Movies

Whether or not to embrace the “Life of Crime”

I returned to Birmingham 8 again this evening to catch Life of Crime, in a deliberate choice to see the new Elmore Leonard adaptation right in the author’s own backyard. It’s a shame Leonard did not live to see this film through to its release, though he receives an “executive producer” credit, as the film was finished shortly before his death last year. The film is set right here in Oakland and Wayne counties in Michigan, but was filmed in Connecticut. I could tell the difference, but also noticed a few Michigan – local touches placed onscreen at random moments, such as a sign for Interstate 696.

The filmmakers ought to have licensed my friend Zach’s same-titled song for use at some point during the movie. Instead they rely on a series of tunes from the 70’s, when the film is set, and an appropriately vintage tinged music score by the Newton Brothers.

life of crime posterThe film serves as an origin story for three characters also seen in Rum Punch/Jackie Brown (another Leonard story), previously played by Samuel L. Jackson, Robert DeNiro and Bridget Fonda, and portrayed here by Mos Def, John Hawkes and Isla Fisher. This story doesn’t make an overt attempt to tie the characters together, or match the portrayal to the previous actor, but I found it fun to know how “they aged” and are seen later on “in their lives”, since Jackie Brown (which I saw again in the theatre earlier this year) takes place 20 years after these events. And I’m sure that if the viewer looked closer at this portrayal, there may indeed be some links to tie it to the later story.

As it is, the main story of this film follows Mickey, a suburban housewife somewhere in Oakland County who is at wits end with her older husband, played by Tim Robbins. Circumstances leave Mickey at home one day, where she is kidnapped (not a spoiler) by Def and Hawkes over to a nearby house and essentially held for ransom. Meanwhile, her husband has flown down to the Bahamas to meet up with “friend” Melanie (Fisher) and other dubious associates. The characters find themselves in an increasingly complicated web where actions are not what they seem and there are several switchbacks leading towards a winking finale.

I found the film to be redeemed by its third act. Prior to the story setting up its conclusion, things with Mickey and her captors pitted against her husband and associates seemed to be going in an increasingly predictable and slightly unpleasant line. However, Melanie introduces a series of complications — as she also does, later, in Jackie Brown — that take the story to an unpredictable and wacky edge. This last third is also where Aniston is given her best opportunity to shine, as the earlier part of the story finds her seeming dour and confused.

An unrecognizable Will Forte isn’t given much chance to show his comedy roots in a mostly serious supporting role as “a family friend” who has eyes for Aniston. Robbins, looking much older, carries effective presence in his scenes, but seems to drift in and out of the story. Another reviewer pointed out that the role directly contradicts Robbins’ well – known sociopolitical views, but that is what we do for our art… Getting back to the earlier point, I feel that the trio of Hawkes, Def and Fisher fare the best throughout the film, especially in their last few scenes when they can relax in the roles and be in on the joke.

On the whole the film only seems to settle in that last third. If the filmmakers had set up this tone earlier, and let the pieces fall into place in more of a coy manner, along the lines of Get Shorty, they would have done themselves a favor. I think the film is still worth seeing in a “wait for the video” type of way and with an awareness of the unevenness. And if Def, Hawkes and Fisher want to team up with Jackson, DeNiro and Fonda, they’d really have some fun.

Standard
Movies

You’ve seen this type of story before, but what if you see it again

The previously mentioned What If, which I really ought to have written about sooner after catching it on the big screen August 17th, served as my final filmgoing as an Ann Arbor resident and final film prior to returning to academic life. It was a fittingly optimistic and fresh finale.

what ifThe contemporary story finds Daniel Radcliffe and Zoe Kazan living among people their age in Toronto, which is seen as the hip, multicultural, walkable city it really is. Radcliffe portrays a med school dropout who is disillusioned with life and not finding focus in what he wants. He attends a party one night and starts talking with Kazan, who happens to be a distant relative of his roommate (Adam Driver) although they have not gotten to meet before. The two of them seem to hit it off, and then Kazan’s parting shot of “it was great to meet you, but I’ve got to get home to my boyfriend!” seemingly throws an arrow on the evening.

It would be a short film if they left it at that, and so the rest of the story follows the unlikely couple as they continue to get to know each other better after an initial re-meeting following the party, and whether or not their connection will blossom into something more, and if either of them truly want to get to know each other as more than friends — and possibly change their lives along the way. A subplot develops with Driver’s character settling down with a vivacious blonde (Mackenzie Davis) after several years of serial dating, while Kazan’s sister (Megan Park) casts her own opinion of Radcliffe and the situation, and her boyfriend (Rafe Spall) tries to make sense of it all.

The freshness of the story, from Kazan’s character’s profession (an animator) and Radcliffe’s consistently game, committed approach to his scenes, along with a chirpy soundtrack from AC Newman and appealing emphasis on the real streets and locations of Toronto, kept it engaging, even as it veered towards a somewhat inevitable positive conclusion. And the story didn’t shy from hints of “real world” or “real life” drama, as Kazan worked hard in her portrayal to emphasize the many choices thrown at her character, while Driver and Davis used their limited screen time to give a broad, but charming portrayal of their life as a couple.

And of course it’s great to see Radcliffe getting more comfortable as he continues to put distance from his Harry Potter role. His performance here may be his most engaging non-HP portrayal yet, and he seemed relatable, which is key for a modern comedy-drama/romantic comedy, like he just walked off the screen and down the street outside the cinema.

(I wouldn’t have minded seeing it under its original Canadian title, The F Word, and it’s playing right across the river in Windsor under that guise. No surprise that US audiences don’t like risqué film titles.)

 

Standard
Movies, Theatre

Live with John Cleese in Santa Barbara (a memory from May 2008)

My previous post reminded me of That Time I saw John Cleese live in person, which I wrote up on LiveJournal soon after the fact. Here it is again:

Went back down to Santa Barbara on Thursday night to catch a special event on the UCSB campus: Mr. John Cleese introducing a screening of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, followed by a question and answer session with Cleese. It wasn’t quite what I expected it to be, though worth the trip, and it was delightful to experience such a hearty dose of British wit that I’ve been missing. Cleese himself was on fine form despite being in a wheelchair due to a recent muscle injury. In fact, his wit was so sharp and very funny that I decided to write down what he was saying. Here are some soundbites.

“This movie was filmed in Scotland, a tiny area north of England.”

(On his in-process divorce): “I gave her $155,000 – can she live on that?”

“It is extremely good for people in their 20’s to be very uncomfortable.”

(Before the film started) “I’m off to a banquet. We’re eating far better than you.”

Audience Member: “Uhhh….”
Cleese: “Do you speak English?”

(On SPAMALOT) “The play was directed by Mike Nichols. He’s been around for 400 years! The late 50’s was just after the Second World War.”

“I get $5000 a year for being God.”

“I will possibly get married again. I’ll find someone I don’t like and buy her a house”

(On his wife’s spending habits) “I have an idea for a new show. Lifestyles of the Seriously Demented.”

Audience Member, about to ask a question: “John?!”
Cleese: “Who said you could call me John? It’s fucking Professor Cleese. It makes me feel so smart.”
(Laughter, then:)
Audience Member: “Fucking Professor Cleese?”
(More laughter.)

(On a moment while making the film) “There was a silence, as though someone had said let’s all go fuck Queen Elizabeth.”

“That’s a very good question, and I don’t think I can tell you the answer.”

“I love those kind of flattering words.”

“Would a drugstore have any cheese? It would be medical cheese. You would need a prescription.”

“Most of the really interesting people are here in America, where you can make things better.”

“What a fucking marvelous man.”

Standard
Uncategorized

Visual comfort food

I really ought to write a detailed post about my longtime relationship with The Avengers (no, not that movie) – the 1960’s era British television show. I’ve been fortunate to see several of the leading stars of the series (Diana Rigg, Honor Blackman, Joanna Lumley) live onstage.

In the present day, the show continues to have timeless appeal for me as a sort of visual comfort food, meaning that I keep the DVDs close at hand, but don’t always turn them on. But when I do, I can sit back, and enjoy, and even look at the individual episodes with refreshed eyes, since I have been watching some of them semi – regularly for 24 years. The show remains popular thanks to its blend of wit, style and unique storytelling. 

And so tonight I was oddly drawn to the series’ most polarizing episode, with its most ridiculous title: Look – (stop me if you’ve heard this one) but there were these two fellers.

fellers1b

This story is one of the early episodes of the series’ final season, filmed in 1968, and finds John Steed and Tara King on the trail of a series of bizarre murders of businessmen across London. Various clues point towards culprits in the comedy industry, and the two agents are hot on their trail to see where it all connects. Along the way, they meet a handful of British comedy stars known and unknown at the time, including a pre-Monty Python John Cleese, and Bernard Cribbins.

The villains’ actions are accompanied by a distinctive piece of music that I recall often imitating when i first saw the episode as an impressionable six year old during the series’ rebroadcast on A&E in 1990. In a dramatic sense, the musical accompaniment of the episode doesn’t seem to register until close to the end, when composer Laurie Johnson chooses to insert music originally seen in an earlier season episode into this particular story. (Prior to that, there’s much repetition of a somber, grey theme broken up by the jaunty villain music.)

I could write for quite a while on the art of periodically revisiting these TV episodes. I think it’s interesting that the “lesser known” (to the popular opinion) stories are more appealing to me as time goes on – as in preferring the Linda Thorson season to the Diana Rigg episodes. And, with a more refined artistic sensibility, i notice various acting and story choices that I would not have caught at all in my younger years.

For instance, this episode is bogged down with a lengthy sequence about two-thirds of the way through the story. Tara King is assigned to protect a businessman in danger, and long story short, she doesn’t succeed. Their banter is awkwardly protracted and the story seems to forget about the more interesting villain characters. The Tara King character is also at her most naive here, while later episodes in this long season, which was filmed over a 15 month period between late 1967 and early 1969, show Tara as more confident and experienced.

For The Avengers at its most endearingly self – referential, see here:

Standard
Movies, Theatre

From the archives: Equus in London, March 2007

Intending to write a commentary about Daniel Radcliffe’s recent film What If, I instead found myself recalling when I saw him perform live onstage at the Gielgud Theatre in London, in a role that drew significant media attention. Thankfully, I wrote about the performance on LiveJournal a few days later…

This production lives up to the hype, in nearly all elements. Coming into the Gielgud Theatre with a significantly better seat than when I saw Frost/Nixon, I was immediately struck by the scope of the set. A plain proscenium stage had been turned into an almost theatre-in-the-round style area, with a central elevated level that could be turned if needed surrounded by openings off stage, symbolizing stable doors, and also, perhaps, different tracks of life from which Alan and Dysart could proceed onto when the show concluded. There were also audience members seated above the stage in a semi-circle to continue the effect of observation. Lighting design stood out from the beginning, as the show opened with Radcliffe proceeding centre stage with one of the horses (actually a performer in costume with a large head of a horse) and being symbolically isolated from all, just a kid and his horse.

Richard Griffiths came onstage as soon as the play began and almost never went off, requiring great concentration on his and the audiences parts. But he succeeded in so many ways, stepping in front of Radcliffe’s press-attention (as other reviewers have noted) to deliver a complex portrayal of Martin Dysart, sympathetic psychotherapist. In Griffiths’ hands, Dysart became a warm filter, or magnifying glass, through which the audience could observe and comment on the actions of the play. He also conveyed Dysart’s shifting motivations and impassions over the course of the story. Initially he was eager to take on a new client and thought that he could relatively easily break through to Alan, leaving the job done and the Strang family reunited together again. But in the reality of the narrative, Dysart only continues to be more and more buried in his work, developing more and more distance from what little home life he has and throwing himself into talking with his clients. This predicament was both noble and tragic, and Griffiths’ slightly remorseful line inflictions highlighted his character’s personal challenges throughout the show.

Daniel Radcliffe deserves enormous kudos for being bold enough to step out of the Harry Potter typecasting into a role so different from what his fans (and critics) are accustomed to seeing him in. He almost completely pulled off the part, in my opinion. I’m sure that he could project from experience in the early scenes of Alan demonstrating his jaded-teenagerdom life and his disdain for his family and friends. However, the characterization often seemed to end there. When Alan was supposed to be younger, or more intimate with his friends and family, Radcliffe continued to speak in a forceful tone (not quite a monotone, more of a vocal strain) that showed his built up anguish, but not his scared-ness beneath that anxiety. I wanted to see him dive deeper into the psychological problems that Alan faces. However, I suspect (or hope) that his character investigations might continue as the show’s run goes along. He remained completely committed and in the moment with the stage actions, especially in the scenes that are causing the most controversy. Also, the relationship between him and Richard Griffiths was strongly balance – counterbalanced in their scenes together. At the curtain call it was clear that they are dependent on each other but enjoying the process, as they preceded centre-stage with their arms around each other, like a grandparent-grandson relationship might be.

The rest of the cast was somewhat victimized by the thinly-drawn nature of the supporting characters in the script. However, Jenny Auggiter (as the magistrate), Joanna Christie (as Alan’s girlfriend), and Jonathan Cullen (Alan’s dad) all invested meaningful levels of psychological realism in their portrayals. All three of them carefully balanced a level of character inquiry and being in the moment with a full awareness that in reality there would not be a clear, immediate resolution to the plot.

In conclusion, this version of Equus is a compelling evening of theatre. Although it’s not quite as good as the hype machine may have lead you to believe, it certainly lives up to the publicity, and Griffiths’ and Radcliffe’s double-act stands high as a professional theatre example of actorly collaboration and rich investment in full dramatic art.

Standard
Movies, Theatre

The music brings me back to the Playhouse

As part of an extended stay back on my family homeland of Martha’s Vineyard, I was excited to attend a show at the Vineyard Playhouse, the island’s resident professional theatre, for the first time in several years.

playhouse

This show, Search: Paul Clayton, took a historical docudrama look at an individual who was involved with Bob Dylan’s early career and genesis as a musician. Sadly, Clayton committed suicide in 1967 at the age of 36. He had humble beginnings here in Massachusetts (New Bedford) and then developed an affinity for the state of Virginia after attending school in the Charlottesville area. Later, he migrated for New York City and the early days of the folk music movement, where he remained until his untimely death.

The story focuses on Clayton’s music and some personal entanglements in a manner reminiscent of the recent film Inside Llewyn Davis. However, this story is ultimately told in a more upbeat way, in spite of Clayton’s personal difficulties and challenging social relationships. We meet his parents, briefly, a few of his New York acquaintances, and most importantly, the young singer Bob Dylan, played with winsome charm by Jared Weiss. Peter Oyloe as Clayton shifts back and forth between a narrator role and embodying Clayton. The show also includes a nod to the digital media age (I assume that’s how it was intended) in an early sequence using computer projected images and a digitized voice. The projection elements contribute to the story for about three-quarters of the show, most notably in a back projected road trip sequence.

While I sometimes have mixed opinions about musicals, this one moved right along, for the most part, and was carried by the commitment of its actors and uniqueness of the staging, with minimal props and a simple proscenium stage. It seems to be an excellent way for the recently renovated Playhouse to show off their new capabilities and facilities following a renovation.

I might have enjoyed it more if the songs all contributed to the advancement of the story (some did and some didn’t) and if the script chose to end at the downbeat suicidal moment, which is portrayed on stage. The ensemble demonstrates a tight cohesion in their musical performances, and some members slip in and out of different characters, which was entertaining if not always clear. Special credit must be given to Jaime Babbitt for a gusto-filled performance which she wasn’t shy of enlivening with a classic New York accent.

_______________

Music was also a central theme of the late – summer blockbuster Guardians of the Galaxy, which I caught with a friend in Maine at the beginning of this week. The film followed a familiar template origin story for its ragtag band of heroes, and it’s inevitable that a sequel will soon appear for the team. However, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a big studio film that took such an unusual approach to incorporating music into its plot, and I’m sure that will stand out the most in my memory of the film.

Standard
Movies

Boyhood – a tribute to and exploration of life

I was very pleased to catch Boyhood on its opening day (Friday) at the Michigan Theater in an “exclusive Ann Arbor area engagement.” It’s amazing and impressive that a film like this stayed under the radar for so long (at least to the general public) until its release was confirmed sometime late last year or earlier this year.

The genesis behind the movie is now well – known, and so I won’t recap it here. I will add that the storyline achieves its goal of serving as a narrative time capsule of the past 10 – 12 years. Somehow director Richard Linklater had the foresight to offer lingering shots on various cultural objects – whether a Game Boy, older model car, Harry Potter release party, a bulky cordless landline phone, hit song from a particular year, etc – that the audience can recognize and relate to, or in some cases laugh at and be like “wow, I can’t believe I used that, or that thing was so common back then.”

From the very first shot of the movie, we are right there with the development and growth of Mason, played by Ellar Coltrane. The film tracks the journey of, but never feels like a spectator in, Mason and his family’s growth over the next 12 years. We meet his older sister Samantha (Lorelei Linklater), his mother (Patricia Arquette) and his distant father (Ethan Hawke). The parents are divorced with the mother taking primary custody, and her career and life path initially dictates the geographical range of the film as they move across Texas, the kids’ father comes in and out of their life, As Mason matures, he moves into the more direct focus of the narrative, and the last third or so of the film focuses on his own development in claiming an artistic life and stepping off on his own – into interpersonal relationships, career development, and a new life in college.

This was easily the most humane movie I’ve seen since Toy Story 3, with its tear-jerker of an ending, back in 2010. And this film touches the heart in a similar and different way, showing that life is relatable in its small, poignant, important moments, and drawing emotional truth, recognition and reflection from those same narrative themes.

On an industry – watcher note, it’s fascinating to see known actors Arquette and Hawke age on-screen; we can chart their growth in individual films over the years, of course, but never before in the same movie. Meanwhile, Coltrane and the younger Linklater mature into thoughtful young people, with a reflective poignancy present in their earlier in life scenes. Several actors move in and out of the narrative, and I wondered what that must have been like to come back to a project after a gap, or leave it after a year or two of working on it.

The film offers a fuller view of Texas than is usually seen on screen. Linklater directs with a steady hand, never letting a particular moment or theme overwhelm the narrative, or the story to be taken over by sentimentality or something that isn’t rooted in realism.

Best film of my year so far. I’m sure it will be hard to top. I almost don’t want to see another film this year after seeing this one.

boyhood cast

The cast and director as seen at the recent New York premiere.

Standard
Movies

A most missed man

most wanted manEarlier this week I returned to the State Theatre to catch current release A Most Wanted Man, which is notable, in an unfortunate and unforeseen (of course) way, for offering the last starring role of Philip Seymour Hoffman. The stars promoted the film at Sundance earlier this year, just a few short weeks before Hoffman’s sad and widely – covered in the media death. The film proceeded with its release, though it’s unclear to me how large of a rollout it will get.

The movie is not the action packed drama teased in the trailer, but instead takes a more thoughtful and process – oriented approach to its storyline. Eventually the events proceed in a manner similar to, but not quite as stylistically pleasing as, the adaption of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, written by the same author. This film lacks a compelling narrative structure that has made some of the author’s other works, most notably The Constant Gardener, more memorable in their cinematic adaptations.

Nonetheless, the story remains timely and topical. Hoffman takes the central role as Günther Bachmann, head of a Hamburg, Germany based spying agency. Bachmann and his associates, which include character actor Daniel Bruhl, are charged with monitoring a Chechen immigrant who has recently arrived in Germany via illegal means. The immigrant, Issa, has business he wants to attend to with a local banker (Willem Defoe) while his situation attracts the attention of a young lawyer played by Rachel McAdams. Meanwhile, Gunther deals with increasing tensions between himself and fellow CIA/Stasi-type operatives, including an American representative played by Robin Wright. While it’s great that Wright’s involvement with House of Cards has given her a reinvigorated career profile, her role here seems too similar to that show, and it feels like her distracting brunette bob was an afterthought attempt by the producers to further differentiate her character. The “and” credit before her name is a further giveaway that her role will not be central to the plot but will come in at a few key scenes.

As for the rest of the cast, the marquee names acquit themselves well. Dafoe offers a tonal opposite from his role in The Grand Budapest Hotel earlier this year, and where he’s someone I often think of as playing villainous or “heavy” type characters, this role’s emphasis on uncertainty and more emotional angles seemed to be a refreshing change of pace. McAdams doesn’t seem to have aged at all since her initial breakthrough roles 10 years ago (!) and presents a mostly-convincing German accent for her scenes. Her infectious smile and good humor, widely used in other films, are rarely seen here.

Hoffman performs his role in German – accented English and displays the same unrivaled intensity that made him so renowned and acclaimed in the business. His absence hangs over the film like a melancholic cloud from the beginning, although I found myself getting immersed in the story and forgetting, for a bit, about the outside circumstances around him. The evocative final shot of the film is a fitting finale for his cinematic presence. (He will return, however, in the upcoming Hunger Games continuing chapters.)

The film’s problem lies in its lack of a compelling storyline. And while Issa ultimately becomes the central character, the “most wanted man,” the character is seen almost completely in solemn, very serious scenes, and given little room to grow or develop empathy with the viewer, which may be a joint fault between the writer and the performer. The situation with Issa is established with urgency, and there is a strong opening sequence establishing the character’s arrival in Hamburg, the security presence in the city, and why the characters might be interested in following Issa. But things slow waaaay down after that, and it’s difficult to sustain interest in what the story holds for the characters. However, some twists and turns involving the lawyer, and who knows what in relation to whom, ultimately manage to keep things interesting.

The film is drenched in ominous colors of grey, black and steel. As I noted above, the characters rarely break a smile. There is an intriguing balance of power constantly shifting and changing gears in the story. But the film as a whole has to be one that you are in the mood for, with lots of gloom and seriousness and definitely not a choice for a light night out.

Standard
Movies

First films of my 30s

After a birthday-related filmgoing and local hiatus, I returned to Southeast Michigan on Thursday evening, ready to resume my summer filmgoing in what’s become the season of the anti-blockbuster, both for me and, somewhat, for the national box office.

I suddenly remembered that Garden State was the first film I’d seen of my 20s, back at the good ol Embassy Cinema in Waltham, MA, and so it seemed natural that Zach Braff’s new release, Wish I Was Here, take the honor of the first film of my 30s.

On a side note, I later saw Garden State again at the Odeon West End in London on its UK premiere later in 2004, with Braff and Natalie Portman in attendance, and members of the band Zero 7 sitting in the same row as me. I recall enjoying the sensation of already knowing the film was memorable and on its way to being a cult classic.

I’m not sure Wish I Was Here will enjoy that same reputation. I haven’t followed Braff’s career closely in the last 10 years, but he seems to have had some natural ups and downs, and his decision to Kickstart the film may also haunt him.

I struggled if and how to summarize the film, having originally began this review on Friday, but will plow ahead now on Monday afternoon.

hudson braff

Braff stars as Aidan, a down on his luck actor in the Los Angeles suburbs who is getting by on the patient goodwill of his wife (Kate Hudson) and financial support from his father (Mandy Patinkin) to make sure his two children proceed with their education at a local Jewish school. But, in an inciting event, Aidan learns his father has developed a terminal illness, thus forcing Aidan and Sarah to find new ways to support their family. This quickly leads to a new arrangement where Aidan takes over as homeschool teacher of the children, while trying to navigate the tricky emotional ground accompanying his father’s illness and a tense relationship with his underachieving brother, played by Josh Gad.

The movie is an overstuffed mixed bag, with several well – filmed vistas of Los Angeles and surrounding Southern California areas giving way to an overly complicated plot that ought to have been run through a simplification machine. While some reports suggest that Braff sought his Kickstarter funding in order to make the movie “he wanted,” I agree with other claims suggesting that he should have proceeded with additional edits, particularly around an unnecessary thread that has his character reimagined as a valiant superhero. Those sequences loosely tie in with an additional plot thread for Gad’s character to attend Comic Con and demonstrate extreme nerdness. Such inclusions fade into somewhat awkwardly placed, though heartfelt, family sequences, concerning Patinkin’s character, Hudson’s job and the educational plight of the children. Braff and Hudson are allowed two scenes as a couple that are refreshingly simple and intimate; both are highlights of the film.

Only Hudson rises above the material, in a surprising comeback-worthy performance showing sympathy, empathy and grace, seemingly many distances away from her earlier romantic comedy work. I found myself initially irritated by Patinkin’s monotone-type performance, but have appreciated its subtleties in thinking about the film as a whole.

The anticipation surrounding the film reminds me of similar circumstances surrounding Braff’s 2006 vehicle The Last Kiss, also awaited with anticipation and received tepidly following its release that fall. I never saw the movie, but they both make clear that filmmakers face steep challenges in living up to an acclaimed early work.

Returning to the Ann Arbor 20 earlier today for this weekend’s top film helped me to find the motivation to complete the earlier musings. My friend Gabe also posted comments on the same film today.

scarlett lucy

 

Scarlett Johansson headlines Lucy, a both simple and high-concept tale from director Luc Besson treading some of Besson’s favorite narrative themes (see La Femme Nikita, The Professional, The Fifth Element, et al) and some other recent films exploring the power of the human mind including 2011’s Limitless, along with action-heroine films such as Johansson’s own Avengers contributions and others like Saoirse Ronan’s Hanna.

For Johansson the role continues an impressive series of recent performances that really ought to be linked in their thematic and character similarities. (In this film, the phrase “under the skin” is even included within one of her lines.) The actress has capably shown that she’s ready and willing to step beyond her sex symbol image and move into a new phase of her career where she opens a film on her name alone and carries the content energetically from starting reel to closing scene.

This story follows the travails of Lucy, an American tourist in Taiwan who finds herself thrust into murky circumstances around drug smuggling and modest espionage in the country. She’s selected against her will, along with three hapless men, for inclusion in a drug testing program stretching the limits of the human brain to use 100% of its potential. After some initial awkward adjustments to her enhanced capabilities, Lucy embraces her powers with a mixture of assertiveness, curiosity and dread, but the smugglers are still on her trail as she hooks up with some French would-be Interpol agents.

Morgan Freeman co-stars (in a somewhat thankless role) as a brain scientist whom Lucy identifies as the one she wants to interact with and present her case to. Eventually all roads lead to Freeman and associates’ laboratory, conveniently in Paris.

The film is augmented by a light sense of fanaticism, as seen in Besson’s inclusion of multiple stock footage excerpts focusing on human evolution, and a sequence near the end of the film where Lucy bends the narratives of space and time. As well, the scenes are interrupted to show Lucy’s progression towards using 100% of her brain capabilities in a total comic-book style design.

While not a super weighty nor completely original cinematic work, this film is worth noting for Besson “returning to form” and embracing his cinematic roots, a keen sense of design and enthusiasm in the work, and, as I noted above, Johansson continuing to develop a new assertiveness in her performances that will undoubtedly serve her well in the future.

Standard