"Love and Other Drugs"

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

"The Next Three Days"

Runtime:  2 hr. 2 min.

Rated PG-13 for violence, drug material, language, some sexuality and thematic element

Cast: Russell Crowe, Elizabeth Banks, Liam Neeson, Brian Hennehy, Olivia Wilde

Director: Paul Haggis 

I'll say one thing about Paul Haggis... the man will absolutely live or die with the sword of cinematic risk-taking.  Consider, for a moment, what a tremendous leap of faith "Crash" was.  Most films apply simple, straightforward brush strokes to paint characters either as heroes or villains.  "Crash" threw that concept right out the window, opting instead to present characters both at their ugliest and their finest moments, and let the reactions fall where they may.  A daunting notion, to say the least, when the monetary stakes are set at a fever pitch.  The dice for that endeavor, however, came up sevens and resulted in an Oscar for Best Picture.  So, it's shocking that what worked to perfection for that movie appears to have scuttled "The Next Three Days", leaving it lost in a vast sea of mediocre films. 

As a standard genre jailbreak movie, Haggis' film is at the very least competent.  But you can tell he wants it to be more, as emotional complexity and moral ambiguity are worked into the mix.  Somehow, though, those traits never help the movie get beyond the confines of its genre framework.  The film is like a fledgling flame trapped beneath the weight of saturated timber.  Its lofty ambitions collide head-on with the standard genre thriller elements, resulting in a movie that comes off as confused and oddly dispassionate.

Based on a 2008 French film entitled "Anything for Her", the story wastes no time getting going, when one seemingly peaceful morning in the suburban Pittsburgh home of John and Lara Brennan (Russell Crowe and Elizabeth Banks), police burst through the door, arrest Lara, and charge her with the murder of her boss.  John, an English professor at a nearby college, is convinced his wife is innocent, and maintains constant pressure on his lawyer to file appeals, until the lawyer (Daniel Stern) finally counters with:  "Look at the evidence, John.  I'm not saying believe it.  But understand... Lara is never getting out!"  This, of course, is unacceptable to a loving husband who struggles to find a balance between fighting for his wife and taking care of his son, Luke (Ty Simpkins).  He decides to take much more drastic measures, and the rest of the movie follows John as he navigates the dangers in plotting to break his wife out of prison and leave the country.

Is Lara innocent?  When we first see her, it's during a rather uncomfortable scene in an upscale restaurant, as she and John dine with John's brother and sister-in-law.  During the course of the meal, Lara gets into a heated debate with the sister-in-law, resulting in a shockingly intense verbal dispute... just shy of a screaming match.  All the while John himself seems curiously amused by the situation, blissfully ignorant of what might or might not be sociopathic tendencies displayed by his wife.  Those touches, reminiscent of Haggis' work, set the stage for an emotionally involving, controversial picture that seems bound to raise questions and ignite debates on the story's subject matter.  But once the plan is hatched to break Lara out, the movie's atmosphere changes, and the genre elements take control.  Those elements are handled well enough, but the movie has lost its footing at that point, and ping-pongs back and forth between a thoughtful, emotionally-complex drama and a routine jailbreak potboiler.  Once the narrative bearings went, my interest went as well.

I have not seen the French film upon which this one is based, but I find myself struggling to understand what made Haggis want to remake it, as it seems to run counter to the kind of complex and thoughtful storytelling Haggis is known for.  The plot here has a very distinct genre feel... one that wouldn't necessarily lend itself to being transcended into something more morally complex.  The endeavor reminds me of what A-lister Frank Darabont tried (unsuccessfully, in my opinion) to do with "The Mist".  Sometimes genre films are better left to those who seem to revel in making them (i.e. Tony Scott's "Unstoppable").

As a jailbreak potboiler?  Yeah, I suppose it more or less stays afloat.  It's competent enough.  And the performances do keep up with the material, especially the supporting ones, including Liam Neeson as an escape "expert" who offers much-needed tips of the trade, Olivia Wilde as an unusually sympathetic single mother who watches over John's son while he puts his plan in motion, Daniel Stern as John's lawyer, Tyrone Giordano ("The Family Stone") as a deaf passport forger who offers his support, Brian Dennehy as John's father, Kevin Corrigan ("Big Fan") as a crystal meth dealer, and Lennie James and Jason Beghe as two police detectives; one with dogged determination and the other who begins to suspect he missed something during the initial investiagtion. 

Am I being unfair here?  Perhaps.  But fair or not, Haggis set the standard for himself pretty high with "Crash", the underappreciated "In the Valley of Elah", not to mention the screenplay for "Million Dollar Baby."  He thrives in complex narrative territory.  I, for one, hope he gets back to that soon.

* *  out of  * * * * stars

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I"

Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Helena Bonham Carter, Ralph Fiennes, Robbie Coltrane, Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman

Director: David Yates

Runtime:2 hr. 27 min.

PG-13  For some sequences of intense action violence and frightening images

How the world has darkened for young Harry Potter. The boy has always had a painful past, though previously offset by the wonders of the wizard world and the possibilities it offered. Now, however, the wonders have been overshadowed by Death Eaters, the Ministry of Magic is now ruled with an Orwellian fist, and our three young heroes find themselves on the run.

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I" is the final story in the Potter saga, and the third film in the series directed by David Yates. Of the Yates-directed movies ("Order of the Phoenix" and "The Half-Blood Prince" were the others), this one is, for me, the most interesting due to its more deliberate pace. I was skeptical when I heard the final story was being split into two movies, but it turns out to be a wise move. The separation gives director Yates and screenwriter Steve Kloves a chance to decelerate the narrative a bit, focus more on the characters... what they're feeling, what they're facing, and how they choose to deal with the gravity of their situation. One of the criticisms I had of the earlier Yates films was that they felt a little too rushed; too eager to put their top-notch visual effects on display. Some viewers may find parts of "Hallows" dragging but I, for one, enjoyed the movie's resistance to speed to its climax. Yates' previous Potter films were technically well-made, but the emotion felt sifted from the stories.

I have read the books by J.K. Rowling, but judging a movie based on how it does / does not differ from the literary source material upon which it is based is a rather pointless task, as two different mediums will always find alternate ways to tell a similar story. Avid readers will forever consider the books better, so let's just focus on the movie here.

As the story opens, the rift between wizards and muggles has never been greater, resulting in Harry's adoptive family to leave town for their own safety. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), aided by "Mad-Eye" Moody (Brendan Gleeson), Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint), and a slew of ever-increasing supporters, is set on the run from Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes). Our heroes are forced to leave behind all familiarity and safety. (In a scene of subtle poignancy, Hermione casts a spell that removes her smiling face from all her family pictures.)

They find safe shelter at the Weasley home, but Harry, Ron, and Hermione are soon discovered by the Death Eaters, and forced to flee again. (Strange that our leads always seem to take refuge at the Weasley home every time something goes wrong, yet the villains constantly struggle to locate them. You'd think the Eaters would eventually just camp out there and wait for their prey to arrive.) The remainder of the film follows our protagonists as they struggle to find and destroy the remaining Horcruxes using clues left by the late Albus Dumbledore, thereby restoring the world of witchcraft and wizardry to its original glory.

The freshness, of course, is and has been missing from the later films in the series, though that's perhaps an unfair criticism. It is, at least to some degree, to be expected. Gone is the wonder and the romanticism of the wizard world. There was always something somewhat lovely about the notion of a wand choosing a wizard. Here, though, wands are wielded like revolvers in a Western. (There's a fight scene in a coffee shop that's eerily reminiscent of a good ol' Western shoot out.) I also miss the way the presence of Lord Voldemort was handled in the earlier films... never spoken of, always referred to as He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named. It gave the character a larger-than-life evil aura, thereby making the moment he finally did show up on screen surprisingly intense. As Voldemort, Fiennes has a limited amount of screen time here, but his character is presented in a much more ostentatious, less mysterious form. (There's a scene early on where he circles a table occupied by nervous, trembling minions, conjuring up images of Robert DeNiro's Al Capone in "The Untouchables.")

Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint do a decent job playing characters not only navigating a grueling emotional road but battling raging adolescent hormones as well, as Ron grows jealous of Harry and Hermione's friendship. Rupert Grint, God bless him, does everything he can to bring depth and dimension to his character's insecurity, but he has one of those unfortunate comic relief faces that evokes chuckles even in the most dire emotional state.

Overall, I enjoyed "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I." Yates seems to be getting more comfortable with the series, and he does bring a unique visual style to the table. One of the best scenes involves a virtuoso animation as Hermoine recounts the story behind the Deathly Hallows. The beloved Dobby also makes his return here, and while at first he does seem like a clunky CGI effect, it's kind of amazing how much the little guy has gotten to us by the film's conclusion.  The production design is quite striking as well. Some of the landscapes that stretch beneath the feet of our heroes are so desolate, the movie seems to be channeling Cormac McCarthy.

All in all, it's a decent lead-in to what should be a satisfying conclusion.

* * * 1/2  out of  * * * * stars