"The Messenger" is a small, but powerfully acted film (4/5)

Throughout the years there have been numerous films that try and capture the varying angles that embody war. With the Iraq war being one of the more defining moments for the world in the last decade, it should come to no one's surprise that we've see numerous Iraq based films, but very few that have resonated and found an audience. This in part because America just doesn't want to see a film about a war that is currently in progress. It just seems to be in bad taste, especially when you factor in the idea that many people don't think America should have gone to war in the first place. So now it's bearing some annoyance. But, I think another important factor that seems to have people skipping war (especially based on Iraq) films is that there have simply been very few films that have been good regarding the subject matter. Hell, most are preachy, liberal, and over handed films that rely more on convention than providing an introspective look at war on both the battle lines and home front. This is not say that the films regarding war that have been released over the last decade aren't good, but films like "Home of the Brave", "The Valley Elah", "Stop Loss", etc. don't elevate the material beyond sentimental soap boxing.

Yet, this year is different. With the release of a film like "The Hurt Locker", an adrenaline pumping film that looks at the final month of a bomb defusing squad, as well as the drug like effects war has on some soldiers, I can't help but feel there is a budding new perspective on war. This idea is further pushed by a film like "The Messenger" which gives us a perspective we've never seen on film: the life and times of an army messenger. These are the guys who go door to door delivering death notices to the family of a fallen soldier. It's a perspective that seems rather one dimensional. After all, the only thing these soldiers do is serve notice, but I would argue (as would the film) that this job is quite important and bears an emotional weight that could burden just about anyone. Personally speaking, I couldn't be that person. I couldn't go door to door, letting people know that their daughters, sons, husbands, or wives have just passed away in a land far, far away. I simply couldn't and such an emotional notion is well on display in "The Messenger". As both of our protagonists, SSgt Will Montgomery (Ben Foster) and Capt. Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson) wrestle with the emotional ramifications being a messenger has.

SSgt. Will Montgomery has just returned from Iraq (he's home due to an injury) and as a means to serve his last months in the army, he is placed in the Army's Casualty Notification service. Through this he is paired up with Capt. Tony Stone, a lifelong army man who sees no greater purpose than serving his country. Between the two men, they struggle to get on the same page in regards to how they should approach giving notification of the dead. Captain Stone feels their delivery should be based on a script and showing no emotion, while Montgomery feels a humanistic touch would be far better than the army's third person, robotic delivery. In either event, both men can't even pretend to know what to expect when they walk into a person's home and let them know that their family member has passed away in the line of duty. Yet, extracting sympathy isn't the film's main goal. At its heart, the film is a character study of Will Montgomery and the emotions he works through as his life reveals itself to be an empty shell. His girlfriend has left him, his body is injured, and most of all he has to continuously be a messenger of doom. Writer/Director Overman does a great job of not only establishing Montgomery, but also allows us to slowly invade his mind. This is also a testament to Ben Foster's performance which is fantastic as he forms a man filled with anxieties and disappointment. On par with Foster's performance, and if not even better, is the performance of Woody Harrelson, who delivers an intense, and thought provoking characterization.

When a film like this is so heavily based on its characters, it's essential for the actors to deliver great performances as a means to keep the audience engaged and connected. Needless to say this happens, as Foster and Harrelson play well off one an other's insecurities and carry much of the film on their backs with great ease. Yet, the problem I have with this film is the scenes that involve Foster's and Harrelson's characters delivering the casualty notifications. The first few scenes pack a punch and are emotionally wrought, but after that, they tend to become tedious and almost stale. Not to say that the scenes aren't relevant to the film or characters, but it just seemed like the same scenes were being repeated, except with different races and classes of characters. With just two or three scenes regarding the notifications, the delivery of such sad news would've been far more effective. My annoyance with the continuous occurrence of these scenes is still quite small, but it is matched with my slight disinterest in a subplot regarding Foster's character and that of a widowed wife played by Samantha Morton. This particular subplot ends up working somewhat well as a means to show Montgomery's arc, but it's lackluster in its conviction, and ultimately is underwritten. Samantha Morton does an admirable job of trying to lend this subplot some credibility, but for me it didn't gel completely. Yet, these are merely small negatives that stem from a film that offers a different vantage point on war; a vantage point we've never really scene in a film. Also, the crux of the film lies in the performances and without a doubt, "The Messenger" boasts terrific performances that not only carry the film, but will certainly carry you into the mindset war places upon it's soldiers and their kin.

"In the Loop" is an uproarious, foul mouthed satire (4.5/5)

There was a little show on television a few years back called "Arrested Development" that you may have heard of or may have watched. There are a couple of reasons why I love this show: (1) It had characters who were never compromised and (2) the show possessed a razor edge wit that had jokes flying at a high rate. In my eyes this is the epitome of great comedy, and I must say that such a comedy doesn't come along often. Thankfully for me, "In the Loop" is that kind of comedy; a comedy that is brash, bold, and beyond witty. It's a comedy that has laughs that last past their initial punch line. The film, although quite funny, also has some sharp and dark satire as it looks at how a country (i.e. the United States and Britain) behaves in a political arena in order to achieve what they want.

This particular aspect of the film is set up almost in the same vain as when the United States entered the Iraq War in 2003. Through communication with Britain's government, the head honchos from the United States are pressing an invasion in to a Middle Eastern country. Although it's not explicitly stated and a time period isn't given, we can assume the film is a farce on the Iraq War. The hijinx begins with a slip of the tongue heard on British radio from Britain's Minister for International Development Simon Foster ( a terrific Tom Hollander), who when asked about a potential war in the Middle East, accidentally says a war is 'unforeseeable'. On a local scale, Simon gets a ribbing from Britain's Prime Minister's right hand man, Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi), but on a more international stage, Simon's words gather the attention of an international media who hound him everywhere he goes to see if he has any knowledge about a pressing war in the Middle East. Presumably to no one's surprise, Simon actually knows nothing about a pending war, but that doesn't stop a United States government official who sees an opportunity in Simon as a means to start a war. Soon Simon is asked to come to the United States, with his rookie aide Toby (Chris Addison) by his side, to throw his hat in the "war" arena. Yet, Simon finds himself pulled in opposite directions as the pro-war front and anti-war fronts try to use him as their goats, while the British government tries to make him 'straddle the line'.

The plot becomes a little convoluted at times, but it continuously rotates on rather simple ideas and succeeds because its characters, even though there are a lot of them, are well defined and rarely go off point. Whether it's a culture clash between the governments of the United States and Britain, or the political tug of war that occurs between two political agendas, "In the Loop" is always delivering a tongue lashing to the political machine we live amongst. A lot of credit goes to the screenplay, which boasts some terrific turns, but most of the hilarity is in the hands of the actors who deliver their jokes and banter with ease. Each scene is constructed with rapid fire dialogue that peppers every moment with balls and energy. Some of the dialogue may be hard to hear or may need to be watched again in order to understand their full gravity, but the dialogue is great regardless of such diversions. If anything, it adds a level of replay value to the film. Much like the dialogue,the cast as a whole is great, but the one actor who truly steals every scene is Peter Capaldi, who plays the foul mouthed Malcolm Tucker, a strategist for Britain's Prime Minister. Everything Capaldi says is morally inapprehensible, but it's hilarious all the same. In many respects he's the voice of reason amongst the meek, the selfish,and the dumb that fill our governments.

Another aspect I love about this film is its ability to keep a balanced perspective throughout. It doesn't hate upon the war mongering politicians anymore than it does the passive-aggressive anti-war supporters. It doesn't provide one note answers to the problems the it mocks. It's simply in the moment, trying to capture, at least from a comical perspective, the seedy inner workings of politics and the abuse of media from both sides. Is it essential for a movie like this to be balanced? Not particularly, but the film is all the better for it if it can find a way to skew towards the middle versus to either side. After all, a good satire is one that can lambast both sides of the argument without being too pretentious in its efforts. I'd say "In the Loop" reaches this level of greatness and much like my beloved "Arrested Development", "In the Loop" is a film that consistently delivers the laughs with ferocity. That's all I can ask for in a comedy.

"Brothers" is a well acted melodrama (3.5/5)

When there is a fantastic foreign film, one that seemingly crosses oceans in a single bound, there is inevitably a Hollywood remake on the way. Some of these remakes are good. Such is the case when Martin Scorsese got his hands on the Asian film "Infernal Affairs" which went on to be adapted in to the Oscar winning "The Departed". So, sometimes there are good remakes, but more often than not the foreign remake leaves much to be desired. This can be witnessed in the recent trend for taking Japanese horror films and watering them down to only make thirteen year old girls scream. Now, in the case of "Brothers", which is a remake of a Danish film with the same title, I'd say it falls somewhere in between the good and the bad the foreign remake has to offer.

The film tells the tale of two brothers, Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Sam (Tobey Maguire). Tommy, who is being released from jail when the movie opens, is practically a dead beat. Upon his release he has no ambition, no job, no money, and his father always unfairly compares him to his brother Sam. Sam on the other hand is quite successful. He has a beautiful wife, Grace (Natalie Portman), two adorable little girls, and the respect of not only his family, but his peers (he is a Captain in the Army). Where his brother Tommy becomes aggressive under pressure, Sam is cool and always in control. Initially the brothers get along great, as they support one another unconditionally. But things take a turn for the worse when Sam is sent to Iraq. While over in Iraq, Sam's Blackhawk is shot down and he is presumed dead, although he is actually still alive, but is captured by insurgents. Under the guise that Sam is dead, Tommy finds himself compelled to assist Sam's family through the grieving process and from this finds a sense of redemption as he grows closer and closer to his sister in law and nieces. Eventually though, Sam makes it back home from Iraq, and he is a changed and troubled man. A man mentally distraught and out of touch with reality. Soon the stability Sam once shared with his brother and family is rattled as he behaves in erratic and violent ways, as well as insinuating that Tommy and Grace have a sexual relationship.

From this comes two exploratory threads: the effects of war on a human being and how war affects the cohesiveness of a family. The former thread is common place in most war based films now, but in the case of "Brothers", it's executed quite well. When Sam is in Iraq as a P.O.W., director Jim Sheridan delivers an assortment of taut scenes that push the character of Sam to a new level as his days in captivity continue to build. Suddenly a man who is supposed to be calm and collective becomes full of rage as he is forced to act in heinous ways. These particular scenes of Sam in Iraq are essential for understanding his descent in the last half of the film as he tries to slide back into family life. But, for as a good as these scenes are, Sheridan doesn't seem to capture the same dramatic weight when the film focuses on the family life when Sam is absent. Certainly, Sheridan adequately captures the positive effect Tommy has on the family and Grace, as this is done in a hand full of scenes that build a terrific chemistry between Gyllenhaal and Portman, but never does he drum up honest grief from them. Never do I feel the character's sadness and loneliness, aside from a few side scenes that consist of Portman crying.The emotion isn't as palpable as it could be and seems to be glossed over. The same could be said for the whole brother dynamic between Gyllenhaal and Maguire. Their family life together seems rather formulaic, and in all honesty plays out much like day time soap opera. We really don't know why these two characters act the way they do around each other aside from the fact that they are brothers. An exploration, if not a subplot, would've made their relationship far more authentic than what it was and would've made their sacrifices for one another more understandable.

But, the film does gain some dramatic heftiness when Sam returns home and his paranoia begins to kick in. It's at this moment that Tobey Maguire really shines as he slowly unravels his character in grand fashion, which eventually leads to an intense breakdown. Through the acting of Maguire, Sheridan is able to find a gateway in to a soldier with PSTD, and through Maguire does the real family drama become far more pertinent and tangible. Don't get me wrong, Gyllenhaal and Portman do a fine job with their characters, but their game is elevated when Maguire pushes them to the limits. So, in my ways, the film works only when Sam's plight and Maguire's skills are on display. Without them, the film would be a horrible remake. With them, the film is straddling the line.

"The Lovely Bones" is a visually stunning, revenge thriller (3.75/5)

When I heard Peter Jackson was adapting Alice Sebold's bestseller The Lovely Bones, I went out right away and bought the book. After becoming a fan of Jackson when I saw "The Lord of the Rings" and most importantly "King Kong", I was intrigued as to what Jackson was going to do with this critically acclaimed novel. I opened the book the night I bought it; read forty pages and then I stopped. I haven't read the book since. This is not to say the book was bad. It was actually quite good, but I'm not really the reading type. I'm more of a visual person hence why I love films so much. With that little biographical moment aside, my lack of reading has allowed me to view Peter Jackson's adaptation of The Lovely Bones as its own entity. This is crucial because more often than not people have a hard time separating the book from the adaptation, which causes some to walk away from an adaptation with much disappointment because the film never matched up with the vision they had for the source material. Yet, out of curiosity, I asked a handful of people how the book played out as a means to see how the two compared. I'll admit, if you're a fan of the book, you're not likely to love the film.

But, I insist as a purveyor of film, that if you do plan on seeing the "The Lovely Bones", you should look at it with fresh eyes. After all, it's someone else's adaptation of Sebold's novel. More importantly, it's Peter Jackson's interpretation, and what an interpretation it is. Jackson's film in some ways deals with the grieving process of a child's death, but it also builds its laurels on two separate angles of a murder: the griever(s) and the murderer. On one side we have the Salmon family, whose lives are shaken when the oldest daughter Susie(Saoirse Ronan) is murdered in cold blood. From this the family begins to crumble as the father, Jack (Mark Wahlberg) desperately searches for answers at the dismay of his wife Abigail (Rachel Weisz). This obviously causes a breakdown in not only the marriage, but on the family's other children Buckley and Lindsey. Opposing the mindset of the family is that of the killer, George Harvey (Stanley Tucci) who is breathing a sigh of content when no one is really searching for him. Tucci's performance as Harvey is breathtaking as he takes on a complicated and sickened man, who gets a perverse pleasure out of stalking and murdering women. Definitely not a role one would expect Tucci to play, but he does it extremely well. So, here are two different angles from one despicable event. A family in shambles and a man gaining satisfaction from the pain his deed has brought. It's this perspective that Jackson does quite admirably, as it sets the tone for the last half of the film that in many respects becomes a thriller, as Jack and Lindsey become hot in pursuit of Mr. Harvey.

But despite the fact I was engaged in the form the film takes, I honestly don't think Jackson's handling of the family drama was as strong as it could've been. I don't know if it was the editing or the script itself, but at times the film delivered what should've been complex issues with simple means. Such an example would be the use of Susie's grandma (Susan Sarandon), who is practically wasted as a joke, but somehow goes through a transformation that we just have to accept versus actually seeing it occur. But aside from some miscues, Jackson created enough drama to build up ample sympathy for the family, as well as hatred towards Mr. Harvey, in order for me to get caught up in his ethereal thriller. Building the film around sympathy and hate is not only essential for the sake of the audience's involvement, but it's also pertinent in understanding Susie's state of mind as she watches down from Heaven ( or an in-between state). This is further supplemented by Saoirse Ronan's performance, who with her blue eyes, embodies the mere idea of innocence lost on Earth and the lack of justice that may reside in the afterlife. Much like her performance in "Atonement", Ronan shows a depth that is beyond her years as she delivers a vast range of emotions one would expect Susie to feel in Heaven. Matching Ronan's beautiful performance is Heaven itself, as Peter Jackson does a marvelous job constructing his vision for Susie's own personal kingdom come. It's a place that is both alluring and daunting, for it represents everything Susie can do and everything she can't. When coupled with Brian Eno's angelic score, Heaven is a place filled with joy and sadness; a place with constraints.

With all of that being said, it should come to no surprise when I say that Peter Jackson's "The Lovely Bones" is a worthy family drama/thriller that is built on two great performances. Some will say that Jackson's adaptation is far more focused on the crafting of Heaven than it is of a good story, but I disagree. I think all of the parts of a good story are present and in motion. Furthermore, for as beautiful as it is to look at Jackson's Heaven, there is something more sinister boiling underneath such beauty and wonderment. It's a visual representation as to how happiness has a low ceiling when grief and vengeance are its trusses.