mediumyale

I'll never forget the moment in Jim Thompson's film adaptation of "The Grifters" (1990) when Lilly Dillion (played by Angelica Huston) gets her hand stamped from her boss's giant cigar. "No, no, no!" Screamed Lilly. "The Grifters" is one of the best films to emerge from the nineties, and one of the best films about the gritty world of con artists and hustlers, next to David Mamet's "House of Games" (1987). Anyways, that particular scene is replicated in Jim Thompson's recent film adaptation of "The Killer Inside Me." The star of the film, Casey Affleck, took his big cigar and burned the hand of a drunken beggar passing by him. However, the similar action doesn't singe the same way as it did in "The Grifters."

Casey Affleck's understated and deceptive portrayal of the killer, Sheriff Lou, doesn't quite resonate. Nobody in the quiet town of Central, Texas would guess that their chief protector is the cause of all this corruption and mayhem. As the audience slowly uncovers Lou's troubled childhood and psychological scarring, we finally get a glimpse behind Lou's duality and inner rage. Hence, lies the problem with the film. I thought the story's focus should've shifted to Sheriff Lou's sketchy background and childhood traumas, which would've made the character a little more plausible than what was conceived on screen.

Now, I'm not degrading Casey Affleck's interesting performance. I think he's a wonderful and skilled actor, and can portray a variety of characters. Ever since Casey Affleck's introduction to the silver screen in "To Die For" (1995), I was hooked on his shy mannerisms, boyish good-looks, trembling voice, and implosive portrayals. He scored gold performances in "Gone Baby Gone" (2007) and "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" (2007) , and continues to pick edgy characters, yet his new film left an all around icky taste in my mouth.

The killer portrayed in this gritty film didn't have me convinced. Another problem with this film was the lack of a proper musical score. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a true wonder how a filmmaker can carry an entire film with a selection of songs, but it's important to bring out the tone of every story. This film lacks a stable tone. It braises shock, horror, and then irony, but nothing ever flows continuously. Furthermore, the constant use of 50s pop music doesn't underscore the irony of the so-called "Happy Day" era. Instead, the music distracts from the dark tone of the atmosphere.

If you want to observe the disturbed and tainted mind of a realistic serial killer, then check out "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" (1986). Now, Michael Rooker's debut performance as Henry, truly brought out the killer inside me.

"The Kids Are All Right" is a charming adult comedy about a modern American family rediscovering their anonymous sperm donor, and the dynamic relationship between the lesbian couple, the biological father, and the two teenage children. I mean, who can resist two of America's finest actresses (Julianne Moore and Annette Bening) playing a lesbian couple!

The point of the story, I believe, is that even though the matriarchs don't represent the traditional American family, they still have problems and dysfunctions like anyone else. The two kids were conceived by an anonymous donor, and the youngest son decides, like any curious child, to contact his biological father, played by Mark Ruffalo. "The Kids Are All Right" doesn't attempt to break any new grounds in character development or filmmaking for that matter, but instead, simply paints a lovely portrait of a non-traditional family on the brink of collapsing.

I felt as though some of the sex scenes were a bit off-putting and unnecessary. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of "Last Tango in Paris" (1972) and the butter-for-lubrication scene, but Bernardo Bertolucci was breaking new grounds in the erotic drama genre. The pain and misery of Bertolucci's main characters were felt during those steamy sex scenes. I also love the sex scene in "Boogie Nights" (1997) between Mark Wahlberg and Julianne Moore, because it was really about the mechanisms of filmmaking. I admire the sexual nature and the intention to depict sex as what it is; raw and messy. "Movie sex" can be so overdone with all the back-lighting, shadows, and unthinkable cutaways. But, when sex is over-the-top for the sake of being over-the-top, it doesn't ring true to me.

The best part of the film is the energy and charisma all three of the leads bring to the table. I can't say The Kids are All Right is a great film, nor did it rub me the wrong way, but it certainly is a well done comedy. The performances are bright, the dialogue is sharp, and the situations had me laugh out loud.

I'm very glad to see that this film opened up in more theaters. In the first two weeks of the film's release, it was only showing in two theaters, and you better believe, if you weren't there at least 20 minutes early, it was sold out. Distributors need to give films like this a bigger chance and not underestimate their audience. When I checked the local paper for what's playing at the large multiplex theaters I noticed that Salt was playing on five screens, "Dinner with Schmucks" on three screens, "Despicable Me" on three screens, and "Inception" on three screens. Believe me, there's always room for a charming adult comedy with an offbeat premise.

I walked into the theater with high expectations. I wanted to love it! I wanted to cherish it! I wanted my dreams to emulate everything Inception was discovering in high-tech cinema. However, sometimes when you go into a theater with the highest expectations, you might just be, a little let down.

Christopher Nolan's 100 million dollar art film is an extravagant, mind-bending thriller, which creates an original universe of cinema. Sure, the logic and landscapes of dreams have been painted by such gifted filmmakers as David Lynch, Wes Craven, Roman Polanski, and Brain De Palma, but Christopher Nolan is striving to break new grounds. "Inception" is one of those films that sinks into your mind twenty minutes after leaving the theater. While I was experiencing the two-and-half-hour dream-scape opus, I was squirming in my seat. Maybe I was so captured by the visual elements, I couldn't keep up with the meandering plot.

Despite the wonderful performances by Joseph Gordon Levitt, Michael Caine, Cilian Murphy, and Ellen Page, I found the supporting characters to be very lackluster. In addition, I thought the story could have unfolded in a much quicker pace. I loved the concept of stealing someone else's dreams, planting ideas into their heads, and creating a subconscious world like an architect constructing a building.

The visual imagery of "Inception" include trains shooting through the middle of a street, skylines folding over, and separate dimensions seeping into one another. However, with a plot so loopy as "Inception," I didn't quite feel like I was in the best of hands. Inception reminded me of David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive" (2001), which purposely didn't make any sense, but fulfilled the mythical and erotically-charged world of what a dream feels like. "Mulholland Drive" strives where I believe "Inception" fails; emotional investment in the characters. I believe the dramatic arch has to be the filmmaker's number one priority.

As much as I admired the visual attention, Christopher Nolan's acute direction, and Leonardo DiCaprio's complex character, "Inception" had me a little exhausted by the end credits. I still recommend seeing this wonder of a film and perhaps, it's worth a second viewing on my behalf. But I must argue; Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" (2008) and "Memento" (2000) are more of a masterpiece than the ambitious, yet tedious, "Inception."