarenka is the only player who can even challenge Serena when she's focused, even at age 31.
(2) Victoria Azarenka: as opposed to Serena, Azarenka got off to a great start in 2013, winning in Australia and some other tourneys. She played well but not great in the clay court season, then got injured at Wimbledon. Azarenka managed to return in the hard court season, getting to the final of both Cincy and the U.S. Open where she lost both to Serena. Azarenka is finally getting more consistent, and has the power and skill to become the top player assuming Serena retires some day.
(3) Maria Sharapova: the first half of the year was strong, just short of great, but the second half has been an utter disaster. From Australia through the French, Sharapova routinely got the the semis or finals - but only managed to win one tourney (Miami), with Serena usually defeating her. Then she lost early at both Wimbledon and on the hard courts at Cincinnati. An injury kept her out of the U.S. Open so, as opposed to Azarenka, Sharapova faces a lot of questions for the rest of the year and 2014.
Score: ****1/2 out of ***** (A)
Long Story Short: This August's buzzy new drama was The Butler, a film praised by many and skewered by others who criticize its historical inaccuracies. I am definitely one of the former, having loved this powerful, Forrest Gump-like story, inaccuracies be damned. Forest (appropriate name) Whitaker gives a magnificent performance as the butler title character, and he's surrounded by a great supporting cast. Ignore the naysayers; this is a film you need to see.
I wanted to get another film review in at the tail end of summer, and I did. Good thing, because it will likely be the first and last of September, one of the worst months for film releases. But that's OK: it's the start of football season, both college and pro. Next week, I will probably do a blog post about the summer of tennis (since the U.S. Open is finishing up this weekend). As far as The Butler, I hadn't even heard of this film up to a few weeks before its release, let alone anticipated it. It soon became one of the summer's most talked about dramas, however, so I looked into it. With a good score on RT and some intriguing reviews, I decided to see it. The Butler was directed by Lee Daniels (Precious) and stars Forest Whitaker and Oprah Winfrey.
Telling his life story as an old man, Cecil (Whitaker) begins with a momentous event in his life as a young boy at a cotton plantation in the 1920s. Following the tragedy that occurs, the elderly caretaker of the plantation takes Cecil in to train him as a house servant. He becomes quite good at it but leaves the plantation, which holds such traumatic memories, as soon as he can. Wandering poor and lost through the South, Cecil is taken in by a benevolent baker, and he uses his one learned skill, serving, to advance quickly to better positions. Cecil meets Gloria (Winfrey) while working in Washington, D.C., and they marry and have two children. What happens next transforms Cecil's life from unlikely to unbelievable: he is hired to work in the White House.
From there, we are taken through Cecil's work at the White House and his life outside it, from 1957 to his retirement thirty years later, to his witness of the first African American elected President of the United States. During these years, Cecil is forced to deal with the conflict between his own relatively comfortable middle-class life and the suffering and injustice experienced by fellow African Americans that he sees not only in the news at the White House but in his own family as well.
The Butler is blessed with a terrific cast, one that embraces the film's script that calls for both nuanced as well as exquisitely raw performances. Forest Whitaker plays Cecil, the film's lead, and he knocks it out of the park. Forest completely disappears into the role of a butler - a remarkable feat for even the best Hollywood actors. His professional skill as a butler - his quiet, dignified respectfulness - informs the way he acts in his personal life. Thus, the few outbursts he does have are that much more powerful. An outstanding performance. Oprah Winfrey, whom I have not seen in any other film role, also does a great job. Her part is of course much smaller, but she plays Forest's/Cecil's wife so naturally that you would think they just cast a couple to play the pair. Like Forest, Oprah keeps her character's emotions restrained for the most part, but as opposed to Cecil, who is passive by training, Gloria is a force to be reckoned with underneath the surface.
David Oyelowo plays Louis, Cecil and Gloria's son, the troublemaker of the family. The part could easily have been overplayed by another eager young actor, but Oyelowo does a great job in varying and controlling his character's large range of emotions. There are some other very nice supporting roles, from Louis' brother and girlfriend/civil rights partner, to Cecil's co-workers (Cuba Gooding, Jr.) and neighbors (Terrence Howard). But the last interesting bit of casting involves the Presidents. Each has a small part but filled by big names: Robin Williams, James Marsden, John Cusack, Alan Rickman, etc. They each slide right into their roles and really work despite seeming to be odd choices.
Being a huge fan of Forrest Gump (top three all-time), I can't help but see this as kin to that film in not only structure but also style. Of course, there is the trip through the second half of 20th century American history following a somewhat obscure yet remarkable individual. Now, Cecil was a real person (actual name: Charles Allen), and I've heard that the film embellishes his life to put it mildly. You can choose to see it as you wish, but I'm satisfied with the mere suggestion of the story being loosely based on his real life. The other similarity is the style; by this I mean that both films are pretty direct about the historical aspects, but more nuanced (and equally if not more powerful) with their main characters' development. Oh, and a third shared aspect I just remembered: both feature soundtracks to match the historical era of the film as it progresses through history (Forrest Gump's being more effective, but The Butler's soundtrack is also very good).
***
It would be one thing if The Butler merely mimicked Forrest Gump in structure and style - and by the way, I have no idea of the director's or writer's intentions, so I'm not saying the similarity was purposeful. But The Butler also has a tone all its own, and the quality is very high, particularly with the performances. And the cultural message, conveyed at a personal level through Cecil, is powerful and quite complex despite being rather overt at times. Should Cecil feel proud that he used the opportunities given to him to provide for himself and his family? Should Cecil feel ashamed that he ignored other opportunities (albeit risky ones) to push for justice for those who started much like him but who ended up as victims? Can/should he be proud and ashamed of his life? Even with these serious themes, The Butler also has a great sense of humor, like Forrest Gump before it. This is what movies are supposed to be, I think: magical, only-in-a-movie, technically unrealistic events molded around the very realistic development of individual characters in ways that we can all sympathize with (even if the life paths that took us to those personal developments are much different). I'll definitely be seeing this one again and may upgrade it to A+. It's probably obvious by now, but I urge you to see this film, whether at the theater or at home.
