The Trial of the Chicago 7

Director: Aaron Sorkin
Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Alex Sharp, Sacha Baron Cohen, Jeremy Strong, John Carroll Lynch, Noah Robbins, Daniel Flaherty, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, Kelvin Harrison Jr., Mark Rylance, Ben Shenkman, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, J.C. MacKenzie, Frank Langella, Michael Keaton 
Running Time: 130 min.
Rating: R 

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

If it's become customary to refer to any controversial or contested trial that captivates the public's imagination as a "circus," 1969's trial of a group of seven anti-Vietnam protesters charged with conspiracy and crossing state lines with the intention of inciting a riot at the Democratic National Convention feels like the starting point. That Netflix's The Trial of the Chicago 7 is written and directed by Aaron Sorkin pretty much insures that we won't be subjected to a dry, biographical history lesson recounting the timeline of events surrounding this pivotal event. But there's this feeling that even if he did take that more conventional approach, the material would still be inescapably compelling and entertaining enough on its own merits. But this is Sorkin we're talking about so it's not like anyone is expecting the writer behind The Social Network and The West Wing to phone it in. And sure enough, he doesn't.

Better recognized for having other filmmakers adapt his sometimes polarizing perspectives, there was a question mark surrounding how Sorkin's decisions behind the camera would affect this material given that this is only the Oscar-winning screenwriter's second directorial feature. So while we'll never know how his script could have turned out in other hands, it's tough to care when the version we do get leaves this much of an impression. With an all-star cast at his disposal, he manages to give this multi-faceted, politically and ethically complicated true story the dramatic heft it deserves while expertly balancing many of its comedic, absurdist moments. And there's no doubt that this trial is absurd on every possible level, made that much more remarkable by the fact that much of what we see did actually happen, if you give or take some details and grant the usual degree of creative license.

It's August 1968 when Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) president Tom Hayden (Eddie Redmayne) and community organizer Rennie Davis (Alex Sharp), Youth International Party (Yippie) founders Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen) and Jerry Rubin (Jeremy Strong), along with Vietnam mobilization leader (MOBE) David Dellinger (John Carroll Lynch) and anti-war activists Lee Weiner (Noah Robbins) and John Froines (Daniel Flaherty) protest at the Democratic Convention in Chicago, kicking off a chain of events that results in violent rioting. Five months later, all of them, in addition to an eighth defendant, Black Panther party co-founder Bobby Seale (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II), are charged and eventually put on trial, with the Attorney General appointing young, idealstic lawyer Richard Schultz (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and veteran litigator Tom Foran (J.C. MacKenzie) as prosecutors for the case. 

With the extremely prejudiced Judge Julius Hoffman (Frank Langella) on the bench, defense attorneys William Kunstler (Mark Rylance) and Leonard Weinglass (Ben Shankman) attempt to represent their rather uncontrollable clients, most notably the disruptive Abbie Hoffman and self-professed non-client Seale, who forgoes legal counsel to instead receive advice from Illinois Black Panther chapter chairman Fred Hampton (Kelvin Harrison Jr.) in court. With the events of that summer coming into clearer view through key witness testimony, the proceedings soon careen out of control, with Judge Hoffman's controversial, biased rulings making it impossible for the defendants to receive a fair trial, exposing the flaws within the government, judicial system, and further opening the wounds of political and racial unrest throughout the country. 

As far as the nation's most ridiculous trials go, this one's right up there, as the film starts in an almost jarringly scattershot montage style, introducing us to the key principle players in court, while interspersing often uproariously comical legal scenes with the fateful events that took place in Chicago. Tonally, this isn't the easiest balancing act, but Sorkin masters it, establishing all of their out-sized personalities and motivations, with Cohen's Abbie Hoffman and Strong's Jerry Rubin being the most radicalized of the group, easily getting under the quick-tempered, frustratingly illogical judge's skin. An early highlight sees Judge Hoffman constantly interrupting Schultz's opening statement to reiterate that there's "no relation" between he and the defendant. If ever there was a mix-up no one would ever make, it's that. 

This entire film really belongs to an award-worthy Langella, who just nails the staggering incompetence of a man who makes Judge Lance Ito look like RBG. Senile, racist and mind-blowingly ignorant, his actions are hilariously inept until it's obvious the stakes have gotten too high and, we're left to process the immense consequences of this eventual verdict, along with all the potential ramifications surrounding that. It's funny until it isn't, and that line's very visible once it's crossed. Much of the turmoil concerns the eighth defendent, Bobby Seals, who besides probably not even deserving of being there, is shut down in escalatingly humiliating ways by the judge, reaching a fever pitch toward the trial's end. You almost lose track of how many charges of contempt are laid down, especially on Mark Rylance's defense attorney, who eventually has enough. 

Everyone's had enough, with some faring better than others at hiding it. The two bedrocks who seem incapable of breaking are Redmayne's logically level-headed Tom Hayden and JGL's Schultz, the latter of whom isn't ignorant to the shenanigans unfolding while still retaining his loyalty to the law. A park encounter midway through with him and Hoffman and Rubin truly reveals what type of a person he is, conistent with his character in court and a reminder that boths sides are being professionally and personally victimized by this sham of a trial, regardless of how much weight the charges carry. There's also a brief, but great performance from Michael Keaton as former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who may or may not turn out to be the star witness the defense is banking on.

The flashbacks to the actual riots are powerfully filmed by Sorkin, especially revealing in terms of what it says about Hayden, who is intentionally portrayed as kind of a milquetoast character up to that point. This changes in a major way toward the end, leading into an over-the-top, but still immensely satisfying resolution that seems completely called for whether or not that's how things exactly unfolded in reality. It works for this film, which is really all that matters. 

The elephant in the room is that the timing couldn't be appropriate or strangely uncomfortable, reminding us just how little has actually changed in the decades since. It's no longer a question of whether something like this could happen again, or even worse. It has and is. That thought never really leaves you as these events unfold, holding up a mirror to a very specific time and place in our culture and political climate that still very much resonates. It's an unpredictably wild trip, and even if you know how it all pans out, it's difficult to still not become enraptured in the proceedings and eventual fallout for these characters. Of course, so much of that impact stems from the fact that it's wrestling with issues still haven't been fully resolved over half a century later.

Captain Fantastic

Director: Matt Ross
Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Frank Langella, Kathryn Hahn, Steve Zahn, George MacKay, Samantha Isler, Annalise Basso, Nicholas Hamilton, Shree Crooks, Charlie Shotwell, Trin Miller, Erin Moriarty, Missi Pyle, Ann Dowd
Running Time: 118 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Captain Fantastic addresses so many issues that feel so "here" and "now" it's almost downright uncomfortable at times. And if nothing else, it's blunt. As direct and upfront as the controversial title character, Matt Ross' film seems to play by its own rules while asking the audience which rules they'd rather play by, if any at all.  It joins 10 Cloverfield Lane, as one of the few releases this year that could double as a veiled social commentary on the current political climate. But this is operating at an entirely different, more thought-provoking level. It first it comes off as kind of a call-to-arms, with a protagonist's complete rejection of a society protecting and coddling their "snowflake" children while isolating them from any kind of self-sufficiency. Then the narrative zigs and zags in different directions, asking deeper questions before arriving at a conclusion that should infuriate as many as it elates.

Supposedly, Steve Jobs despised the phrase, "That's just what people do," writing it off as a lazy explanation for decisions and behavior unaccompanied any questions, only helping to further promote a thoughtless, herd mentality. It's likely Viggo Mortensen's title character would wholeheartedly agree, with views and philosophies for raising his children that fall way out of line with contemporary society's. A couple of decades ago it may not have seemed as extreme, but in a more politically correct than ever 2016, it's downright shocking. And there are undeniably many instances where his unorthodox methods qualify as dangerous and abusive, regardless of the era. Then there are those other moments when some of his ideas, against our better judgment, really make a certain amount of sense and we've perhaps moved too far away from them. Regardless, it's clear most parents would kill to have the connection this man has with his kids. But when the real question of how far his rights extend as a single dad to determine what's best for his sons and daughters' well being, the waters become even murkier. There are no easy answers or pat resolutions here, but boy am I grateful there's a movie with enough guts to ask the questions.

Following his wife Leslie's hospitalization for mental illness, Ben Cash (Mortensen) is raising his six kids, Bo (George MacKay), Kielyr (Samantha Isler), Vespyr (Annalise Basso), Rellian (Nicholas Hamilton), Zaja (Shree Crooks), and Nai (Charlie Shotwell), alone in the Pacific Northwest wilderness. Living off the land, he instills in his children survivalist skills while also home schooling them literature, philosophy, science, history, foreign languages and physical education. But when Leslie takes her own life and Ben and the kids want to attend her funeral, he has a decision to make. Blaming Ben for Leslie's death, his wealthy, estranged father-in-law Jack (Frank Langella) warns him an appearance will result in his arrest and potential loss of parental custody. Never one to back down to the privileged, he takes the kids on a road trip in their bus, exposing them for the first time to the capitalist city life he and his late wife consciously removed their family from.  And it's only when they start dipping their feet into the waters that are the "real world," to carry out Leslie's dying wishes, are the full consequences of Ben's parenting style evident, as are it's positive and negative effects on these unusually bright kids.

It's rare to find a film where it's tough to determine exactly what could happen next before finding out that it could be anything. In Captain Fantastic, that's mostly attributable to the unpredictability of Ben and the many different shades Mortensen brings to this conflicted character. There really is a feeling that he's not only driving the van for this road trip, but the entire narrative since so much of it revolves around how he stubbornly shapes the lives of his children, both to their benefit and eventual detriment. He's strict and inflexible, yet at the same time manages to show them a surprising amount of respectful affection that's never anything less than completely authentic.

There's much to admire in how much he thinks these kids can handle if he's simply matter-of-fact, even straightforwardly explaining to his six-year-old exactly what "rape" is despite her being at an age where she doesn't need to hear it, or arguably shouldn't. When that invariably leads to her asking about "sexual intercourse," he responds similarly, with solid facts unaccompanied by any kind of judgment. Whether or not it's an appropriate topic of conversation, there's less doubt that this was the most effective way to do it. Ben just doesn't want to hear teen daughter Kielyr talk about her recent reading of Lolita in terms of what it's about. He wants to know what it's really ABOUT and how she interpreted it. And as usual, the word "interesting" is forbidden since, you know, it doesn't mean anything.

As played by Mortensen, Ben's such an easy, laid-back character to root for that you want to look past the holes in his philosophy that manifest when they make a stop at his sister (Kathryn Hahn) and brother-in-law's (Steve Zahn) house. How they've raised their two sons seems to represent the kind of protective coddling Ben and Leslie rallied against when they moved their family off the grid to escape a smothering, materialistic society. When Ben and the kids arrive, it's two extremes trying to co-exist at one dinner table and the result is not only emotionally combustible, but illuminating in how it reveals just how much of life his kids are missing out on, despite the number of books they've all read, wildlife they've hunted or weapons they've brandished.

Whatever real life experience has been gained by these kids, few of it has actually been applied, to the point where Ben, in all his best efforts to raise independent, free-thinking, self-sufficient offspring, could unintentionally be realizing his worst fears by sheltering them in a bubble. It's perhaps most apparent with the eldest, Bo, who has his first, awkward experience even talking to a girl (played by Erin Moriarty) on this road trip and greatly fears revealing his college ambitions to his dad. Younger teen Rellian hates his father's methods altogether and would far rather live like a normal kid and play video games than celebrate fictitious holidays like "Noam Chomsky Day."

Ben's father-in-law isn't depicted as a sneering, one-dimensional villain angling to take his grandchildren away to settle a grudge over his deceased daughter. He does want to take them, but perhaps for very valid reasons and the events that unfold as a result of it feel more painfully realistic than the over-the-top movie confrontation we'd expect. Ben's a good man who cares deeply for his kids while Jack's concerns about the safety and future of his grandchildren come from an equally sincere place. It also helps that Langella plays these scenes just right, expertly walking a fine line other equally subtle actors couldn't in only a few scenes. Then there's the issue of how much say Ben should really have in upholding his late wife's wishes considering her precarious mental state would almost have to call those into serious question. None of this feels easy and Matt Ross' screenplay doesn't insult us by implying otherwise.

Filled with plenty of lighthearted moments and laughs, it would still be inaccurate to categorize this as anything but a drama since the ground it covers is thematically much deeper than it appears on the surface. Viggo may be the anchor in a tricky, multi-faceted role that could have gone wrong in a number of ways, but the kids are good too. George MacKay, previously a strong presence in Stephen King's 11.22.63 miniseries from earlier this year, brings a loony, sincere naivete to Bo while Samantha Isler is also a standout as Kielyr, channelling a sort of Shailene Woodley in training. The much discussed ending is somewhat brave, keeping with the spirit and tone set from the start. Three quarters of the way through, you think you know exactly where it's going, and had it ended that way, we'd still have a perfectly fine film. But it would be one with a rather black and white message that wouldn't lend itself to the type of discussion the film's still generating and should continue to.

This all does feel more like a writing achievement than a directorial one, and while you could argue whether the execution lives up to the magnitude of its ideas, it lays claim to something few other 2016 films can: Cultural Relevancy. It feels significant in how it turns a mirror to our society, coming closer to pinpointing the sociopolitical rift that's developed in this country than most works this year. It's almost scary how its finger rests on the pulse, going so far as to anticipate a discussion that's only now starting to permeate our culture in a major way. It could be read as a warning on the dangers of extremism in either direction and a call for compromise. But however you describe Captain Fantastic, just don't call it "interesting."
        

Draft Day

Director: Ivan Reitman
Starring: Kevin Costner, Jennifer Garner, Denis Leary, Frank Langella, Tom Welling, Sam Elliot, Ellen Burstyn, Chadwick Boseman, Rosanna Arquette, Terry Crews, Arian Foster, Josh Pence, Sean Combs, Wallace Langham, Pat Healy
Running Time: 110 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Draft Day is an entertaining crowd pleaser that goes down easy, telling a tight, well-constructed story that accomplishes exactly what a movie of this genre should. But more importantly it's smart, while featuring a really impressive lead performance from an actor who again reminds us of his value in the right role. On paper, these would seem to be all the ingredients for success so it's perplexing that mainstream audiences, who usually eat this stuff up, stayed away. Until you consider this isn't about a superhero, but a general manager of a sports franchise struggling to rebuild his team and life. While it's loaded with football terminology and sports talk, it's basic stuff and not so "inside" that it would prevent those unfamiliar with the NFL from grasping the gist of what's happening or appreciating the protagonist's dilemma.

Cleveland Browns General Manager Sonny Weaver Jr. (Kevin Costner) has a lot weighing on his mind, having not only fired his own father as coach, but mourning his sudden death a week before the NFL draft. Holding the the seventh overall pick heading in, he's made the controversial decision to trade their next three first round picks over the next three years to the Seattle Seahawks in exchange for their number one. It's a steep price to pay, but the reward could be University of Wisconsin quarterback and Heisman Trophy winner Bo Callahan (Josh Pence), which sits just fine with Cleveland fans and team owner Anthony Molina (Frank Langella), who demands Sonny "make a splash." But potentially giving up their future doesn't impress coach Vince Penn (Denis Leary) or current QB Brian Drew (Tom Welling), who thought he was that future before getting injured.

With lingering doubts about Callahan's potential starting to rear its head, Sonny has other options on the table like outspoken Louisiana linebacker Vontae Mack (Chadwick Boseman) and Florida State running back Ray Jennings (Arian Foster), whose father, Earl (Terry Crews) played for the Browns. But Molina only wants Callahan, and Sonny could be out of a job if it doesn't happen. And simultaneously, his girlfriend Ali (Jennifer Garner), who manages the Browns' salary cap, hits him with the news that she's pregnant. With his father gone, and lacking respect from both his staff and fans, he now must step out of that shadow to rebuild the franchise and carve out a new life that's uniquely his own.

Reitman's juggling a lot of balls at once here and manages to keep them all in the air with little confusion as to what's going on at any given moment in the plot. Like the superior Moneyball, it's loaded with scenes of big deals being made, decisions being second guessed and back peddling. But unlike that film, much of that conversational action is handled with a split-screen as Sonny spends what feels like over half of the film's running time on his cell, which is obviously a necessity given the nature of his job and the circumstances (not to mention the fact he's human). What's surprising is how exciting  this turns out to be as his decision to surrender all of this ailing franchise's first round draft picks for the foreseeable future, and his mad scramble to fix it, presents a certain side to the sports equation that does differentiate it from Moneyball.

Rather than relying on statistics, Sonny often acts only on gut feelings and emotion, much to the ire of the Browns staff who prefer to look at the cold, hard facts. Sonny's not as smart as someone like Billy Beane, but he's a hustler who can persuade people that even the craziest idea will work. And if he can't persuade them, well then, who cares? He can just fire them anyway. Many times in this movie he's wrong and sometimes even when he's right it looks like he just got lucky because he had to guts to risk it all. That's a shade of nuance you don't often find when managers are depicted on screen, until you remember he's at such a low point personally and professionally that he has nothing to lose. His reasons for doubting "can't miss" prospect Callahan seem really sound and crazy at the same time, even if I don't know enough about the intricacies of drafting players to speak on its accuracy. But the best thing about the movie is that you don't need to. It's accuracy is irrelevant since Sonny isn't making decisions based on that. The script creates a compelling mystery around what's wrong with Callahan, then engages us with an interesting discussion about why it matters.

This is exactly the kind of role Costner should be playing at this stage in his career and seems almost tailor-made for an actor who's experienced some of his greatest onscreen successes in the sports genre. It's not baseball, but all the qualities he brought to Field of Dreams, Bull Durham and For the Love of the Game transfer seamlessly to the context and setting of pro football. There are a lot of unfair misconceptions about him as an actor, but only times he's faltered was when asked to go over-the-top or play larger than life characters in big budget spectacles, rather than normal people struggling with real problems. He's always been an underrated character actor pushed down our throats as a movie star. That makes this is perfect for him, taking full advantage of the actor's laid back, cool persona in a believable way that doesn't ask too much of him or the audience. As a result, he's superb. Take how he plays a pivotal scene with Tom Welling's injured QB, silently acknowledging he's fully aware how angry and betrayed his player feels, while resolute in doing what's best for business and letting him know who has the final say. Welling is also phenomenal in his brief role, totally believable as an NFL QB and commanding the screen with an authoritative presence that feels miles removed from Smallville.

Aside from them, the rest of the film is equally well cast across the board with Frank Langella leaving no doubt he's the profit-driven owner of a major sports franchise, calling the shots and making everyone's job hell. Denis Leary is just as plausible as the loudmouth, opinionated coach who refuses to back down to his G.M. since he's ultimately held responsible for whatever team Sonny puts together. Jennifer Garner is saddled with the girlfriend role, but she's one of the few top actresses who can believably play a nerdy brainiac so the lawyer role fits, bridging the gap between the two worlds. She and Costner don't exactly light up the screen with their chemistry, but they're bickering and talking about football most of the time anyway. Their sub-plot's the weak link, but it isn't unnecessary, and doesn't distract any from the sports side of things. The backstory concerning his dad's passing and the arrival of his mom (played by Ellen Burstyn) is handled better and of greater interest since it directly informs the events surrounding the draft.

The best way to watch this is pretending that Moneyball never existed, but Reitman makes that task easy by not only covering an entirely different sport in similar detail, but choosing to focus on a specific aspect of the business within a constricted time frame. By doing that, and having a skilled cast carry it out, he delivers a surprising amount of tension, despite us having a pretty good idea of the outcome. It's a lot of fun just sitting back and letting the script and performances work their magic, taking us there in a sensible, intelligent way. The main character may be constantly on the clock, but when it's over it hardly feels as if any time has passed for us at all.
                      

Unknown

Director: Jaume Collet-Serra
Starring: Liam Neeson, Diane Kruger, January Jones, Aidan Quinn, Frank Langella, Bruno Ganz, Sebastian Koch
Running Time: 113 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★) 

Unknown boasts an intriguing premise that allows the viewer to speculate all the potential outcomes before arriving at one I didn't consider, not necessarily because it's so clever, but because I lost interest by the time it arrived. Considering the script puts all its eggs in one basket and nearly writes itself into a corner by having to deliver huge, the big twist isn't disappointing, but a lot of things leading up to it are. It's okay to make a dumb movie, but not a dumb one that pretends to be smart. Liam Neeson's last outing in the genre, 2008's Taken grasped that concept and the result was a fun, goofy, thrilling ride praised by (including myself) for knowing exactly what it had to do. It's tough to watch this and not think of that, Hithcock's thrillers, Harrison Ford's Frantic and even 1997's The Game, from which this film partially borrows its concept and even a few choice scenes. Of course this greatly suffers from those comparisons by not really exploring the full ramifications of what it claims to be about. But there's no mistaking that this idea, if executed to its maximum potential, could have been gold and Neeson again delivers the goods as an everyman action hero. The final 30 minutes or so of Unknown are exciting, but less exciting when you realize any outcome wouldn't have made the least bit of difference or fixed its bigger problems, like a horrid supporting performance from an Emmy nominated actress who may want to prepare her Razzie acceptance speech instead.

Neeson plays Dr. Martin Harris, a scientist arriving in Berlin with his wife Liz (January Jones) to give a speech at a biotechnology summit. After forgetting his briefcase back at the airport he takes a taxi that crashes off of a bridge into the river, but his driver, a Bosnian immigrant named Gina (Diane Kruger) saves him before fleeing the scene. After awaking on Thanksgiving day in the hospital after four days in a coma, Martin tracks down Liz, who not only has no recollection of who he is, but is with another man (Aidan Quinn) calling himself "Martin Harris" and assuming his entire identity. Besides knowing details only the real Martin would know, the impostor even has family photos of his face replacing Martin's and legitimate ID. With no physical proof of who he is, Martin gets nowhere with police before enlisting the help of private investigator Herr Jurgen (Bruno Ganz) who tries to help him piece together what could have happened, who did it, and why he's being trailed by mysterious assassins. He soon re-involves cab driver Gina, suspecting she knows more than she's letting on and attempts to contact former colleague Rodney Cole (Frank Langella), who could have the answers he's looking for.

Right away, it's clear there are only a few directions the story can go and possible payoffs that explain  what's happened to Martin since that cab ride. Without spoiling anything, you'd figure it has to be one of the following:

1. He's fallen into a shadowy conspiracy or witnessed something he shouldn't have, likely related to his work in the biotech field. Evil, powerful corporate types have stolen his identity and now they want him dead.  

2. He's actually not Martin Harris. He has amnesia.

3. He didn't survive the cab accident. None of this is happening.    

4. None of the above. Something else we didn't see coming.

Those four scenarios don't offer a lot to work with, with #1 possibly being the most disappointing if only because it's so predictable and ordinary. The other options aren't great either (2 and 3 border on infuriating) so that kind of leaves screenwriters Oliver Butcher and Cornwell in a jam unless they can fill in #4 with some kind of shocking reveal that turns the story on its head, changing the story's complexity and making a larger thematic point about identity. But it's clear there's no ambition here that reaches further than making your standard boilerplate action movie, so that begs the question as to why you'd dangle a carrot like that in front of your audience while wasting opportunities along the way. Diane Kruger's cabbie could be considered this film's version of Deborah Kara Unger's mysterious waitress in The Game (whose motivations were wisely kept in the dark until the final credits), except for the fact that this script tips its hand way too early in revealing her purpose and she's hardly an active agent in the story. Kruger's performance is fine but she's just being dragged along (sometimes literally) for the ride by Neeson's character as they run from the baddies,without once fearing for their safety since it feels like a buddy flick. As he was in Taken, Neeson is suberb and completely believable in another ass-kicking role, and it's worth noting few actors have supposedly "sold out" as well, bringing much needed gravitas to franchise movies like The Phantom Menace, Batman Begins and even last year's The A-Team. He continues his late-career action hero run here and none of the film's flaws reflect on him. In fact, his intensity manages to hide many of them.

If any blame falls on a performer it's January Jones whose blank expression, flat line readings (that do very much feel only like line recitations) and droll delivery make you wonder if she's emotionally present in her scenes at all, or even awake. Anyone familiar with her as an actress (or caught her unfortunate SNL hosting gig) knows that unless she's playing a variation on her ice queen Betty Draper character from Mad Men she tends to really struggle. What's strange is that this is kind of similar to that so it's surprising she wrestles this much with a role that's clearly supporting, but still pivotal. As the plot unfolds and her character takes a dramatic shift, she falters big time, taking the tension in what should be the most suspenseful (but is instead the most unintentionally hilarious) scene in the film down a few notches with her sleepiness. As Martin's mysterious friend from the past, Frank Langella again plays a shadowy figure reminiscent of his better developed character in The Box, minus the facial disfigurement. He's saddled with the unenviable task of delivering truckloads of expository dialogue explaining the big payoff, which does make more sense than expected given the circumstances. Unfortunately, the resolution following that isn't as successful and more in line with the usual action plotting that came before.

It's best to call this what it is: An attempted sequel to Taken. Only this time the protagonist's identity is stolen instead of his daughter. Except the action scenes aren't thrilling enough to compete and Neeson's character doesn't have the same sense of urgency and purpose. A man's entire identity and existence is missing, yet I never get the impression the screenplay grasps the full magnitude of that notion.  Just about the only category this does come out on top in is cinematography as this film does have a cooler, slicker look to it than Taken did, only making you wish the story deserved it. And while the twist works, it's not the kind that will have you scurrying back for another viewing in hopes of picking up something you may have missed, nor will it shed new light on the story, which is surprisingly basic considering how strong the premise was. Unsure of what it is and residing in this gray area between goofy action movie and semi-intelligent thriller, Unknown isn't exactly successful as either, even if it's plot would have made a perfect addition to the "Choose Your Own Adventure" book series.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

Director: Oliver Stone
Starring: Michael Douglas, Shia LaBeouf, Josh Brolin, Carey Mulligan, Frank Langella, Susan Sarandon, Eli Wallach
Running Time: 133 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Don't count me among those who thought it was a terrible idea for Oliver Stone to make a sequel to Wall Street over 20 years after its release, but for whatever reason, a lot of people seemed to think it was. In my mind there are few greater thrills than catching up with a memorable movie character decades later and finding out what they're up to. How many times has a film ended and you wonder what happened to the key players after the credits rolled? In many cases it's better to just not know and leave it alone, but sometimes you just can't resist because there's more story there. Gordon Gekko, the role that won Michael Douglas his 1987 Best Actor Oscar, is one of those rare exceptions where we just need to know, even at the risk of shattering our perceptions of a film that was always meant to be trapped in its own time period anyway. No one can convince me that the idea of dropping him in the midst of 2008's economic collapse has no dramatic value and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is a sequel that lives and dies on Douglas' supporting performance. The big draw is finding out what happened to Gekko and how one of our greatest actors will re-interpret his most iconic role. Everything else is just gravy. Featuring a hammy central storyline, the film lacks the bite of the original, but we knew it would. This is more a human, emotional drama very much unlike the corporate thriller its predecessor was. It's slicker and more calculated, but still works in its own way.

The film cleverly opens with Gordon Gekko (Douglas) collecting his belongings (which hilariously includes a relic 80's cell phone) before being released from prison in 2001 after serving an eight year sentence for insider trading and securities fraud. No one's waiting for him when he gets out. We flash forward seven years and Gekko's now a best-selling author and lecturer, all over television promoting his new book, "Is Greed Good?" which puts a new spin on his famous catchphrase. His sudden re-emergence grabs the attention of Jake Moore (Shia LaBeouf), a trader at Wall Street investment bank Keller Zabel and boyfriend of Gekko's estranged daughter, Winnie (Carey Mulligan), an idealistic political blogger who's inherited none of her father's ruthlessness and still blames him for her brother's death. But when Jake's boss and longtime mentor Louis Zabel (Frank Langella) finds his company on the brink of collapse due to vicious rumors and takes his own life, Jake knows whose help he needs. He makes a trade, promising Gekko a reconciliation with his daughter if he can help bring down rival CEO Bretton James (Josh Brolin), the man Jake suspects is responsible for it all.

There are two intertwined stories being told here, one a lot more interesting than the other. The Wall Street power struggle is old hat, just an excuse to bring Gekko back into the picture in a meaningful way and act as a backdrop. That plot is needlessly complicated, bogged down by business jargon and a villain is so cartoonishly over-the-top I half expected to him to grow a mustache just so he could twirl it. But for what needs to be accomplished from a goofy entertainment standpoint it works even if I found myself wishing less time were spent on those details and more on the re-entry of a seemingly more humbled Gekko into society after personally and professionally paying the price for his crimes. Jail has mellowed him, changing his outlook on things and the most fascinating aspect of the character is how Douglas puts on all these different masks to reveal varying shades of Gekko's personality when he's around certain people. A mellowed business titan dispensing sage wisdom as a lecturer. A cutthroat schemer advising Jake. and a pathetically inept father still cleaning up his messes in attempting to earn Winnie's trust. He makes it clear why Winnie wouldn't ever be able to trust him and feels betrayed Jake would even attempt to. The more reversals the plot takes the more appreciation you build up scene-by-scene for what Douglas does to adapt and add even more layers to his original creation.

At first glance the casting of LaBeouf as the protagonist would seem to be a miscalculation, but youth and inexperience count in his favor with the character's early success being explained away with him having the right connections. Given Shia's recent Indy 4 track record I was skeptical, but he brings his "A" game as a young broker green enough to be taken advantage of by the heavy hitters but still confident and determined enough to put up a fight to get what he wants. His role is absolutely huge, asked to carry every scene in the picture and he responds better than anyone could have suspected. Whatever issues there are with the film definitely don't fall on him or his chemistry with Douglas or Carey Mulligan. Good luck finding an actress working today who possesses a lovelier, more natural onscreen presence and I can't say it's wasted at all in this emotional role, which wouldn't have amounted to nearly as much had anyone else been given it.

As James, Josh Brolin's stuck as your typical stock villain but since he's Brolin and looks to be having such a blast playing it, we hardly notice or care. Speaking of having a blast, the unfortunate timing of Charlie Sheen's cameo (reprising his role of Bud Fox from the original), whether by design or not, does more to shine the spotlight on Sheen's celebrity reputation than the character and earns unintentional giggles above all else. Maybe a fun moment, but it should have been left on the cutting room floor as it turns his experience with Gekko years ago into a cheap punchline. Sporting a convincing Long Island accent, Susan Sarandon makes a few brief, but meorable appearances as Jake's mother, a real estate agent in over her head financially along with everyone else. The best creative addition Stone makes is musical, recruiting rock legend David Byrne of The Talking Heads' (whose song "This Must Be The Place" was featured in the first film and reappears here) to provide the soundtrack, which strangely fits the tone of this movie like a glove and feels like a major character.

Many will accuse Stone of wimping out with the ending and he does to an extent but you'd have to be pretty glum to wish for the finale we come close to receiving. That said, Stone carries things on a about a scene or two longer than he should when a more ambiguous final act would have served the story better and driven the point home harder, or at least given us more to think about. The wrap-up's a little too tidy for characters complicated enough to deserve better, especially Gekko. Continuing the action past that point and even through the closing credits (in a particularly befuddling sequence) was an ill advised choice, but doesn't really harm the overall integrity of the film. Anyone going into Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps expecting another Wall Street will feel let down. As it should be, this is far different since over two decades have passed and that movie couldn't be made today, nor would we need it to be. As much as the original stands as timepiece for 80's greed and excess this sequel provides a compelling, if Hollywoodized, snapshot of the recent economic collapse, but more interestingly allows us a glimpse into what one of our most memorable movie characters would have to say about it.

The Box

Director: Richard Kelly
Starring: Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, Frank Langella, Sam Oz Stone, Holmes Osborne
Running Time: 113 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

"Your house is a box which you live in. The car you drove to work is a box, on wheels. When you return home from work you sit in front of a box with moving images. You watch until the mind and soul rots and the box that is your body deteriorates, when finally you are placed into the ultimate box...to rest under the soil and earth."

Was there ever any doubt critics and audiences would hate The Box? Seriously, any doubt at all? Burdened by belonging to a genre that doesn't get any respect, made by a director few want to see work again, and starring a polarizing A-list actress, minds were already made up. This never stood a chance. And if that wasn't enough, how many times have we heard the phrase, "It's like an extended episode of The Twilight Zone" as a supposed insult aimed at high-concept sci-fi or mystery/suspense thrillers? There's no doubt critics' mouths were watering at just the thought of bashing a movie THAT ACTUALLY IS based on an episode of The Twilight Zone.

The nerve of some filmmakers today, using one of the best written shows in television history as a template for their movie. But it turns out writer/director Richard Kelly's third feature can in no way be described as merely an extended version of anything.  There are movies being made right now that are genuine garbage, and worse, seem to lack ideas and passion. This film isn't for everyone but it's not fair to say it isn't for anyone or the person who made it doesn't deserve to make movies anymore because it confused you. It confused me too. It also frustrated me. But not just for the sake of doing it. It takes an incredibly creative person to craft a film like this, then actually have the guts to follow through and make it. I'd never imply it's over anyone's head or they "didn't get it," but I would advise anyone who isn't a hardcore fan of sci-fi to stay as far away as possible.

For most, this just won't be their thing, which is fine. And even those who were big fans of either of Richard Kelly's previous masterworks, the cult classic Donnie Darko and/or the unjustly maligned Southland Tales, can still easily find themselves hating this. With a relatively straightforward premise, the presence of A-List talent and one huge box office flop behind him you'd be forgiven for thinking Kelly was ready to concede defeat and start playing by the studios' rules for a change. But really, we should have known better.

Norma (Cameron Diaz) and Arthur (James Marsden) Lewis are a married couple living above their means but barely making ends meet in Langley, Virginia circa 1976. Arthur works as an engineer at NASA, where he's just been rejected from the astronaut program after failing the psychological exam, while Norma is a high school English teacher whose job might now be in jeopardy due to cuts in the tenure program. A potential cure to their financial ills come in the form of a small wooden box with a red button delivered by a facially disfigured stranger named Arlington Steward (a creepy Frank Langella). His offer is simple: Press the button and they'll be handed a payment of one million dollars... tax free. The catch is that someone somewhere in the world whom THEY DON'T KNOW will die. They have 24 hours to make a decision or it's off the table. Should they choose not to press the button, Steward will just move on and make the offer to someone else THEY DON'T KNOW. I'm not spoiling anything by telling you that Norma presses the button. It's what happens after that where things get blurry.

The film is loosely based on acclaimed science fiction writer Richard Matheson's 1970 short story, "Button, Button," and was later adapted into a 1986 episode of the The Twilight Zone, which the movie's first 30 minutes don't stray very far from. Until the button is pressed we're being set up for a conventional, high concept thriller, but after that the rug is completely pulled out from under us. Interested in doing much more than simply expanding the source material, Kelly presents an existential parable on the human race featuring:

-The Mars Viking Lander program
-Amputated toes
-Nosebleeds
-Space and time teleportation
-Water portals
-Government conspiracies
-Murder
-Holmes Osborne
-Usher Syndrome
-Handy reference manuals (like in Darko)
-Cackling demonic waiters

And that doesn't even begin to cover all the craziness. In what has unsurprisingly caused frustration for audiences, this concept was put in the hands of a director actually interested in exploring the philosophical implications of Steward's offer...on the largest scale possible. Those who have seen the film are probably scratching their heads wondering how I could say anything is explored at all. But it is.

In his recent assessment of the film, Roger Ebert made an interesting point about the "test" Steward seems to be conducting, comparing it to 1961's famous Milgram Experiment in which subjects administered lethal shocks to strangers in another room just simply because they were told to. I remember seeing that gripping video years ago, wondering in the back of my mind the result if that idea was ever fully fleshed out in feature film form. Now it has, but with more far-reaching scope than could have possibly been anticipated. A moral dilemma presented to husband and wife morphs into the ultimate test for humanity's salvation, where our ultimate destroyer is us. In a film packed with overt religious and literary symbolism, an early classroom scene with Norma teaching her class Sartre's 1944 existentialist play "No Exit" hints at this idea and can be seen, at least in purpose, as mirroring Drew Barrymore's lecture on "The Destructors" that took place at the start of Donnie Darko.

With NASA and the Mars landing playing such a huge role in the story you're almost sure the film is going in an extraterrestrial direction but Kelly's too smart for that. Or at least he's too smart to come right out and tell us. And while the scattered clues don't necessarily confirm or deny that suspicion, enough is left open-ended to drive audiences crazy and generate wild theories. We find out a lot about Arlington Steward in terms of his past and motives for the "experiment", but again, much of that is implied and similarly open for interpretation. Key information is given, but not too much, requiring the viewer to fill in the gaps however they choose. Five viewings probably aren't enough, but many will have problems just making it through one.

The Box is an achievement in mood and atmosphere, deliberately paced but never boring. Set in the 1970's (the ugly wallpaper gives it away) it could easily pass itself off as being made in the time it's set, mimicking the look and feel of psychological horror thrillers of that era. Arcade Fire's menacing musical score sounds like a cross between Bernard Hermann's for Psycho and Jonny Greenwood's for There Will Be Blood, only enhancing the terror level, while the party scenes play like something straight out of Kubrick's The Shining. If Southland Tales was Kelly's Dr. Strangelove then this is his 2001: A Space Odyssey. The ideas in the latter heavily influence this, but since neither film is the most accessible, many won't lose sleep pondering the similarities.

For whatever reason Cameron Diaz tends to really rise to the occasion when given insane, trippy material (think Being John Malkovich and Vanilla Sky) to work with and this is the best example yet of that. James Marsden, who's been showing real promise in some thankless supporting roles for the past few years, nails his first leading dramatic one and proves here he's got all the necessary acting chops to stick around for a while. Even more importantly, both share great chemistry and are completely believable as a married couple in crisis.

Frank Langella just might have the most difficult part because he has to rise above what could have just been a hokey gimmick of "death" traveling door-to-door that in the wrong hands could have easily come off as a Final Destination rip-off. But the brilliance of his work is how he subtly conveys that he's carrying out a higher purpose and doesn't necessarily want to do this, but has to. He plays him as twisted and determined, not evil, and you can tell he kind of likes the Lewis'. More than anyone, he doesn't want to see them hit that button but this entire situation is bigger than all of them. He delivers that depressing quote above (so depressing that someone in the film even remarks just how depressing it is), but does it in such a way that you believe no one is more saddened by its possibilities than him.

Since Kelly grew up in Virginia during the 1970's and his dad worked for NASA it's been called the director's most personal project yet. But to categorize it as that requires a deeper understanding of what the word "PERSONAL" probably means to a filmmaker as unique as Richard Kelly-- Uncompromisingly making this movie the way he wants, regardless of the fallout. Recently, the market research firm CinemaScore gave The Box an "F," with its President declaring it a "real stinker," specifically singling out the ending as a major bone of contention (which I figured would have been the only thing audiences liked). Since CinemaScore polls "average moviegoers" it's generally thought of as one of the more accurate measures of a film's quality. Of course, these are the same "average moviegoers" who pushed Transformers: ROTF past 90 billion dollars this summer and just made The Twilight Saga: New Moon one of the highest grossing films of all-time, so you can take that statistic for what it's worth. Its results are especially irrelevant when it comes to a film like this, which was never made to court public acceptance anyway. But by refusing to offer up easy answers and provoking real thought, The Box becomes every bit as chilling as the classic science fiction that inspired it.

Frost/Nixon

Director: Ron Howard
Starring: Frank Langella, Michael Sheen, Kevin Bacon, Oliver Platt, Sam Rockwell, Rebecca Hall, Toby Jones, Matthew Macfadyen
Running Time: 122 min.
Rating: R

**** (out of ****)

Well, at least we can take some solace in the fact that despite some of the Academy’s undeserving selections for nominations this year, Ron Howard’s Frost/Nixon definitely isn't one of them. While it does represent the kind of safe, politically minded material voters predictably respond to every year that doesn’t make its selection any less just. I’m all for taking risks and are as disappointed at this year’s nods as anyone else, but there’s no denying that this film, easily Howard’s finest, deserves to be among the five vying for Best Picture. From start to finish it's perfect.

The film will play best for those with a deep interest in history or politics, but what surprised me most is how stimulating it would be for everyone else, even those not interested in the subject at all. The trailers, commercials and promotional material don’t do justice to just how exciting it is and I mistakenly entered this film expecting a snobby, prestige picture. Instead what I got was a fascinating look at the power of the media and a thrilling intellectual boxing match that had me on pins and needles the entire time, palms sweating as I anxiously anticipated the final outcome. Though its doesn’t exactly re-invent the wheel in terms of historical drama it tells the story it needs to in the most effective way possible and shines a light on an event and time period that hasn’t gotten much attention at all. I doubt many people even know what happened to Richard Nixon AFTER he resigned from office. I know I didn’t.

Deservedly, much buzz has surrounded Frank Langella’s Oscar nominated turn as our disgraced 37th President but it’s a performance that couldn’t have happened without co-star Michael Sheen. Nor could Sheen’s performance have connected without Langella’s, which is why it’s so odd to see just one of them making the rounds this awards season. It’s the very definition of a “team effort” and if Langella wins the Best Actor Oscar he should consider sawing it in half. And that statement isn’t meant to undermine Langella’s incredible work, but is rather a testament to the power of two actors at the top of their game bringing out their respective bests in one another.

The year is 1977 and just three years after he resigned the Presidency amidst the Watergate scandal, former President Nixon (Langella) is licking his wounds at his secluded beach house in California, thinking of ways he can rehab his shattered reputation and eventually head back East. Meanwhile the American public is fuming over news President Ford granted him a full pardon, absolving the former President of any criminal misconduct. At the suggestion of his agent, Irving “Swifty” Lazar (Toby Jones) Nixon entertains an offer to do a serious of sit-down interviews with British television host, David Frost (Sheen), who may as well be considered the Ryan Seacrest of his day (he even hosts a reality show). Frost is a self professed “performer” not a hard-hitting interviewer and his closest friend, longtime producer John Birt (Matthew Macfadyen) is bewildered by his sudden ambition to go face to face with “Tricky Dick” but supports the seemingly insane decision that could wreck his broadcasting career.

Under terms outlined by his chief of staff Jack Brennan (Kevin Bacon) Nixon agrees to a series of four interviews (planned to be broadcast as four separate 90-minute specials) even though nearly everyone doubts Frost will be able to come up with enough cash to insure even see the light of day. Frost hires Nixon historians and journalists Bob Zelnick (Oliver Platt) and James Reston Jr. (Sam Rockwell) to do the investigative legwork even though they don’t think he has a clue what he’s getting into. And they’re right, he doesn’t. Nixon is ready to eat this TV entertainer for breakfast, fully expecting to be lobbed softball questions that would make Larry King Live seem like an interrogation. That is what happens…at first.

One of the more humorous aspects of the film is the presentation early on of Nixon as that annoying uncle you always bump into at family reunions who can’t help but drone on about his accomplishments and share boring stories and anecdotes. With Nixon the B.S. is flying all over the place as he somehow finds a way to self-rationalize and explain away his botching of Vietnam and even the Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up. His motives and decision-making process closely resembles George W. Bush's in Oliver Stone’s W. in that he can convince himself anything he does is right, no matter how wrong.

He’s also somewhat delusional, insisting it was sweat on his upper lip that cost him the 1964 Presidential debate with John F. Kennedy. But there is a kernel of truth in that television, our most powerful medium, would never benefit someone like Nixon. In talking circles around everything he outmatches his inexperienced interviewer, bullying Frost with subtle, inappropriate verbal jabs before the cameras role to psyche him out. He cares a lot about Frost… way too much about him. And it’s that small, brilliant detail in Peter Morgan’s screenplay that takes the film from being a solid Best Picture nominee to a transcendent psychological duel on par with the best suspense films.

After a while we realize that Nixon’s obsession with “beating” Frost has more to do with him actually wanting TO BE HIM. Beyond simply being jealous of his youth and success, in Frost he sees the man he could have been if he had the people skills. His fixation on every detail of his interviewer's life from his shoes to his girlfriend (Rebecca Hall) suggest what in Nixon’s personality really caused the Watergate break-in and why he covered it up. For Nixon, he and Frost are really two sides of the same coin. Both have accomplished much in their given fields but neither are taken seriously or respected by the mainstream public. He can’t get anyone to see past Watergate while Frost can’t get anyone to see past his lightweight reputation as a showman. Both are willing to wreck their careers to change those perceptions, true or untrue as they may be.

There can only be one winner and a turning point comes for Frost when he sees his opening and must summon up everything inside him to take advantage of it. His motives in going after the interview are never completely clear, but we believe it comes from a desperation to be something more than a TV host, just as Nixon had aspirations to be more than just the President. Sheen conveys Frost’s confident swagger with charm but what’s most impressive about the performance (which I can’t believe went unnominated in a year this weak) is the masked disappointment that he isn’t better. His priorities shift from merely providing entertainment to bearing the incredible burden of giving Nixon “the trial he never had.” Everyone was right that Frost didn’t know what he signed up for but when the moment comes where he finally does it's game on.

It’s in this stunning reversal where feelings are brought to the surface about what Nixon did that I didn't expect to have. Langella gives you a window into the man, to the point where you can almost see how in his warped, insecure mind what he did made sense and felt right. And you take pity on him. When I first saw the clips of him in the role I laughed because I thought he was attempting an impersonation. Now after actually watching the film I realize it isn’t the kind of performance that benefits from being shown brief clips or given sound bites of him talking like Nixon.

This is an evolutionary performance that reveals itself slowly as the layers of the story unfold. Less an impersonation and more of a full immersion and embodiment of his soul. At first glance Langella doesn’t look or sound much like Nixon but as the film wears on he engulfs the man and everything else he does (including how he looks) follows suit. By the climactic scene, which finds the combatants in a far different state then when they started, I didn’t think for a second I was watching Frank Langella walking out of that house. It was Richard Nixon. Or at least Ron Howard’s and Peter Morgan’s interpretation of who he could have been.

Even having not seen the original Frost/Nixon interviews it’s fairly obvious a lot of creative license was taken with the material. But that’s okay. The film works as kind of a wish fulfillment history where we finally get out of Nixon what we always wanted. What was embellished for dramatic effect or flat-out fabricated is irrelevant when the end result is this satisfying. It’s based on Peter Morgan’s stage play (which is a work of fiction based on historical events), not the original interview so it’s unfair to hold the film up to such detailed, fact-based scrutiny.

Howard employs docu-style filming approach cut-in with fake interviews and actual newsreel footage. This quasi-documentary method has been overused of late but it really works well here keeping things moving at a surprisingly brisk pace. I know Howard would never top anyone’s list as one of the most visually inventive or risk-taking filmmakers but he could have very easily screwed this up. It’s tough adapting a stage play, much less one centering on two talking heads but Howard builds momentum slowly until the action boils. He was also smart enough to get the two actors who originated the roles on stage even while the studio pressure was probably on to score bigger names. No one else could have played those parts. It’s a classic set-up followed by the ultimate payoff and I was on the edge of my seat hanging on every word. Frost/Nixon is the rarest of historical dramas in that it intellectually excites you in the events and people that inspired the film.