Laura (1944) *****

A film review by Roger Ebert on January 20, 2002.

I’ve seen Otto Preminger‘s Laura three or four times, but the identity of the murderer doesn’t spring quickly to mind. That’s not because the guilty person is forgettable but because the identity is so arbitrary: It is not necessary that the murderer be the murderer. Three or four other characters would have done as well, and indeed if it were not for Walter Winchell we would have another ending altogether. More about that later.

Film noir is known for its convoluted plots and arbitrary twists, but even in a genre that gave us The Maltese Falcon, this takes some kind of prize. Laura (1944) has a detective who never goes to the station [and drinks while he is on duty]; a suspect who is invited to tag along as other suspects are interrogated; a heroine who is dead for most of the film; a man insanely jealous of a woman even though he never for a moment seems heterosexual; a romantic lead who is a dull-witted Kentucky bumpkin moving in Manhattan penthouse society, and a murder weapon that is returned to its hiding place by the cop, who will come by for it in the morning. The only nude scene involves the jealous man and the cop.

That Laura continues to weave a spell — and it does — is a tribute to style over sanity. No doubt the famous musical theme by David Raksin has something to do with it: The music lends a haunted, nostalgic, regretful cast to everything it plays under, and it plays under a lot. There is also Clifton Webb’s narration, measured, precise, a little mad: I shall never forget the weekend Laura died. A silver sun burned through the sky like a huge magnifying glass. It was the hottest Sunday in my recollection. I felt as if I were the only human being left in New York. For Laura’s horrible death, I was alone. I, Waldo Lydecker, was the only one who really knew her.

It is Clifton Webb’s performance as Waldo Lydecker that stands at the heart of the film, with Vincent Price, as Laura’s fiancee Shelby Carpenter, nibbling at the edges like an eager spaniel. Both actors, and Judith Anderson as a neurotic friend, create characters who have no reality except their own, which is good enough for them. The hero and heroine, on the other hand, are cardboard. Gene Tierney, as Laura, is gorgeous, has perfect features, looks great in the stills, but never seems emotionally involved; her work in Leave Her to Heaven (1945) is stronger, deeper, more convincing. Dana Andrews, as Detective Mark McPherson, stands straight, chain-smokes, speaks in a monotone, and reminded the studio head Daryl F. Zanuck of an agreeable schoolboy. As actors, Tierney and Andrews basically play eyewitnesses to scene-stealing by Webb and Price.

This was Clifton Webb’s first big starring role and his first movie role of any kind since 1930. He was a stage actor who refused the studio’s demand for a screen test; Otto Preminger, who began by producing the film and ended by directing it, in desperation filmed Webb on a Broadway stage and showed that to Zanuck. He doesn’t walk, he flies, an underling told Zanuck, but Webb, who had a mannered camp style, impressed Zanuck and got the role. Vincent Price creates an accent somewhere between Kentucky and Transylvania for his character, who is tall and healthy and inspires Waldo Lydecker to complain to Laura: With you, a lean strong body is the measure of a man.

Lydecker is lean but not strong. Webb was 55 when he played the role, Tierney 24. A similar age difference was no problem for Bogart and Bacall, but between Webb and Tierney it must be said there is not the slightest suggestion of chemistry. He is a bachelor critic and columnist (said to be modeled after Alexander Wolcott), and the first time we see him he is sitting in his bathtub, typing. This is after Laura’s body has been found murdered with shotgun blasts, and the detective comes to question her closest friend.

The scene develops with more undercurrents than surface, as McPherson enters the bathroom, glances at Lydecker, seems faintly amused. Then Lydecker swings the typewriter shelf away, so that it shields his nudity from the camera but not from the detective. Waldo stands up, off screen, and a reaction shot shows McPherson glancing down as Lydecker asks him to pass a bathrobe. Every time I see the movie, I wonder what Preminger is trying to accomplish with this scene. There is no suggestion that Lydecker is attracted to McPherson, and yet it seems odd to greet a police detective in the nude.

Lydecker is Laura’s Svengali. In flashbacks, we follow the progress of their relationship. He snubs her in the Algonquin dining room, then apologizes, becomes her friend, and takes over her life, chooses her clothes, redoes her hair, introduces her to the right people, promotes her in his column. They spend every night together out on the town, except Tuesdays and Fridays, when Waldo cooks for her at home. Then other men enter the picture, and leave again as Waldo blasts them in his column. Big, dumb Shelby with his lean, strong body is the latest and most serious threat. Considering this Waldo-Shelby-Laura love triangle, it occurs to me that the only way to make it psychologically sound would be to change Laura into a boy.

The movie basically consists of well-dressed rich people standing in luxury flats and talking to a cop. The passion is unevenly distributed. Shelby and Laura never seem to have much heat between them. Waldo is possessive of Laura, but never touches her. Ann Treadwell (Anderson), a society dame, lusts for Shelby but has to tell him or he’d never know. And Detective McPherson develops a crush on the dead woman. There is an extraordinary scene where he enters her apartment at night, looks through her letters, touches her dresses, sniffs her perfume, pours himself a drink from her bottle and sits down beneath her enormous portrait, which is placed immodestly above her own fireplace. It’s like a date with a ghost.

McPherson’s investigation and his ultimate revelations are handled in an offhand way, for a 1940s crime picture. He is forever leading people to believe they’re going to be charged, and then backing off. Lydecker asks to tag along as the cop interviews suspects; murder is his favorite crime, and I like to study their reactions. Astonishingly, McPherson lets him. This is useful from a screenplay point of view, since otherwise McPherson would be mostly alone.

All of these absurdities and improbabilities somehow do not diminish the film’s appeal. They may even add to it. Some of the lines have become unintentionally funny, James Naremore writes in More than Night: Film Noir in its Contexts,Where ‘Laura’ is concerned, the camp effect is at least partly intended – any movie that puts Clifton Webb, Judith Anderson and Vincent Price in the same drawing room is inviting a mood of fey theatricality [a flamboyant, affected, and sometimes deliberately campy style of performance].

The story of Preminger’s struggle to get the movie made has become Hollywood legend. As he tells it in his autobiography, Zanuck saw him as a producer, not a director, and assigned Rouben Mamoulian to the piece. When the early rushes were a disaster, Preminger stepped in, reshot many scenes, replaced the sets, and fought for the screenplay. Zanuck insisted that another ending be shot; the film was screened for Zanuck and his pal Walter Winchell, a real gossip columnist, who said he didn’t understand the ending. So Zanuck let Preminger have his ending back, and while the business involving the shotgun in the antique clock may be somewhat labored, the whole film is of a piece: contrived, artificial, mannered, and yet achieving a kind of perfection in its balance between low motives and high style. What makes the movie great, perhaps, is the casting. The materials of a B-grade crime potboiler are redeemed by Waldo Lydecker, walking through every scene as if afraid to step in something. [Ebert's rating: 4 out of 4 stars]

Labels: crime, drama, film-noir, mystery
IMDb 79/100 
RottenTomatoes (critics=100, viewers=90) 
Blu-ray 
Roger Ebert's original review 

The Thursday Murder Club (2025) [PG-13] ****

A film review by Jocelyn Noveck for AP on August 27, 2025.


First of all, is this really what retirement looks like?

If so, perhaps we should all sign up, no matter our age. In The Thursday Murder Club, an amiable, cozy, pleasantly entertaining adaptation of Richard Osman’s mystery novel, the lucky club members live in a retirement home that resembles Downton Abbey.

The food at this dreamy manor house nestled in the English countryside is scrumptious, with a choice of wines at lunch. The apartments are huge, the antiques tasteful, the archery and life-drawing classes top-notch. And the emotional support animals are llamas. Yes, llamas.

This is the setting, quaintly called Coopers Chase, in which four retirees, led by Helen Mirren in her no-nonsense plaid blazers, depart from yoga and Sudoku each week to consider cold cases. Old folks solving cases — and outthinking police — is nothing new in our popular culture. Let’s recall Murder, She Wrote, in which Angela Lansbury’s Jessica Fletcher solved cases in tiny Cabot Cove, Maine — where close to 300 murders somehow occurred during the show’s 12-year run.

The crime-busting seniors in The Thursday Murder Club, directed by Chris Columbus, are nowhere near that fortunate in terms of body count. But they approach their weekly meetings with gusto. Mirren’s Elizabeth has skills from a career in international affairs (smells like espionage). Pierce Brosnan’s Ron is former trade unionist, and Ben Kingsley’s Ibrahim a former psychiatrist. As we begin, the trio is considering a case from the ’70s in which a woman fell out a window under mysterious circumstances.

But they need medical expertise, and thus they recruit new resident Joyce (Celia Imrie), an expert baker and former trauma nurse. We meet her as she’s showing off the grounds to her haughty daughter, who manages a hedge fund and can’t eat Mom’s cakes because she’s perimenopausal. Everybody’s doing llamas these days, Mum, she says, unimpressed with the surroundings.

But Joyce is thrilled to join the club, and even more thrilled when, one morning, news comes that an actual murder has occurred — a co-owner of Coopers Chase, actually. Now we’ve got a real case to solve! she gushes, with Disco Inferno suddenly playing on the soundtrack (that’s a little much), as she pulls Ron from aqua aerobics for a meeting. Isn’t it wonderful!

But no, it isn’t all wonderful — the deceased had promised to protect the retirees from the plans of another co-owner to demolish the home and make an event space. The shady Ian Ventham (David Tennant) also intends to uproot the cemetery. Ron organizes a noisy protest. And then, yet another murder happens.

Naomi Ackie is appealing as a police officer who aches for exciting work, and Daniel Mays is very funny as her clueless boss. As for the plot – well, the rather dry storyline is not what brings pleasure here.

No, that pleasure is derived from seeing these veterans strut their stuff, foremost among them Mirren. (Kingsley, alas, gets almost no good lines). Her most delicious moment is a direct nod to her Oscar-winning role as a different Elizabeth. Heading out on an incognito mission with Joyce, she dons a silk headscarf, a comfy cardigan, a tartan skirt and a walking stick. You look like the Queen! notes her husband. Do I? she asks, cheekily.

But moments later, on the bus with Joyce, Elizabeth has a scene that rings false. Reading a text message, she asks her friend: What does WTF mean? Joyce explains, loudly, what it means, saying she learned it from her daughter. A young mother with a child nearby is shocked at the profanity. It’s all too cute by half. We’re supposed to believe razor-sharp Elizabeth doesn’t know what WTF means?

It’s a few moments like this that cause some discomfort, raising the question of whether these characters are being, well, caricatured. Columbus seems to acknowledge the issue with an exchange where Joyce tells Elizabeth that she feels like she’s in one of those Sunday night dramas about two bright-eyed, feisty, old lady detectives outsmarting the police at every turn. Annoyed, Elizabeth tells her never to utter the words again.

In any case, there’s a sadder undertone that provides some grounding here. Elizabeth’s husband — poignantly played by Jonathan Pryce — is in the early stages of dementia, a fact Elizabeth is keeping from him. He has his good days and his bad ones, she explains to a friend. Sometimes he’s his old self, and sometimes he’s just gone.

It’s a message that even if our main protagonists seem healthy and active, they’re at a stage in life where every day is a bit more precarious. Cherish the good moments, the friend tells Elizabeth.

It’s a good message, overall, for the movie. The script could certainly be sharper, the comedy more clever. But for two hours on Netflix, Coopers Chase is rather a comfy place to be, with some moments to cherish.

The Thursday Murder Club, a Netflix release, has been rated PG-13 by the Motion Picture Association for violent content/bloody images, strong language and some sexual references. Running time: 118 minutes. 2.5 stars out of 4 stars.

Labels: comedy, crime, mystery, thriller
IMDb 68/100
MetaCritic (critics=59, viewers=69)
RottenTomatoes (critics=77, viewers=54)
Noveck's review

Where’d You Go, Bernadette (2019) [PG-13] ***/****

A film review by James Berardinelli for ReelViews.net on Aug. 15, 2019.

Although Where’d You Go, Bernadette suffers from an ungainly structure and uneven pacing, the production as a whole is engaging and uplifting. This is due in part to the strength of the cast but also owes something to director Richard Linklater (Before Sunrise, Boyhood), whose deftness of touch when it comes to characters draws out the strongest elements of an unbalanced production. The movie is based on the beloved, best-selling novel by Maria Semple. Linklater’s screenplay, which he co-wrote with Holly Gent and Vince Palmo, captures the essence of the book as best it can. A lot of work appears to have been done in the editing room. Early cuts of the film (which has had its release date delayed multiple times over a one-year period) ran in excess of two hours. The final theatrical version has a comparatively svelte running time of 105 minutes.

The always-reliable Cate Blanchett plays Bernadette Fox, a fortysomething shut-in who uses a remote Indian personal assistant, Manjula, to run all her errands. Bernadette, once a promising young architect, left LA for Seattle when one of her projects was bought and then razed by a wealthy businessman who owned the house next-door. Depressed over the destruction of something that had been the focus of her creativity for years, she stopped working, instead moving into an old, crumbling mansion badly in need of repairs and renovation. Following four miscarriages, she gave birth to Balakrishna, nicknamed Bee (Emma Nelson), the girl who has become her reason for living. Her husband, Elgie (Billy Crudup), a revered Microsoft software engineer, spends as little time at home as possible.

Where’d You Go, Bernadette is told from the perspective of the 15-year old Bee, whose witty voiceover narrative provides the glue to hold together the fragmentary story of how Bernadette got into her current circumstances. In transitioning the epistolary portions of the book into movie form, Linklater faces challenges that he is unable to fully overcome. The character of Bernadette is never fully realized – it’s more like there are two versions of her; the movie is unable to connect the young go-getter of the past with the vindictive, agoraphobic mother of the present. The central tragedy of her life is explained but not dramatized.

The movie gains momentum once Bernadette disappears. For the viewer, there’s no mystery. We know where she is and what she’s doing, but her family is in the dark until Bee figures out that her mother has embarked on a cruise to Antarctica, going ahead with a planned family vacation. While there, in the white, wintery wilds of penguins and whales, Bernadette has an epiphany and recognizes what she needs to do in order to have purpose.

Although it’s hard to tell for sure, but most of the cuts appear to have occurred during the Antarctic portion of the movie, which moves at a more rapid clip than the earlier portions. There’s also a shift in point-of-view. While the first half of the movie presents Bernadette as seen through her daughter’s eyes, the second half is Bernadette unfiltered. As a result, she comes across as more sympathetic once she has run away than while she’s still at home.

Despite an awkwardness to the way Where’d You Go, Bernadette is structured, Cate Blanchett’s performance patches over many rough spots. The viewer’s initial dislike of the character gradually shifts to sympathy. This is more a result of how Blanchett essays the character than as a result of the way the narrative reveals elements of her past. The actress understands how to use pomposity to hide insecurity and excitability to reveal an awakening. She is at home with the tone as it vacillates from dark comedy to drama and back.

As Bee, Emma Nelson makes a strong impression in her first feature role. It’s unclear how the film views Billy Crudup’s Elgie – we’re never quite sure whether we’re supposed to cheer his forbearance or condemn his obtuseness and absentee fatherhood. Blame the screenplay not the actor; Crudup does the best he can with an underwritten character. Notable actors Kristin Wiig (as the busybody neighbor, Audrey), Judy Greer (as the psychiatrist brought in to assess Bernadette’s condition), and Laurence Fishburne (as Bernadette’s college professor and former colleague) provide supporting work.

It’s hard to say how the novel’s legions of fans will react to Linklater’s adaptation. The movie captures the spirit and tone of the book but not necessarily the nuances. Anyone unfamiliar with the source material may notice the hesitant and cumbersome quality of the narrative’s progression. Although this may diminish the movie’s effectiveness, it isn’t sufficiently egregious to strip away the enjoyment of watching Blanchett navigate Bernadette’s seemingly tragic character arc as it becomes a voyage of hope and self-discovery. [Berardinelli’s rating: 2.5 out of 4 stars =62.5%]

Labels: comedy, drama, mystery

Internet Movie Database 65 

MetaScore (critics=52, viewers=64) 

RottenTomatoes Averages (critics=56, viewers=72) 

Blu-ray 

Ad Astra (2019) [PG-13] ****

A film review by James Berardinelli for ReelViews.net on Sept. 20, 2019.

The autumn movie season has a history of hosting impressive, thought-based science fiction movies. To a list that includes Gravity, Interstellar, Arrival, and The Martian, add Ad Astra, a film that uses space exploration as a means to look inward at the essence of humanity. This isn’t the sort of motion picture that will energize those who associate sci-fi with space battles, phaser blasts, and alien invasions. It demands patience and attention. One can sense an attempt by filmmaker James Gray to tap into the vein mined by Stanley Kubrick in his classic 2001: A Space Odyssey. Of recent films, Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar is the best comparison. Ad Astra isn’t quite as strong but it’s in the same ballpark.

Brad Pitt, fresh off his turn in Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood, joins Matthew McConaughey, George Clooney, and Matt Damon as matinee idols-turned-space farers. Pitt’s capabilities as an actor have never been in doubt and, given a project of this nature that relies strongly on his performance (none of the supporting actors, including Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland and Ruth Negga, has more than a handful of scenes), he provides viewers with another reason to remember that he’s more than a pretty face.

Ad Astra (the title is Latin for to the stars) opts for a quasi-realistic, near-future depiction of space travel. Humanity has only begun reaching beyond the planet. Communities exist on the moon (there are commercial flights available and all the comforts of home, including a Subway fast food joint) and bases on Mars. Beyond that, exploration has been spotty. The farthest solar system exploration has been to Neptune – a doomed mission called The Lima Project led by legendary astronaut H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) some three decades ago. Communication was lost, along with the spacecraft, many years earlier, with all aboard assumed dead and the ship destroyed. In the current time frame, however, there is reason to doubt those assumptions.

The mystery at the heart of Ad Astra asks what happened to The Lima Project and whether it is related to a series of powerful energy surges that endanger not only all life on earth but the stability of the solar system. Indications are that the surges could be caused by the antimatter The Lima Project employed as part of the propulsion system. Military officials wonder whether McBride might have survived and, if so, could be responsible for the surges. In an attempt to uncover the truth and put an end to the danger, they recruit McBride’s son, Roy (Brad Pitt), an elite astronaut whose heart rate never exceeds 80 bpm, to spearhead the effort to establish communication with the lost expedition, if any of its members are still alive. Roy’s job is to travel to the moon then to Mars, where attempts at the contact will be made.

It’s not hard to guess how this would unfold in a traditional Hollywood movie, but Ad Astra is neither traditional nor the product of a script-by-numbers approach. The film develops at its own pace and the resolution, although logical, may not be what some viewers will anticipate. Although Ad Astra contains thriller elements and a few action-oriented scenes, it has the soul of an art film and therein lies its box office challenge. Even at the dawn of Oscar season, ideas-based movies sometimes struggle, especially when trailers seem to promise something other than what the production delivers.

Gray uses special effects but doesn’t rely on them. CGI is what it was designed to be – a tool. It’s not a crutch to distract from a thin screenplay. The opening sequence with Roy working outside on a space antenna when a surge hits, is pure big budget spectacle but it serves a purpose beyond getting the viewer hooked. Later scenes, such as a response to a mayday from a Norwegian science ship and a rendezvous farther out in the solar system, are visually impeccable but the focus is never just on pretty images. Characters and ideas are more vivid than the backgrounds. Hoyte Van Hoytema’s cinematography echoes his work on Interstellar, making him a go-to DP when it comes to making movies set away from the comfortable confines of our little planet. His photography, especially the way he focuses on Pitt’s face, captures the importance of the individual in the vastness of space.

Like many of the more intimate, less ostentatious science fiction films, Ad Astra never loses sight of either the wonder of venturing beyond Earth and the danger inherent in doing so. This isn’t the first time Gray has taken a hero on a journey into the unknown. His previous feature, The Lost City of Z, feels a little like an Earth-based dress rehearsal for Ad Astra. The new movie is superior in every way except perhaps highlighting the color green. The film’s geography takes us on a cross-solar system journey but the real trajectory is deep into the human experience – finding meaning in life and coming to grips with being left behind. The ultimate message is arguably presented a little too explicitly in a line of dialogue late in the film but it’s an easily forgiven indulgence since the odyssey of getting there is so mesmerizing. [Berardinelli’s rating: 3.5 out of 4 stars = 87.5%]

Blogger’s comment: My favorite futuristic, sci-fi, adventure, fantasy films of recent years are The Martian, Oblivion and Passengers. I would rank Ad Astra in the second tier along with Arrival, Interstellar and Gravity – good films but I don’t need to see them again.

Labels: adventure, Brad Pitt, drama, mystery, sci-fi, thriller

IMDb 65/100 

MetaCritic (critics=80, viewers=62) 

RottenTomatoes (critics=83, viewers=40) 

Blu-ray 

The Bourne Supremacy (2004) [PG-13] ****

A film review by James Berardinelli for ReelViews.net

The Bourne Supremacy is a serviceable thriller - no more, no less. This may come as a disappointment to those anticipating something on the same level as the surprise hit 2002 movie, The Bourne Identity. Sadly, the cinematic second installment of Robert Ludlum's trilogy falls short of its predecessor in almost every area, except perhaps acting. There's nothing wrong with any of the performances in this movie; it's just that the actors aren't as important as they were two years ago. Action has moved to the fore, shouldering aside plot and character development in order to maintain the frantic pace that director Paul Greengrass believes is necessary to retain his audience's attention.

The Bourne Supremacy opens two years after The Bourne Identity closed, with Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) having settled down with his girlfriend, Marie (Franka Potente) in the state of Goa, India. Now, it appears someone with the worst of intentions has found them. Not only is a killer (Karl Urban) tasked with killing Bourne, but he is framed for the murder of a CIA agent in Berlin. This brings the agency back into the picture. The find Bourne team is led by Pamela Landy (Joan Allen) and Bourne's old boss, Ward Abbott (Brian Cox). Thinking that the CIA is behind the attempt on his life, Bourne decides he has no choice but to track down the people trying to kill him and eliminate them, thus fulfilling the promise he had made near the end of The Bourne Identity.

At its heart, The Bourne Supremacy is a revenge action thriller. There's nothing more subtle or deeper going on here, although there is a secondary plot about a group of Russians. Character development is perfunctory. We learn a few more things about Bourne's past, and he shows signs of a conscience. However, he was more interesting in the last film, when he was foundering to discover who he was. This time around, Bourne is just a relentless killer, at least until the final 30 minutes, when he displays more compassion than we expect (or, in some ways, prefer).

After the initial 15 minutes of exposition, The Bourne Supremacy unfolds as a series of long chase and fight sequences. Some of these are more compelling than others. The final chase, in particular, is involving. Coming as late in the movie as it does, there's a sense that it will lead to a resolution rather than the usual oops, I lost him. There are plenty of instances of hand-to-hand combat, and that's where the choice of Greengrass becomes questionable. The director of The Bourne Identity, Doug Liman, was able to present the fight scenes in a clear, no-frills fashion. In The Bourne Supremacy, there are so many cuts and edits that the fights devolve into an incoherent mess. It's better not to try to follow them when they're going on - just wait until they're over to see who's left standing.

On a number of levels, The Bourne Supremacy isn't as satisfying as The Bourne Identity. The culmination of Bourne's revenge spree against the agency, while it accomplishes the task, doesn't offer a good sense of closure. And the fact that Bourne spends most of the movie on his own eliminates the nice give-and-take between Bourne and Marie that helped make The Bourne Identity better than a generic espionage flick. Not having read Ludlum's novel, I can't assess whether the problem is in the source material or in Tony Gilroy's adaptation, but The Bourne Supremacy is less intelligent than its predecessor.

In the title role, Damon again proves that he has the makeup to be a decent action hero. He's more in the mold of a Mel Gibson or a Harrison Ford than an Arnold Schwarzenegger, but there's room in the genre for all kinds of actors. Brian Cox is suitably oily as the bad CIA guy, whose role has been expanded from the first film. Joan Allen brushes up on her ice queen image to give Bourne a more formidable agency adversary than Abbott. There are also brief appearances from familiar faces Franka Potente and Julia Stiles, as well as a small-but-important part for Oksana Akinshina as the orphaned daughter of the Russian couple Bourne killed in his first project.

Although The Bourne Supremacy disappoints relative to expectations established by The Bourne Identity, it's neither unwatchable nor uninteresting. The continuity is strong (essentially everyone except the director is the same) and the lead character, while not as compelling this time around, is still worth rooting for. Plus, there's enough action to camouflage the thinness of the plot. Still, it's discouraging to encounter another sequel that can't live up to the standard established by its predecessor. [Berardinelli’s rating: 2.5 stars (62.5 out of 100)]

Labels: action, Julia Stiles, Matt Damon, mystery, spy, thriller
IMDb 77/100
MetaScore (critics=73, viewers=89) 
RottenTomatoes Averages (critics=72, viewers=83) 
Blu-ray 

 

Possession (2002) [PG-13] ****

A film review by James Berardinelli for ReelViews.net

Possession shows the softer side of director Neil LaBute, the man responsible for a trio of dark, cynical films about human interaction: In the Company of Men, Your Friends and Neighbors, and Nurse Betty. This time, LaBute has elected to try something more life-affirming. Adapting the novel by A.S. Byatt, he has fashioned a cleverly constructed motion picture that switches back and forth between the mid-19th century and the present in chronicling two disconnected love stories.

Roland Michell (Aaron Eckhart) is an American researcher who has come to London to further his investigations into the life of his favorite author, Randolph Henry Ash (Jeremy Northam), who once served as Queen Victoria's poet laureate. After discovering two previously unknown letters, Michell believes that Ash may have had contact with an obscure female poet named Christabel LaMotte (Jennifer Ehle). This discovery leads him to collaborate with England's foremost authority on Christabel, Maud Bailey (Gwyneth Paltrow), who is initially unimpressed by Michell's findings. However, as the two begin to delve more deeply into the potential Christabel/Ash connection, they learn that not only did the two know each other, but they may have been lovers. And, as they unravel the story of Christabel and Ash's relationship, Michell and Maud find their own interaction becoming increasingly intimate.

Neither romance in Possession represents a timeless love story (one could argue there's not enough tear-inducing melodrama for that), but, in large part because of credible performances and LaBute's workmanlike direction, we come to care about the characters and their interactions. The relationships of the two couples are very different, even though one would not exist without the other. Ash and Christabel have a short-lived, fiery affair, preceded by a long period of written correspondence and succeeded by a series of personal tragedies. Michell and Maud are attracted to each other almost from the beginning, but both have erected heavy emotional barriers that have to be overcome, and their mutual fear of commitment nearly prevents them from getting together at all. Nevertheless, the more they learn about the connection between the 19th century lovers, the more they become open to possibilities that neither has been previously equipped to deal with. For a while, the progression of their relationship echoes the discoveries they unearth about Ash and Christabel.

Possession is two parts romance and one part mystery. A subplot involving a conniving Ash biographer trying to scoop Michell and Maud doesn't work, but it doesn't consume enough screen time to be more than a minor irritant. One of the real triumphs of the movie is the manner in which LaBute transitions from the present to the past and back again. Often, this requires nothing more than the pan of a camera to span 140 years. The approach is simple, elegant, and effective. Most importantly, LaBute brings a sense of balance to the story. We are as interested in the Christabel/Ash pairing as we are in the Michell/Maud one, so we don't find ourselves becoming impatient when the canvas switches from one to the other. The present-day lovers get more screen time, primarily because the burden of investigating the past - a cultural exhumation - consumes minutes.

Aaron Eckhart returns for his fourth outing with LaBute to give a relaxed, confident portrayal of Michell. Cool, calm, and elegant, Gwyneth Paltrow is afforded another opportunity to use her flawless English accent. These two don't strike sparks, but there is a palpable chemistry. As Ash, Jeremy Northam, who is no stranger to period pieces, gets a chance to give a more emotional, less restrained performance than what we're used to. Jennifer Ehle, best known for her stage work and her portrayal of Elizabeth Bennett in the mid-'90s Pride and Prejudice mini-series, presents Christabel as a woman of both great strength and great vulnerability.

Although LaBute goes to some lengths to emphasize the connections between the two love stories, he also stylistically italicizes the differences. It's interesting to note that the present-day romance is developed primarily through words while the past-tense one is defined though gestures and images (Northam and Ehle don't have many lines). Yet the words of those two poets, written more than 100 years earlier, resonate with the man and woman investigating their liaison. Possession is compelling material, especially for those who believe that the lives and loves of the dead can impact the trajectory of the existences of the living. [Berardinelli’s rating: 3 stars out of 4 = 75/100]

Labels: drama, mystery, romance
IMDb 63/100 
MetaScore (critics=52, viewers=87) 
RottenTomatoes Averages (critics=63, viewers=68) 

The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) [PG-13] ****/*****

A film review by James Berardinelli for ReelViews.net.

If nothing else, The Bourne Ultimatum represents the best of 2007's inordinately high number of so-called threequels. Hopefully, that's not damning with faint praise. The Bourne Ultimatum, the third in the movie trilogy loosely based on Robert Ludlum's novels, is superior to its immediate predecessor but not quite as good as the original. The action is this movie is top-notch (despite the spastic camera) - full of suspense and kinetic energy - but the film doesn't have as much heart or emotional depth as The Bourne Identity. As with The Bourne Supremacy, this movie diverts so far from its source material that the only things retained from Ludlum's novel are the title and some of the character names. (Shades of how the James Bond movie producers approached many of Ian Fleming's books.) Ludlum's version of The Bourne Ultimatum is completely different from the one penned by Tony Gilroy and directed by Paul Greengrass.

The film moves so fast there's almost no time to breathe. Although the plot may at first seem convoluted, it's actually fairly straightforward. Jason Bourne (Matt Damon), as part of his ongoing quest to discover his true identity, once again becomes a danger to the CIA. So the department's black ops division, led by Noah Vosen (David Strathairn), targets him for elimination. Also conspiring against him is the agency's director, Ezra Kramer (Scott Glenn), but Bourne has allies as well: agents Pamela Landy (Joan Allen) and Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles) endanger their careers and lives to help him.

The Bourne Ultimatum globe hops with the best of its genre: Moscow, Paris, London, Madrid, Tangier, and New York. Bourne is always on the move, sometimes acting as the hunter and sometimes being the quarry (and often both at the same time). One could argue it's a little exhausting, but the action is consistently excellent - if only the same thing could be same could be said of the manner in which Greengrass has chosen to film it. Looking back on The Bourne Identity, it's easy to be impressed by the clarity with which Doug Liman directed the action sequences. Greengrass, on the other hand, prefers fast cuts and an unsteady camera. Even during static shots (such as a simple conversation with close-ups), it's as if the cameraman has Parkinson's. Things aren't as bad here as in 28 Weeks Later, but there are brief instances when the inability to figure out what's going on diminishes the effectiveness of the action. Still, it's hard to deny that Greengrass' approach generates intensity.

There are two standout sequences. Tension is enhanced in both because not only is Bourne trying to outthink and outflank the bad guys, but he's also responsible for protecting someone else. In the first one, he and a reporter for The Guardian, Simon Ross (Paddy Considine), are trapped by enemy operatives in London's Waterloo Station. The second involves a chase through the roads and across the rooftops of Tangier as Bourne attempts to intercept a key contact who has knowledge of his past while keeping himself and Nicky alive.

Matt Damon once again plays Bourne perfectly - it's a largely impassive, kick-ass performance that draws the viewer in. Bourne doesn't delight in killing, but he doesn't shy away from it, either. There's a kinship one can sense between him and the newest James Bond. Julia Stiles and Joan Allen get a chance to show softer sides of their hard-edged characters. In the past, both played Bourne's adversaries; here, they're his allies. David Strathairn, the excellent character actor who is favored by John Sayles, oozes white collar menace. Albert Finney's inclusion in the cast may confuse viewers with imperfect memories because he looks a lot like Brian Cox, who was in the other two movies.

When it comes to action, The Bourne Ultimatum trumps the summer's other offerings. While its stunts are no less preposterous than those in Live Free or Die Hard (in fact, both films feature flying cars), what The Bourne Ultimatum offers is grittier and more visceral. And, while there are fewer special effects here, The Bourne Ultimatum provides a lot more suspense and tension than Transformers could hope for. [Berardinelli’s rating: 3 stars out of 4, 75%]

Labels: action, Julia Stiles, Matt Damon, mystery, spy, thriller
IMDb 80/100
MetaScore (critics=85, viewers=76) 
RottenTomatoes Averages (critics=80, viewers=85) 
Blu-ray 

 

Before I Fall (2017) [PG-13] ***/****

A film review by James Berardinelli for ReelViews.net on Mar. 3, 2017.

It takes a mediocre movie like Before I Fall to illustrate how brilliant Harold Ramis’ Groundhog Day is. Founded on the same premise, the movies show the variances that can result from different approaches. Groundhog Day uses comedy and wit to buffer its existential angst and cosmic sense of karma. Before I Fall, on the other hand, adopts an oh-so-serious tone and resorts to awkward melodrama to get the point across.

It’s Valentine’s Day and high school senior Samantha Kingston (Zoey Deutch) is doomed to live it repeatedly until she does whatever it is that Fate has decreed she must do to move on. It begins with her waking up to a song on her iPhone (not, by the way, I’ve Got You, Babe – the movie doesn’t have that sort of referential sense of humor) and ends with her dying in a car accident. Except, instead of waking up at the Pearly Gates, she returns to the beginning of the day with her memories intact. Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. After acclimating, Samantha varies things a little - dumping her three Queen Bee friends (Halston Sage, Medalion Rahimi and Cynthy Wu), trying to hook up with a nicer boy, etc. She eventually figures out that getting out of the loop involves doing something related to outcast Juliet Sykes (Elena Kampouris), but what?

The kind of repetition necessary to Before I Fall’s narrative is not only inherently non-cinematic but potentially deadly to the movie. Who wants to see the same scene presented over and over again with only small variations? And, although it’s unfair to compare Bill Murray to Zoey Deutch, a case can be made that Murray’s performance keeps Groundhog Day from slipping into the rut that derails Before I Fall.  For her part, although Deutch (most recently seen as Bryan Cranston’s daughter/James Franco’s lover in Why Him?) is appealing, she’s too old for the part. Halston Sage (in the best friend role), who’s actually a year older than Deutch, seems more age-appropriate for a high school student. Both are viewed as up and coming actresses and will likely appear in more impressive projects than this one in the near future.

The saccharine message of savor every moment is driven home with sledgehammer-like subtlety. Director Ry Russo-Young’s unwillingness to give the audience even a scintilla of credit (a sentiment I can fully understand) results in not only a voiceover that emphasizes the moral but a final act that embodies it. Somehow, Groundhog Day is able to convey something similar without it becoming obvious or intrusive. Is it fair to catalog all the times when the Ramis film does things better than this one? Possibly not, considering that Before I Fall has been fine-tuned for viewers who have probably never heard of Groundhog Day, much less seen it.  This movie is intended for girls between the ages of 10 and 16 and anyone outside that demographic is likely to have issues with parts of the script (or, in my case, pretty much the entire thing).

To be fair, there are occasional moments that succeed dramatically. These are typically the quieter, less histrionic ones. I appreciated the scenes between Samantha and Kent (Logan Miller), the prototypical nice guy trapped in the friend zone. There’s also something elegant about the way the movie ends. Overall, however, the lack of a compelling narrative thrust and inability to maintain an internal consistency about how the time loop works condemn this film to a fall from which it can’t recover. [Berardinelli’s rating: 2 stars out of 4]

Labels: drama, fantasy, high-school, mystery, romance, teenager, tragedy

Internet Movie Database 64 

MetaScore (critics=58, viewers=65) 

RottenTomatoes Averages (critics=58, viewers=69) 

Blu-ray 

Murder on the Orient Express (2017) [PG-13] ***/****

A film review by James Berardinelli for ReelViews.net on Nov. 9, 2017.

Like most Agatha Christie stories, Murder on the Orient Express is all about the whodunnit? Once that question has been answered, there’s little reason to revisit the story. Christie never cared much about character development and her main detective, Hercule Poirot, was a two-dimensional sketch of early 20th century intellect and masculinity. (She actually grew to hate the character over the years, calling him, among other things, a creep and insufferable, despite continuing to write about him.) Therefore, Kenneth Branagh’s new, workmanlike interpretation of the tale will be met with different reactions from those who are familiar with the ending and those who aren’t. It makes a big difference.

This represents the fourth time a major adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express has been mounted. The first, a 1974 motion picture featuring Albert Finney as Poirot, was well-received and highly regarded. In 2001, a poorly-reviewed contemporary version aired on CBS-TV with Alfred Molina in the lead. The long-running ITV Poirot series with star David Suchet tackled the novel in a 2010 episode. Curiously, the most famous Poirot prior to Suchet, Peter Ustinov, never appeared in any version of Murder on the Orient Express, despite reprising the detective’s role six times. Branagh therefore steps into well-worn shoes and, although his performance here is no match for Ustinov or Suchet (the latter of whom is universally regarded as the inimitable Poirot), it stands alongside the others.

The cast is star-studded, which means that, although there are a lot of famous faces, no one except Branagh gets more than a few scenes and/or lines. The movie, like the book, is plot-centric and, because so little effort is placed on character development, it’s less than an actor’s clinic despite the who’s who aspect of the cast. The list of suspects includes Judi Dench, Derek Jacobi, Michelle Pfeiffer, Daisy Ridley, Olivia Colman, Willem Dafoe, Josh Gad, Penelope Cruz, and a few lesser known performers rounding out the rogues’ gallery. Johnny Depp plays Edward Ratchett, the unlucky victim, so his screen time is over before the first half hour comes to a close.

Haris Zambarloukos’ evocative cinematography meshes well with Branagh’s decision to use 65 mm cameras (the first time he has done so since Hamlet). This allows for a more epic feel to the visuals even if seen in a regular theater with digital projection. He often uses long takes, especially early in the movie for the characters’ establishing shots (either in the station or aboard the train, where he pans along the length looking through the windows from outside). 1930s period detail is excellent and there are times when it’s possible to imagine being aboard a luxury train wending its way through the cold, snowy mountains on the route between Istanbul and Paris. Patrick Doyle, who has done his best work as a composer when paired with Branagh as a director, modulates his occasionally overbearing tendencies and produces an effective score.

The movie opens at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem where Poirot exhibits his skills as a detective by solving a particularly nettlesome crime. He then boards the Orient Express when his presence is requested in London and intends to use his time aboard the train as a mini-vacation. It turns into one of his most difficult cases when one of the passengers is murdered and everyone in the car is a suspect. With the train stalled because of an avalanche, Poirot conducts his investigation.

Branagh’s interpretation draws on aspects of many of his predecessor’s performances and, although the character’s pomposity is used for semi-comedic purposes in the early scenes, the tone becomes increasingly serious as the details of the case are unveiled. Aspects of Christie’s original were loosely inspired by the Lindbergh kidnapping. This isn’t surprising since the infamous crime occurred in 1932 and Christie wrote Murder on the Orient Express about a year after that. The movie’s ending, although mostly faithful to the book, skews toward the way the Poirot TV series addressed the moral conundrum.

For those who don’t know the ending, Murder on the Orient Express represents a gripping mystery told in a classic style with enough detecting to allow the viewer to guess along with Poirot about who may be guilty. There’s a lot of exposition; at times perhaps too much. It can be difficult to keep the cast of characters straight and even more of an exercise to piece together how they fit into a larger picture. Nevertheless, the big reveal is as impactful as ever. Those who are aware of the killer’s identity will be less engaged. Still, there are pleasures to be had: Branagh’s performance, the set design, the camera work, and the tight pacing.

This movie is an odd choice for Branagh; Christie’s straightforward, no-nonsense prose is in many ways the antithesis of the Bard. It has, however, been decades since Branagh has tackled Shakespeare for the screen. In the interim, he has moved to other properties, most recently making a live-action version of Cinderella after providing entries into the Thor and Jack Ryan franchises. Murder on the Orient Express reunites him with three actors from the Branagh troupe: Judi Dench, Derek Jacobi, and Gerard Horan.

Perhaps the most welcome thing about Murder on the Orient Express is the big-budget foray into a genre that motion pictures have all-but-forgotten: the classic murder mystery. The film isn’t too long to wear out its welcome and there’s something impressive about being surrounded by such impeccable detail and so many familiar faces. Although the film will work considerably better for newcomers to the story, there’s enough here to appeal to veterans. And, although Branagh is no Suchet, he’s good enough for us to accept him, if for only two hours, as one of Agatha Christie’s two celebrated detectives. [Berardinelli’s rating: 3 out of 4 stars]

Labels: crime, drama, mystery, period, tragedy

Internet Movie Database 65 

MetaScore (critics=52, viewers=64) 

RottenTomatoes Averages (critics=61, viewers=67) 

Blu-ray 

Arrival (2016) [PG-13] ****/*****

A film review by James Berardinelli for ReelViews.net on November 9, 2016.

The scenario presented in Arrival isn’t new - motion pictures have been dramatizing an event of this sort almost since moving images first flickered on a big screen. We wonder about it, dream about it, imagine it, and write about it. Popular television series have been devoted to it. The mythology of one locale in Nevada has been built up around it. I’m referring to extraterrestrial contact. There are those who would argue that it has already happened but, whether their claims are to be taken seriously or not, there has never been an undeniable encounter when humankind has come face-to-face with incontrovertible evidence that, as Steven Spielberg put it, we are not alone.

Of course, Hollywood being Hollywood, the majority of first contact stories involve danger, invasion, battle, and destruction. Even a classic like The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) is about the threat of annihilation. More recent film additions into the genre include Independence Day (1996), Spielberg’s War of the Worlds (2005), Transformers (2007), The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008), Oblivion (2013), Edge of Tomorrow (2014) and Independence Day: Resurgence (2016), to name just a few. It’s a rarity for a first contact movie to have a thoughtful, measured tone and to be concerned with realistically exploring how such a scenario might play out and what it might mean for the human race if the visitors were so different from us that communication and comprehension were significant barriers to interaction. Arrival is a great experience not only because it thoughtfully and intelligently dramatizes such a situation but because it assumes that audience members are thinking and paying attention as they watch it. That’s a welcome change-of-pace for a mainstream film and, if Arrival succeeds at the box office, it will shine as a beacon in favor of not dumbing down every production to appease the distracted and disinterested masses.

The aliens arrive not long after the movie begins - huge, oblong ships that hover just above the ground at twelve seemingly random locations around the globe. No one knows whether they come in peace because communication thus far isn’t possible. Although they permit people to board their ships and allow humans to see their seven-legged forms, the language of each species is unknown to the other. So, although the aliens show no hostile inclinations, a race as naturally suspicious and warlike as ours can’t help but plan for the worst.

Dr. Louise Banks (Amy Adams) is a world-renowned professor of linguistics with a tragic past. As she wanders around her beautiful house overlooking a lake, she remembers the beloved teenage daughter she lost to cancer. This experience has shaped her life, making her reserved, taciturn, and a little sad. The government, in the person of Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker), comes calling, needing her help. They invite her to join a first contact team and, paired with physicist Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner), she boards the alien ship and begins the laborious process of deciphering the basics of the alien language.

There’s more to Arrival than this but to write at any length about where the movie goes and what revelations occur would be to spoil the viewer’s journey. Although communication may be at the heart of the film, the narrative segues beyond that. And human/alien exchanges aren’t the only kind of communication Arrival investigates. There’s also intra-species communication as nationalistic and xenophobic impulses create fractures in information-sharing.

The source material for Arrival, Ted Chiang’s Nebula Award-winning 1998 short story, The Story of Your Life, might not seem filmable at first, but director Denis Villeneuve and screenwriter Eric Heisserer have found a way to do it. The essential themes about time, determinism, and language remain intact. The movie examines the intricacies and differences between spoken and written language in a manner that is not only lucid but interesting.

During a career that has spanned 17 years and garnered five Oscar nominations, Amy Adams has played a variety of quirky and serious roles, but perhaps only her character in Doubt has rivaled Louise for psychological complexity. Villeneuve intentionally deceives us about a few salient facts where Louise is concerned and Adams is complicit in this deception. It’s brilliantly conceived and executed and Adams’ performance is critical. Louise is no icon. She’s strong and independent but her hands tremble and her breathing comes in heaving gasps as the moment of truth approaches. Jeremy Renner and Forest Whitaker provide solid support but this is Amy Adams’ movie.

I can think of only four other movies made in the last 40 years that have a similar level of sophistication and intelligence in their approach to connecting with the unknown: Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), The Abyss (Director’s Cut, 1989), Contact (1997), and Interstellar (2014) Spielberg, Cameron, Zemeckis, and Nolan - not bad company for French Canadian-born director Denis Villeneuve, for whom Arrival represents a distinct change-of-pace from his previous outings, Prisoners, Enemy, and Sicario. In its own way, this is just as challenging although not as grim. There’s hope in the answer to a very simple question that lies at Arrival’s core. The movie is so perfectly assembled and expertly paced that it’s impossible not to imagine Villeneuve getting an Oscar nomination. Based on the strength of his resume, and Arrival in particular, there’s every reason to be excited about his next project: Blade Runner 2049.

We don’t see serious science fiction like this nearly enough. The movie’s opening presents a credible scenario for first contact, not only in the way the aliens approach but in the way the world reacts to them. The international cooperation might at first seem refreshing but it’s littered with mistrust and parochial interests. Communication with the aliens provides a puzzle that needs solving but, as she gets closer to the truth, Louise is forced to look deep into her own soul. Why are the heptapods here? What do they want? The mysteries in Arrival run deeper than is initially apparent. Add to that a paranoid group of fanatics determined to thwart all the progress Louise makes and there’s a lot going on here.

The movie doesn’t end with Bill Pullman giving a rousing speech and a makeshift air force attacking alien ships (Independence Day). This resolution is more sublime and satisfying. Although Arrival is about first contact with extraterrestrials, it says more about the human experience than the creatures from another world. This is a singularly powerful movie, without question one of 2016’s best. [Berardinelli’s rating: 4 out of 4 stars]

Labels: drama, mystery, sci-fi, space-time, thriller

Internet Movie Database 79 

MetaScore (critics=81, viewers=81) 

RottenTomatoes Averages (critics=84, viewers=80) 

Blu-ray 
Arrival plot and movie ending explained (CONTAINS SPOILERS)