Road House (2024)

Director: Doug Liman
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Daniela Melchior, Conor McGregor, Billy Magnussen, Jessica Williams, B.K. Cannon, Joaquim de Almeida, Austin Post, Lukas Gage, JD Pardo, Hannah Lanier, Kevin Carroll, Darren Barnet, Travis Van Winkle
Running Time: 121 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)  

Whenever a cult classic is reimagined with modern sensibilities, response among devoted fans tends to be harsh, as so much of their appreciation stems from their memories watching it. Regardless of actual quality, 1989's Road House firmly fits in that category, where the viewing experience itself supersedes any perceived flaws, serving to make the inevitable remake that much harder to crack. Luckily, director Doug Liman understands this, or maybe more importantly, the original's place within the cheesy 80's action movie pantheon. 

To that end, this rebooted Road House is everything it should be, delivering the kind of trashy, over-the-top fun we don't get nearly enough of in the genre. You can actually understand why Liman's upset this skipped theaters and went straight to streaming since there's good reason to believe it could have been a big commercial hit. With the exception of some occasionally distracting CGI and a video game aesthetic, it's ridiculously fun, exciting entertainment that blazes its own trail, alleviating any concerns this remake would damage nostalgic feelings for its predecessor. 

When former UFC middleweight fighter Elwood Dalton (Jake Gyllenhaal) is asked by business owner Frankie (Jessica Williams) to work as a head bouncer at her Florida Keys roadhouse, he initially rejects the offer. It's only after a botched suicide attempt that he reluctantly agrees, arriving in Glass Key to the appropriately named bar, "The Road House." Overrun with gangs and nightly brawls, the seemingly mild-mannered Dalton tries to keep the peace, until realizing he'll need to get his hands dirty, delivering a brutal beatdown that sends a group of biker thugs to the E.R.

At the hospital, he meets Ellie (Daniela Melchior), a doctor who warns him just how deep the violence and corruption runs in this coastal community. So it isn't long before Dalton finds himself being hunted by yuppie crime boss Ben Brandt (Billy Magnussen) and his incarcerated father's psychotic enforcer Knox (Conor McGregor). As they look to add Frankie's bar to Brandt's criminal property portfolio, Dalton remains haunted by a traumatic event in his past. Pushed to the limit, he'll have to decide whether to skip town or stay and fight, despite the danger it could mean for him and everyone else.

At one point, a member of the gang describes Dalton as having the disposition of Mister Rogers, which does accurately sum up Gyllenhaal's zen-like take on a character that's very far removed from its original incarnation. Overtly alluding to classic Westerns in both dialogue and setup, this lone drifter unassumingly rolls in and surveys his new surroundings, striking up a friendship with precocious teen Charlie (Hannah Lanier) who co-runs a small bookstore with her dad Stephen (Kevin Carroll). 

The opening hour is terrific, as Liman immerses us in the local color of Glass Key, or more specifically The Road House itself, which would come across as a fun place to hang if brutal fights didn't spontaneously erupt every two minutes. Dalton never really loses his cool, at least not exactly, remaining calm and polite even when he's pushed, transforming into this ass-kicking machine only when necessary. And even then, he doesn't take a whole lot of pride in doing it. 

Liman's biggest coup is his casting of Gyllenhaal, who has the unenviable task of stepping into his late Donnie Darko co-star Patrick Swayze's iconic role. On paper, it's an odd fit, but the actor responds with a quirky and menacing turn that fits the material like a glove, arguably giving his most absorbing performance since Nightcrawler. Through a few nightmarish flashbacks, we already have an idea why Dalton's carrying all this guilt and emotional baggage. The anticipation is in waiting for the moment he has enough and finally snaps, unleashing the dark side of himself he's struggled to suppress. 

Given how physically dominant Dalton is, he's more likely pass as a full fledged superhero than MMA competitor, but no one's going into this expecting strict realism. We're too busy marveling at the action sequences, along with Garrett Warren and Steve Brown's jaw dropping stunt/fight choreography. If forced to draw comparisons, the whole thing has a relentless energy that may remind some of the Crank films, only with more narrative meat on its bones and superior performances.

Magnussen makes for a sleazy antagonist, but from the minute he memorably enters, Conor McGregor's sadistically unhinged lunatic steals the show, delivering exactly the kind of crazed, hilarious performance you hoped for, constantly blurring lines between the character and real life fighter playing him. Even the romantic subplot between Dalton and Melchior's Ellie works better than it should once it's clear her involvement isn't merely tangential. Dalton's scenes with bar owner Frankie are just as effective, with Williams's presence grounding even the looniest developments.    

In the last act, Liman steps on the gas and doesn't let up, delivering a spectacular boat chase sequence and final showdown between Dalton and Knox that's best seen to be believed. Hardly trying to recreate Rowdy Herrington's original, this Road House is able to stand by itself, summoning a similar spirit, but with an entirely new setting and characters. And by not holding back or pretending to be more than it is, we get a fast food meal of a movie that offers no apologies for its bombastic approach.               

The Guilty

Director: Antoine Fuqua
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Riley Keough, Peter Sarsgaard, Eli Goree, Ethan Hawke, Da'Vine Joy Randolph, Christiana Montoya, Paul Dano, Gillian Zinser
Running Time: 90 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★) 

It's understandable that some just won't be onboard for Antoine Fuqua's single location crime thriller The Guilty, citing its superficial similarities to 2013's The Call, starring Halle Berry. There's also a general belief that movies advertised as "thrillers" should take place in various locales, with breakneck action scenes involving multiple actors playing characters engaged in direct conflict with each other. It hasn't helped that recent circumstances have given us less of that than we've ever imagined, causing the novelty of these stripped down efforts to wear off considerably. But despite a title that makes it sound more like a Grisham adaptation, the thrills Fuqua provides are slightly more cerebral in nature and are kind of a departure for a filmmaker known for bombastic efforts like Training Day, Olympus Has Fallen and The Equalizer. Nothing he does feels small, but this arguably comes closest, clocking in at a tight hour and a half that's best described as a claustrophobic morality play centering around a polarizing, even intensely dislikable protagonist. 

Playing a man unexpectedly forced to come to terms with his failings, Jake Gyllenhaal's performance finds the actor again in Nightcrawler mode, nearly dripping in emotional and physical desperation for the film's entire duration. He's somewhat of a monster, easily triggered and prone to fits of explosive rage while giving us glimpses of someone with an urgent need to help that isn't coming from the healthiest place. But that matters less upon realizing a personality this damaged may actually be a better fit for this emergency than most. Never held accountable or called out on anything, it's his day of reckoning, with Gyllenhaal suspensely holding this character's feet to the fire right through to its twist-laden finale. 

Embattled LAPD officer Joe Baylor (Gyllenhaal) is working the night shift as a dispatcher at the 911 call center following an unspecified incident for which he's awaiting a hearing the following day. Already on his last nerve due to that and problems with his ex-wife Jess (Gillian Zinser) over their daughter, Joe receives call from a woman named Emily (Riley Keough), who reveals she's been abducted by a man in a white van. Without a plate number to go on and fires blazing in the L.A. area making visibility difficult, Joe's forced to grasp at any lead he can, including Emily's ex-husband and prime suspect Henry (Peter Sarsgaard) and their scared six-year old daughter, Abby (Christiana Montoya) While able to contact all of them, the situation proves much more complicated than expected, as the asthmatic, exhausted Joe unravels under the weight of his impending hearing and former partner Rick's (Eli Goree) testimony. Calling upon all his experience and the clock rapidly ticking down, Joe must find a way to save Emily's life, while still fixing his own.

Depending upon perspective, Joe is either the worst person to be on duty at a 911 call center this night or the best. Whether it be supervisors, co-workers or even the callers themselves, he lashes out at or berates anyone with whom he encounters. To say he easily loses his patience would seem to imply he has any to start, as the unknown incident for which he could be facing criminal charges has him at the end of his rope, irritable as ever. But the no-nonsense approach he brings as an officer can't be discounted, even as he frequently oversteps his bounds by bullying everyone involved into doing what he wants so this woman can be found. Sometimes it works, with fellow officers and dispatchers caving to his demands, but in many other instances it doesn't, checked and reminded at every turn he isn't exactly in a power position given his own potential legal problems. 

There are many points where Gyllenhaal makes you respect the fact that Joe's highly aggressive tactics and experience are needed to get this done, since without that, it's entirely impossible the call would be in the hands of someone lesser qualified or not nearly as invested in following through. This is the rollercoaster the actor takes us on, as Joe's outbursts of anger are interspersed with quieter moments of consolation he offers Emily that can only come from both being parents. It's through this, and the crime crime Joe's been accussed of, that we can finally view his behavior in full context, grasping his obsessive determination to rescue this woman. 

Fuqua keeps us entrenched enough in the plot to distract from the fact all the action takes place entirely in the call center, even as it's Gyllenhaal taking us through all the painful modulations of this officer's night from hell. There are some familar names providing the disembodied voices at the other end of the phone, but you'd be hard-pressed to recognize any without looking at the credits, which was a smart casting move that keeps focus only on the story. Of them, Riley Keough probably has the heaviest lifting to do as Emily, caught in a perpetual state of fear and distress that only worsens with each call and subsequent development.  The plot's stretched a little thin in the last act as it boils to a point where you really expect things could bleed over into the "real world." But other than brief flashbacks and hazy glimpses of vans and headlights, it doesn't really go there and whether it should have will likely provide debate fodder for afterwards. 

Since the whole movie is essentially an escalating series of phone calls, it's possible a surprise excursion out of this call center could have given the already suspenseful finish an extra jolt. Of course, that could just as easily misfire so it's tough to blame Fuquaua and screenwriter Nic Pizzolatto for so closely adhering to the 2018 Danish film on which it's based. Both for better and worse The Guilty surprises, starting as one story before evolving into something slightly different and more ambitious, the hints of such were being dropped the entire time. But Gylennhaal turns that occasionally frustrating journey into a deeper character study, providing glimpses into this man's damaged psyche, transcending whatever creative limitations may have existed on the page.     

Nightcrawler

Director: Dan Gilroy
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo, Riz Ahmed, Bill Paxton, Ann Cusack, Kevin Rahm
Running Time: 117 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

"I'd like to think if you're seeing me, you're having the worst day of your life."

Dan Gilroy's satirical crime thriller Nightcrawler is one of the better recent examples of preserving a central character's aura of mystery by letting the actor fill in the blanks. When an obsessive, ambitious L.A. drifter stumbles into the adrenaline-fueled world of recording violent crimes and accidents to sell to local news stations, it's obvious early on he isn't the type who "stumbles" into anything. He sets his sights. With a topic that's both curiously timeless and dated at the same time, it could have been a conventional thriller if not for the fact our protagonist becomes the antagonist, just as depraved as the criminals he furiously covets footage of, if not more so. While I often questioned the believability of events unfolding, the actor carrying them never strikes a false note. It's because of Jake Gyllenhaal's transformative performance that we never know where this guy's coming from or where his head's at. But wherever it is, it's a frightening place.

When resourceful but unemployed Louis Bloom's (Gyllenhaal) spontaneous plan to land a job at an L.A. construction site falls through when the manager discovers he's a thief, he realizes it's time to change course. After witnessing a film crew shooting footage of a horrific car crash, he gets the idea to become a "Nightcrawler," obtaining a camcorder and radio scanner to follow the action and shop the footage to the highest bidding local news station. After impressing KWLA News Director Nina Romina (Rene Russo) with his footage of a carjacking, he picks her brain for advice and hires a young assistant named Rick (Riz Ahmed), who's desperate enough for cash he'll do anything.

Nina's guidelines are simple: Record violent crimes in affluent neighborhoods. And get there first. As her ratings rise and Lou's fledgling business gathers steam, he gets more directly involved in the action, using illegal tactics to get the footage and manipulating events to advance his career. A lesser film  would be about whether he's willing to sell his soul for a future in broadcast journalism. But this character has no soul, and just as he obsessively captures these crime scenes, we compulsively anticipate how far he's willing to push the envelope.

Initially, it's hard not to at least begrudgingly respect Lou's tenacity and ambition, even if his philosophies seem to have sprouted from reading too many Donald Trump and Tony Robbins books. Reciting verbiage from business manuals and seminars to every prospective employer (or hapless employee) he encounters in a robotic, mechanical tone, He's very smart and knows it, but there's also something wrong with him, the extent of which doesn't completely reveal itself until someone finally gives him praise, and a chance to prove himself.

Journalistic integrity isn't high on Nina's priority list, so she's naturally intrigued by the newcomer's inspired work, which only feeds her cutthroat pursuit of ratings at any cost. "If it bleeds, it leads." It's a motto that would likely disgust her colleague, Frank Kruse (Kevin Rahm), the lone vice of moral reason in the newsroom. While Nina's almost equally bad with people in a different way, Lou's the full-blown sociopath, especially during his disturbing diner "interview" with his future assistant, whose insecurity and desperation he sniffs out like a blood hound.

What's so interesting about Lou is that the more professional he tries to act, the crazier he comes off, and the scarier he gets. With Rick as his navigator, he races from one crime scene to to the next with camcorder in hand, hoping to beat out competitors like Joe Loder (Bill Paxton), who want him on his team. But Lou's building an enterprise and unpolished hustlers don't figure into his plans and he's definitely not interested in sharing a piece of the pie. When he starts arriving at crime scenes prior to police and tampering with evidence, the possibility exists his moral problems could become legal ones.  

Whether this is the best performance of Jake Gyllenhaal's career thus far is debatable, but it's definitely up there and easily the most deranged character he's had an opportunity to tackle. At first, Lou seems a little odd and mischievous. Then, a little weird. It isn't long before we're really worried about the guy, until realizing our concern should really be for anyone who gets near him, either personally or professionally. He's what author Bret Easton Ellis would call an "emotional vampire," sucking the humanity out of everyone he encounters, with maybe one exception, and only because she seems to have so little left. The most extreme, obvious comparison is American Psycho's Patrick Bateman, even if Gyllenhaal's physical transformation (a loss of over twenty pounds) more closely resembles Christian Bale's in The Machinist. For the first time, Gyllenhaal scared me, both in appearance and demeanor. Doing that while making the character not completely unlikable, and even at points charming and charismatic, would seem to be a herculean task for any actor.

He has the ideal co-star in Rene Russo, who's given her meatiest, most complex role in ages. You can tell Nina's been through the ringer, perhaps having to prove herself in a man's world for too long, turning her bitter and hard-edged. Russo's careful not to make that the cliche it could have been and screenwriter and first-time director Gilroy treads carefully over their relationship. If anyone can respect Lou's ruthless ambition it's her, and while it's tempting to say she doesn't even know what she's gotten into, she completely does and loves it. Refreshingly, neither have a conscience and are drawn as entertainingly deplorable as possible. But the real star might be DP Robert Elswit's rendering of a decaying, grungy nighttime L.A. bathed in neon lights that's so distinctive it feels like the lost film in Thom Andersen's Los Angeles Plays Itself. James Newton Howard's score hums over the emotionally vacant, sometimes brutal action, creating a jarring contradiction.

Even within the boundaries of  media satire and social commentary it's intended, some of the events that occur while marching toward it's big car chase finale are almost to preposterous to take seriously at all, if we're even expected to. It's difficult to fathom that Lou could go as far as he does without being arrested or killed or that in this overly PC media age any news director wouldn't be immediately canned attempting to air what she does. This begs the question of exactly when these events are supposed to be taking place since I wavered on that issue at various points. It's easy to reimagine a far lesser version of this as one of those '90's direct-to-DVD thrillers. Luckily, it's not that at all and everyone involved skillfully sells it. Like Lou, we know what we're watching a crash, but it's impossible to turn away.
 

Enemy

Director: Denis Villeneuve
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Melanie Laurent, Isabellla Rossellini, Sarah Gadon
Running Time: 90 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

“Chaos is merely order yet to be deciphered.”

It's often said that everyone has a double. In the psychological thriller, Enemy, that idea is pushed to the breaking point with a set-up that dares to go further than just merely acknowledging the occurrence. It's interested in how someone would react and what they'd do if they ever discovered it. At least that's the literal interpretation of the film, and the one I prefer to go with since it's the only aspect of the story that can be proven for sure while watching. And then it works on a whole other level, where you can start to peel away layers on top of layers of information and clues that suggest it's an allegory about identity and how we battle ourselves in both our lives and relationships. Aside from the tense mood and claustrophobic atmosphere created by Prisoners director Denis Villeneuve, the big takeaway is Jake Gyllenhaal's brilliant performance in a dual, complex role that showcases some of his best acting work.

A premise like this is difficult because the film's entire success can hinge on an explanation, and if one isn't given or it's unsatisfactory in the context of what's come before, the whole thing can collapse under the weight of its own ambition. Villeneuve scoots around this nicely, realizing no explanation could possibly suffice. Those who want answers and want them yesterday will only be satisfied if they adjust expectations to appreciate the unique experience on the level it's delivered.

Gylenhaal plays Adam Bell, a kind of sloppy, depressed college history professor who gives lectures talking about how "History repeats itself twice. The first time is a tragedy, the second time is a farce.” He's about to find that out first-hand when a colleague recommends he rent a movie called, There's a Will There's a Way from the local video store. While watching Adam notices an actor in a bit role who looks exactly like him. Both equally troubled and fascinated by the discovery, he does some internet research to discover the man's name is Anthony Claire (acting under his stage name Daniel St. Claire). Despite his growing obsession with this newfound doppelganger concerning his girlfriend Mary (Melanie Laurent), Adam begins stalking him, eventually catching Anthony's attention and that of his pregnant wife, Helen (Sarah Gadon). Their two worlds are about to collide, as both physically identical but fundamentally different men attempt to get to the truth of what's happening.

Prior to his discovery of Anthony, Adam's existence wouldn't be mistaken for anything other than dark and depressing. In fact, our introduction to him in both his apartment and classroom becomes almost uncomfortable to watch in how far the film goes in establishing a man who has completely given up on life, recalling the similarly depressing set-up to John Frankenheimer's 1966 cult classic Seconds. In that film an unfulfilled man trading in his life and physical appearance for an identity upgrade, only to later discover the decision carries dire consequences. Whether that's happening here is a more loaded question, but the protagonist definitely has a "second" whose life he envies, and uncovering his existence is only causing him more emotional pain.  He even seems to be putting himself to sleep during his own lectures, shuffling out of the building with his head down when he's through. His apartment is so dimly lit and desolate it's almost surreal.

The Toronto we're used to seeing depicted in movies (too often as merely a cleaner stand-in for NYC) is boldly reimagined by cinematographer Nicolas Bolduc as a cold, bleak dystopia with danger lurking along the edges in the form of intimidatingly towering skyscrapers and giant insects. Yet, this isn't a sci-fi or horror movie, at least in the traditional sense. It's more of an existential nightmare made all the more frightening because Villeneuve plays everything completely straight, treating the bizarre situation as if it were real without wavering once. Some may say Adam's reaction to discovering his own double is too over-the-top. But is it really? He seems to go through the investigative steps anyone else would looking for answers, only in a slightly more panicked state. It's hard to believe anyone wouldn't be freaked out over it, but for him it only magnifies all his existing fears and insecurities. 

Despite Anthony only being a bit actor he still seems ten worlds away from Adam, as the happier, more confident of the two. But that doesn't mean he's without his own personal demons, struggling mightily to make his marriage work, with apparently little success. Without revealing whether the two eventually meet, the mind of the viewer still races to solve the mystery of how they're physically identical. Are they siblings, the same person, or is this whole thing something else? My biggest concern was the script suddenly turning supernatural, a betrayal that thankfully doesn't occur. It's never presented as anything other than what it actually is right until the end. And about halfway through the suspense is such that you're not sure you even want to know since it could spoil the fun.

Gyllenhaal's real feat isn't that he's playing two characters that look identical yet act wildly different, but that there's never any confusion as to who's on screen at the moment. And he accomplishes this all through body language and mannerisms, which physically make Adam appear smaller in stature to his counterpart, reflective of his depressed state of mind. Appropriately, he plays Anthony much bigger and more charismatically, but without stretching it so far that it feels like a parody. If a half-year Oscars were held right now, he'd be nominated.

The real victims are the women shell-shocked by a development that defies human explanation. Both  are a bigger part of the puzzle than it first seems, with Sarah Gadon making a memorable impression as Anthony's ignored and very pregnant spouse, Helen, who comes face-to-face with a man who looks just like her husband, while possessing none of his qualities (which could be a good thing). That the downtrodden Adam has a girlfriend, much less one played by Melanie Laurent, is probably the most surprising thing about him. But even she seems to have one foot out the door, given how distracted he's been. These aren't sub-plots. The movie is as much about these two relationships than the doppelganger plot, if not more so. You could even argue they're one in the same, transforming this into an erotic, psychosexual thriller of sorts.

When things get really weird there's still this feeling that what we're watching is strangely plausible within the universe Villeneuve loosely adapted from Nobel Prize winner Jose Saramago's novel, The Double. It's true even right up until the terrifying final scene set to the Walker Brothers' "After The Lights Go Out", which is likely be deconstructed and extrapolated for symbolic meaning whenever discussion of the film comes up. That it comes from the same man who brought us last year's unexpectedly gripping Prisoners (also starring Gyllenhaal, but shot after this) makes sense when considering this could be described as a more challenging low budget, indie version of that, doing less plot-wise to accomplish more, leaning more on mood than mystery to tell its story. But it's a mind-blower, deliberately paced and excruciatingly suspenseful, at times combining elements of Hitchcock, Fincher and Cronenberg. It should really come with a warning: Multiple viewings required.
             

Prisoners

 

Director:  Denis Villeneuve
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Viola Davis, Maria Bello, Terrence Howard, Melissa Leo, Paul Dano, Dylan Minnette
Running Time: 153 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Prisoners is one of those thrillers where you can't really reveal anything. The plot is so full of twists and turns that even a basic description risks revealing too much. It's common knowledge that when children are abducted the chances of finding them greatly decreases with each passing minute. This film is about what happens during those passing minutes to the victims' families, the detective assigned to the case and the primary suspect. Having him in custody is merely the start of this strange, twisted journey that doesn't qualify as the run-of-the-mill mainstream suspense thriller or police procedural it was advertised as. Some will claim it does, and that director Denis Villeneuve, writer Aaron Guzikowski and legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins are just doing a really good job hiding it. And if they are, more power to them. But I'd argue Prisoners does bend quite a few rules, keeping you on the edge of your seat for two and a half hours without a clue what could happen from one minute to the next. And yet it never overstays its welcome since those involved seem to know exactly what they're doing, as an overwhelming sense of competence engulfs the project, making it impossible to not be swept along for the ride. 

When Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman) and his family attend Thanksgiving dinner with their neighbors, the Birches, both families' young daughters, Anna and Joy, go out for a walk. They don't return. The only clue is an old RV parked on the street belonging to a mentally disabled young man named Alex Jones (Paul Dano), who has an IQ of a ten-year-old and lives with his aunt, Holly (Melissa Leo). He's clearly the prime suspect, but when the detective in charge of the case, David Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal), brings him in for questioning, it's discovered they don't have nearly enough to hold him. That's when an enraged Dover decides to take the law into his own hands and deal with Alex himself. Things start to get ugly as Loki suddenly has three equally difficult jobs in finding the abductor, locating the girls and managing an out of control Dover, who's hell bent on finding his daughter his way, without the authorities' help. With hardly any support from his superiors, Loki must piece together a series of bizarre clues and evidence, just as another suspect emerges who's somehow even creepier than Alex. Minutes turn to hours and then to days, and with that comes the increased chance this will turn from an abduction case to a murder investigation, and the search will soon be for bodies.

What's atypical here is that the main suspect's guilt is in legitimate doubt for nearly entire length of the picture, to the point that your suspicion of Alex literally wavers from one scene to the next. At first, Dover seems like an irrational hothead so worked up by his daughter's abduction that he's willing to go after the only person who emerges as a believable suspect. While that's at least partially true, he discovers a few pieces of seemingly irrefutable evidence that causes him to (somewhat justifiably) fly off the deep end at the news of his release from custody. Dover may not be an easy character to like, but he's an easier one to root for because it's impossible not to feel for a father put in that situation. If nothing else, you have to respect his consistency even when his methods are flawed. And there's also the very real possibility he's right and that the police squandered the one lead they had..Jackman's an actor known for his natural charm and charisma but it's completely buried here to the point of invisibility. In its place is the pure anger and intensity of a man who will stop at nothing to find his daughter, no matter how much his vigilantism is frowned upon by his overmedicated wife Grace (Maria Bello) and Joy's parents, Franklin and Nancy (Terrence Howard and Viola Davis). You've never seen Jackman like this as the role is a complete 180 from most of what he's tackled before, challenging our perceptions of what we thought him capable of in a leading role.

Gyllenhaal is in full Zodiac mode as Detective Loki, with the key exception being that he's playing as actual cop this time around and the character has a much harder, experienced edge to him. It definitely deserves its place in the "Glylenhaal of Fame" of performances right alongside his work in Zodiac, Donnie Darko and Source Code. Loki's definitely the hero of the story, rarely misstepping in the face of seemingly impossible odds and tangled webs of circumstantial clues. Just as we doubt Alex's involvement, of equal doubt is whether this detective can even crack the case. While much of that uncertainty comes from the twisty plot, credit should also be extended to Paul Dano's unnerving performance as Alex, which fluctuates so wildly between pure creepiness and an almost childlike innocence that we begin to seriously second guess our understanding of the character's motivations. Has he really been falsely accused or is this a superbly calculated performance within a performance? An almost entirely mute Dano never tips his hand too far in either direction with Alex's behavior, all while spending three quarters of the film under physical assault and abuse.

Cold and calculating in both tone and execution, this almost feels like a more mainstream B-side to David Fincher's Zodiac or Se7en. This is especially noticeable in the rain-drenched, darkened setting, which Roger Deakins lights to make as much of a character as any of the actual characters inhabiting it. What starts as a relatively simple case evolves into something increasingly complex and morally ambiguous. That the title "prisoners" could reasonably refer to any number of characters speaks to the script's ingenuity. But more importantly, the the movie speaks to every parent's worst nightmare in capturing the horror of a child abduction in middle class suburbia. Then it goes ten steps further, concluding with a chilling, unshakeable final shot befitting the strongest thriller of the year. Endings are always tough, but this one absolutely nails it, combing just the right mixture of ambiguity and closure. The only worry in revisiting the film is that the revelations are so surprising you'd wonder how multiple viewings could impact the appreciation of how well it narratively holds together. Luckily though, despite carrying a lot of plot, Prisoners gets all the other small, important details right that most thrillers of recent years haven't even bothered with.

Source Code

Director: Duncan Jones
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga, Jeffrey Wright, Michael Arden, Scott Bakula 
Running Time: 94 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Well, it took twenty years but I finally got my Quantum Leap movie. There's nothing quite like watching your favorite television series of all-time provide the inspiration for what turns out to be your favorite film of the year. Frustrated as I was that I couldn't catch Source Code in theaters, I was reassured by those who knew me that when I eventually did see it, I'd flip out. Good call. Director Duncan Jones has already proven himself an expert at intelligent science fiction storytelling with his 2009 masterpiece Moon and this just might be even better than that, despite advance buzz shoehorning it as some kind of mainstream action thriller. The ideas this contains are as huge as in that smaller-scale film and that it's so skillfully disguised amidst a 94-minute lean, mean pulse-pounding thriller is not only a credit to Jones' direction, but a multi-layered, Rubik's Cube of a script by Ben Ripley that deserves placement alongside the greats in the time travel genre. And as someone who's seen just about every time travel movie made and every scenario presented ad nauseum, that isn't faint praise. Make no mistake that this probably couldn't have been made had there been no Quantum Leap, but also don't underestimate how much Jones adds, and how well it'll play for those who have never even seen an episode of the cult 80's series starring Scott Bakula and Dean Stockwell. This takes an already perfect premise and updates it, adding twists and turns, as well as timely elements of tragedy and human interest that make for an unforgettable viewing experience.

Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a American soldier returning from a tour of duty in Afghanistan who suddenly awakes to find himself on a commuter train traveling to Chicago, not as himself, but school teacher Sean Fentress, a man whose body he's "leaped" into and is occupying. That morning the train will explode, killing everyone on board and Colter is told via Captain Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) that he's been recruited as part of an experimental computer program created by Dr. Rutledge (Jeffrey Wright) called the "Source Code," which enables the user full access to the last eight minutes of a person's life. Not exactly time travel, but "time re-assignment" since the big catch is that there's nothing Colter (as Sean) can do to prevent the catastrophe in what's essentially a computer generated alternate timeline. His mission is solely to gain information on the identity of the bomber to prevent a larger future attack and he's being sent back as many times as is necessary to do it. With each eight-minute trip he learns more about the passengers and with the help of Sean's girlfriend Christina (Michelle Monaghan, comes closer to solving the crime, even as he's continually kept in the dark as to Goodwin and Rutledge's true motivations, as well as his own personal history.

Given that Colter must repeatedly re-live and re-play the same scenario over the course of the film, there's that temptation to compare this to Groundhog Day, which milked a somewhat similar premise for comedic effect. You could, but it would be inaccurate since it never once feels like we're watching the same scenes over and over again, nor is there anything the protagonist can do to actually alter history, one of two huge deviations the script makes from the Quantum Leap template. Jones doesn't spoon feed us any information and trust viewers' intelligence enough to dive right into the scenario from the very first frame, spilling out the revelations at a perfectly timed pace. There's a lot we don't know for a good stretch of time and occasionally Colter knows even less. Between trips, he's hauled up in a cockpit interrogated by these military bureaucrats who offer few answers, no leads and give little explanation of anything that's happened, yet coldly expect everything possible from him in return. The look and feel of these scenes are eerily reminiscent of 1995's sci-fi mind-bender 12 Monkeys, in which an unwilling time travel participant is also cruelly taken advantage of and at risk of being sacrificed for a greater good.

The events on the train never feel like a repeats but rather different sides of an expertly crafted Hithcockian puzzle in which the audience must pay attention to each subtle detail with the possibility they could come into play later, and a few do. Nearly the entire film takes place in a single location and Jones squeezes an unbearable amount of tension out of each passing moment, taking full advantage of every corner of the frame, each passenger and every one of their tiniest actions. There's a darkly brilliant twist that comes into play at almost the half-way mark that I can't reveal, but it changes the game completely, yet somehow still feels organic to the story and raises the stakes higher. Jones' deft handling of the material sends it over-the-top but if Ben Ripley's ingenious spec script (justifiably ranked as one of Hollywood's top unproduced screenplays), which offers up impossible questions, then somehow manages to logically answer all of them concisely, isn't Award-worthy, I don't know what is. The terrorism and thriller aspects also interweave seamlessly with the more sci-fi driven elements, giving the story the same timely, human interest undercurrent that became the hallmark of Quantum Leap during its run. When we finally do meet the bomber he doesn't disappoint, more than exceeding all expectations of frightening everyday creepiness.

While watching it's almost impossible to stop and consider performances are being given as the action moves at such a brisk clip it feels as if you're on a ride with the characters, rather than a witness to great acting, but we are. Gyllenhaal has to play crucial scenes out of order more numerously and differently that in any other kind of film because of the complicated narrative framework. Because this is an action thriller and the story and direction seem to be the stars, it's easy to overlook just how much work he has to do in what's at its core a character driven piece that rests on his authenticity in the role. He's a worthy successor to Scott Bakula and fills his shoes, which just might be the highest compliment I'm capable of giving anyone. At first, Farmiga and Wright seem like they'll just be playing talking heads but the info that comes out, the deeper and more complex their characters and performances as them become, especially Farmiga's toward the third act. As for Wright, he's got this crazy mad scientist thing down pat and it's fun watching some of the campy choices he makes with his vocal delivery and mannerisms, while still maintaining a dark, twisted edge. Monaghan delivers as Christina, the only part that seems like it could be filled by anyone else, but that doesn't mean another actress would necessarily click as well with Gyllenhaaal, with whom she shares every scene.

Going in, I was aware of the Scott Bakula cameo, but even knowing a little about the nature of it couldn't prepare me for how awesome a moment it was to hear the voice and have him and the show acknowledged in such a meaningful way at the most crucial point in the film. I can probably speak for most hardcore Quantum Leap fans in saying I was pinching myself that Jones openly acknowledged the influence, inducing that feeling of excitement absent since the show left the air in 1993. And wait until you see what happens in the final eight minutes. Too many promising thrillers are victims of silly studio-driven concessions to send audiences home happy and rake in more cash, but this isn't afraid to go dark and leave you thinking hard. Supposedly, there's an alternate ending floating around somewhere but I have little desire to see it since this one is perfect, providing just enough closure, but leaving more than enough to ponder and debate afterward. I'm still not sure I even completely understood it, which is a good thing, as its structure definitely lends itself to repeated viewings.

It seems at every year at about this time I throw my arms up in the air complaining about the lack of quality films, until something comes a long and kicks me in the face, reminding me why I still bother. This kicked me hard. As someone who's always had a sneaking suspicion Quantum Leap could serve as the perfect jumping-off point for a feature if the right creative choices were made, it's great to finally see it happen, adapted and tweaked to embellish the original conceit and open it up cinematically. While Jones proudly wears those influences on his sleeve, what's most impressive is how it still remains completely fresh and original, far smarter than audiences and critics have given it credit for. Rich in ideas and brilliant in construction, Source Code easily ranks among the most ambitious  science fiction efforts in years and is one I can't wait to revisit soon. Rather than a review, it feels like I should instead be writing Jones a "thank you" note for briefly resuscitating my favorite show and letting its ideas realize their full potential on the big screen.

Love and Other Drugs

Director: Edward Zwick
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Anne Hathway, Josh Gad, Judy Greer, Gabriel Macht, Oliver Platt, Hank Azaria, George Segal, Jill Clayburgh
Running Time: 112 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

An ambitiously entertaining mess, Love and Other Drugs deserves credit for being an unconventional romance that attempts to give us something we haven't seen before. It isn't often a raunchy sex comedy doubles as an emotional medical drama set in the world of pharmaceutical sales. Besides breaking a cinematic record for onscreen nudity and featuring an unintentionally hilarious depiction of the mid to late 90's, it's also noteworthy for stretching a couples' third act break-up crisis over an hour. All over the map in terms of tone, I found myself liking it anyway, with its flaws making it more fun than it otherwise would have been if everything flowed perfectly. It's also one of the few recent rom-coms that might actually have some re-watch value, if only because it's so wacky. But if you replaced Anne Hathaway and Jake Gyllenhaal it wouldn't have worked. They bring needed dimension to questionably written, sometimes unlikable and self-pitying characters who aren't the easiest to root for. It's one of those rare star pairings that not only looked good on paper, but exceeds expectations on screen.

It's 1996 when charismatic electronics salesmen and med-school dropout Jamie Randall (Gylenhaal) is fired for sleeping with the store manager's wife and his millionaire brother Josh (Josh Gad) lands him a a medical sales rep job for pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. Working alongside his more experienced partner Bruce (Oliver Platt) Jamie initially struggles in the field, pedaling Zithromax and Zoloft to Dr. Stan Knight (Hank Azaria), posing as his intern and bribing and seducing his receptionists. It's during an impromptu breast exam he falls for one of Knight's patients, the feisty, sarcastic Maggie Murdock (Hathaway), a 26 year-old with early onset Parkinson's Disease who has as little interest in a serious relationship as he does, making them the perfect match. But when Jamie unexpectedly wants something more, he finds the one woman he may be incapable of winning over, so angry and closed-off because of her condition she's unwilling to let anyone in. This is all happens just as the new drug Viagra, hits the market for Pfizer, changing Jamie's prospects considerably and putting him at the forefront of a major drug boom.

The first hour of this film is fantastic, working really well as a screwball romantic comedy, while cleverly sending up the drug industry. It isn't exactly a scathing social commentary but the life of a medical sales rep is something we've haven't seen on screen before so there's a freshness in watching how they push doctors to prescribe medications by promising perks and bribing them. For a while at least the screenplay flawlessly juggles this topic with the entirely physical relationship between Maggie and Jamie. Just in case you didn't get the memo, Anne Hathaway likes to do nudity. Or if she doesn't, she's a much better actress than we thought since there's a hardly scene in the first 60 minutes where she isn't topless. Given the total amount of graphic sex scenes it's kind of shocking director Edward Zwick wasn't slapped with an NC-17, especially considering the MPAA's notoriously prudent stance on sex and nudity. After a while there's so much of it you almost lose track of whether it's gratuitous or not. If the purpose is to convey Maggie and Jamie's relationship is purely physical that point gets across loud and clear, and in a strange way, it's kind of a relief to see a film so unafraid of going all the way with this. Either way, the first half is a blast before turning deadly serious. The Parkinson's becomes a factor, but not in the way you'd expect, which is mostly due to the fact that the disease is progressive so the clock on her life isn't rapidly ticking like it would for a "disease of the week" melodrama like Love Story or Autumn in New York. It becomes more about whether Jamie can break down the wall she's put up and stick around despite the certainty her condition will worsen (he even gets to hear exactly how it in the film's most brutally honest scene). And if he does stick around, the question becomes whether he'll be able to do it for her rather than out of self-guilt.

There's definitely some clumsy writing and the tone's all over the place in the third act but Hathaway and Gyllenhaal possess such an understanding of their characters that they're able to make the necessary adjustments to sell it. I can't say I was thrilled with the arc Maggie took, being this strong, free spirit who deteriorates into an emotional mess, but it's fairly realistic given the context of the story. It's also a tough role for Hathaway since she has to not only convey the physical characteristics of the condition but all the baggage that comes along with it. Gyllenhaal's character also has take a more serious turn and while I prefer the how both started much more than how they ended up, both actors don't miss a beat in having to perform in what seems like two wildly different films. Jonah Hill clone Josh Gad as Jamie's overweight, annoying brother Josh brings what's expected to the sloppy sidekick role while Hank Azaria is so believable as a doctor you'd think they accidentally cast a real one. Once again, the awesome, should-be-famous Judy Greer is delightful in another one of her "crazy chick" supporting roles, and it does soften the blow a little this time that she's playing second fiddle to a genuine talent like Hathaway instead of Heigl, Aniston or Hudson.

Why this is set in a late 90's time period aside from the fact it's based on the non-fiction book, Hard Sell: The Evolution of a Viagra Salesman by Pfizer's Jaime Reidy, isn't exactly clear, but that small detail sure makes the film funnier. Did they really still sell boom boxes at electronic stores in '96? Was anyone still listening to the Spin Doctors in '97? What were we thinking with the Macarena? Was the internet really so popular then that doctors worried about patients diagnosing themselves? But being a big fan of everything mid to late 90's I was just happy to see that time period depicted in a film at all, no matter how ridiculous. Any points lost for historical accuracy is made up for with originality. Playing by slightly different rules and crossing conventional genre boundaries, Love and Other Drugs is a risky alternative, proving it's sometimes better for a film to suffer an identity crisis than have no identity at all.

Brothers

Director: Jim Sheridan
Starring: Tobey Maguire, Natalie Portman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Sam Shepard, Clifton Collins, Jr, Mare Winningham
Running Time: 105 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Over the past few years viewers have endured more than their fair share of films dealing directly or indirectly with the war in Afghanistan. With Brothers we have a first: Overseas torture mixed with soapy melodrama on the home front. But how sad it is it that I find this approach preferable to having more political propaganda pushed on me by Hollywood? The first and second hour of this film seem penned by different writers, the tone is all over the map, the casting is off and yet somehow the film comes together and works. And it works because the movie knows exactly what's it's trying to do and does it, foregoing cheap sentimentality. After a rough start where you're not exactly sure the direction things are going in, it makes a sharp left turn wherein two unbearably tense scenes and one frightening performance define the entire film. While I wouldn't be eager to partake in another viewing and it's about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the head, the script honestly explore its ideas without deteriorating into the love triangle it was advertised as.

Just as Marine Sam Cahill (Tobey Maguire) prepares to embark on another tour of duty overseas, his "black sheep" younger brother Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal) is released from prison after serving time for armed robbery. Sam's wife and high school sweetheart, Grace (Natalie Portman) with whom he has two daughters (played by Bailee Madison and Taylor Grace Geare), can't stand Tommy's reckless behavior, nor can his disapproving father (Sam Shepard) who constantly belittles him for not measuring up to his big brother. Then word comes that Sam's helicopter was shot down and he died. In actuality, he's taken as a POW and is being tortured in a mountain village. Back home, the bond between Grace and Tommy grows over their mutual loss, at least until they receive the shocking news that Sam is alive. But he returns a shell of his former self, psychologically destroyed by his experience and carrying a secret that's eating away at him with guilt. Now he has to learn to how re-connect with his daughters and deal with the developing relationship between Grace and his brother.

The first hour is very off putting. It starts with the familiar story of the screw-up little brother getting out of prison, complete with one of those stereotypical military dads (played here by Sam Shephard) who loves one son and hates the other. Scenes of overseas combat and torture you'd expect to see in a film like Babel or The Hurt Locker are interspersed with a family soap opera back home that at first glance seems like it belongs on the Lifetime channel. But the second half irons this problem out and it at least becomes clear why this approach had to be used, even if part of me still thinks it may have been more effective to show less of it. It's obvious from the casting and the heavy emphasis on the infidelity plot point in the trailers that the primary goal was to pack as many females into the theater as possible to clean up at the box office.

Luckily, the trailers were a complete misrepresentation and the film ends up being more interested in how war can psychologically transform someone to a point where they're no longer recognizable to even those closest to them. Despite what the teasers indicate, not much occurs romantically between Tommy and Grace, but one of the more realistic details of the film is that the returning Sam senses "something" happened while he was gone. No one even has to say anything. He just knows. Whether it's from watching a lot of movies like this or just the fact that his wife's Natalie Portman, he's able to put two and two together. That's believable.

Coming home eerily resembling a zombie and with twenty pounds missing from his already slender frame, Tobey Maguire owns every scene he's in. He's like a ticking time bomb waiting to go off at the slightest provocation, making you believe that in a sense Sam really did die in Afghanistan, only to be replaced by this empty shell of a man. He's so scarred from his experience that intimate, emotional contact with anyone is impossible. He can't communicate with his wife anymore on any level and his daughters are scared to death of him, wondering aloud what's happened to their daddy. There's a scene at the dinner table during a birthday party that's just unbearable in the amount of suspense created. The tension mounts and builds for minutes until the situation just explodes and as impressive as Maguire is in it, young Bailee Madison as his daughter is right there to match him. I really liked how she outwardly shows affection to her father but behind her eyes you can see just how terrified she is of him.

You could argue all three actors are miscast, chosen for their star power with little consideration given to whether they were even right for the parts. This continues what's starting to become a popular trend these days in movies: Casting too young. The hiring of actors who for whatever reason (whether they're not old enough or don't act or look old enough) aren't credible in the more age experienced roles they're being asked to play. Maguire and Gyllenhaal were at least the RIGHT wrong actors for this because they're talented enough to fake it until they make it and are more than capable of meeting the challenges put in front of them with this story. Portman isn't. I know everyone thinks she's this great beauty who can do no wrong but for me she just continues her long streak of mere adequacy, done no favors here in a part that's all wrong for her.

Portman just isn't believable as a mother with two children that age, nor is she any more credible as a grieving widow struggling with feelings for her brother-in-law. When Grace opens up about her high school days in an intimate U2 themed fireside chat with Tommy, Portman can't hold up her end of the deal because she just isn't skilled enough at conveying the kind of person Grace would have been. Instead, I just kept picturing her face buried in books at the school library. If they had to cast in this age range a better choice for the part would have been someone like Katie Holmes, who would be more credible as a mother and we know from past films she at least shares the necessary chemistry with Maguire. Portman fails to ignite even the slightest spark with either actor. In her defense, she does get better as the film wears on and the focus shifts, or maybe I just eventually gave up and accepted how ill fit she was for the role. Luckily, Maguire and Gyllenhaal are so good in this that they carry Portman through so that she doesn't seriously harm the picture.

Gyllenhaal is actually less miscast than stretching out of his usual comfort zone with a darker character, which he pulls off. Even though Tommy's a black sheep you don't want to make him too much of a jerk and he does a great job walking that line. While Maguire isn't very believable either as a parent it hardly matters because his performance as a raging psychotic is so riveting that it holds all the loose ends together. Those who understandably forgot while he was wasting his time and talent making the Spider-Man films can be reminded how gifted an actor he really is here. I'm relieved it only took him only one film to get right back to business.

When it all finally comes to a head in one climactic final showdown there's legitimate doubt how it will end and whether everyone in this family will survive. I was surprised how thoughtful and restrained the ending was considering all that came before, but thankfully everything wasn't too nicely tied up in a bow for us either. Director Jim Sheridan (who's no stranger to family dramas) and writer David Benioff deserve credit for tackling the issue head on and not backing down. While watching Brothers I was reminded of 2008's Stop-Loss, which also dealt with the emotional trauma of soldiers trying to reaclimate themselves to normal life, but fell victim to its own political grandstanding. This pulls some strings and pushes a few buttons, but emotional grandstanding is just what this topic needed. Too many movies dealing with the after effects of war have played it safe, cautious of offending anyone or going too far over the top. Brothers deserves credit for at least having the guts to provoke a strong reaction.

Rendition

Director: Gavin Hood
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Reese Witherspoon, Omar Metwally, Meryl Streep, Alan Arkin, Peter Sarsgaard, Yigal Naor
Running Time: 122 min.
Rating: R

** (out of ****)

Gavin Hood's Rendition is a blatant piece of liberal Hollywood garbage. Long known for their political leanings they sink to new depths here and take what should be a complicated moral issue and turn it into a cartoon, undercutting their own cause. I'm sure it's fun for all these actors, actresses and studio executives to talk about their discontent with our country during the Oscar parties but I really wish they'd leave it there, especially if the results are going to be this preposterous. But no matter which side of the political fence you happen to stand on everyone should be equally offended how this movie mistreats an issue so important and stacks the deck so shamelessly.

That our government is evil and we torture innocent citizens of our own country for no good reason is what this script wants audiences to believe after watching this picture. It's possible situations vaguely similar to these occur but there's no way the people involved behave so stupidly. It's the first movie made for the sole purpose of pissing off Bill O' Reilly, which could be the only positive to come out of this mess that inflicts just as much torture on its viewers as its protagonist. That it stars 3 Academy Award-winning actors willing to make complete fools out of themselves is worth contemplating. I'm glad, because nothing else in this supposedly relevant political thriller is.

On a flight to Chicago from South Africa, Egyptian Anwar El-Ibrahimi (Omar Metwally) disappears while his pregnant wife Isabella (a horribly miscast Reese Witherspoon) and young son worry at home. It turns out he's being subjected to "rendition," which is the controversial U.S. policy of imprisoning terror suspects on foreign soil and torturing them until they cough up answers. Questionable cell phone calls is the reason given for Anwar's imprisonment, as ordered by senior C.I.A. official Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep). Assigned to oversee his interrogation in an unnamed prison in North Africa is rookie C.I.A analyst Douglas Freeman (Jake Gyllenhaal), who's still reeling after surviving a suicide bombing that took the life of his partner. Meanwhile in the states, Isabella goes to Washington D.C. for help from an old flame (Peter Sarsgaard) who happens to be the aid to an important U.S. Senator (Alan Arkin).

As Anwar's interrogation/torture by a foreign brute (Yigal Naor) wears on, Freeman starts to have some serious doubts as to this man's guilt and whether our government has taken things too far. What a quick study he is. The film, which has bitten off more than it can chew as it is, also tries to string together a sub-plot involving that bombing and link it to the main storyline. All that does is create confusion because not enough time is spent on those periphery characters and their roles don't become clear until the final reel, at which point we don't care. The movie is a mess from beginning to end and it's obvious from the onset that the story can go in only one direction. However, the clumsy ways the script manages to take us there are endless.

For starters there's absolutely no doubt from the get-go this man is an upstanding citizen so the fact that he would be captured and tortured to the extent he is with basically no evidence at all is insane. Our government may be dumb sometimes, but that's really stretching it. A smarter film would have planted even just the tiniest seed of doubt as to his innocence, which would complicate an issue that's supposed to be inspiring thought and debate. Unlike last year's similarly themed A Mighty Heart, the movie doesn't back down in showing us scenes of torture. In fact, they show us much more than we need to see…over and over again. And we get different varieties of it as well. How "timely" is this movie? They even find a way to throw water boarding in there.

All of this goes on while Gyllenhaal's character stands there wide-eyed for nearly the entire running length of the picture as Anwar is pumped for information he's incapable of giving. "Should I do something?" he must be asking himself. Yeah, I think you should. Strangely, the movie poses this question to us as if we're supposed to feel any other way and it's a huge philosophical debate for the ages. I'm also getting sick of films set on foreign soil containing a musical score with a distracting Middle Eastern flavor to it, complete with chants and groans. Besides just being ignorant, it calls attention to itself in a negative way.

It stacks the deck even higher when it comes to portraying our government officials who in this film could double for Disney villains. Try imagining Miranda Priestly from the Devil Wears Prada being in charge of U.S. foreign policy and you have a good idea how Streep's character is portrayed. I almost expected Hood to throw in a scene of her downing shots with her husband to celebrate the latest innocent American to be tortured overseas. Would it have killed screenwriter Kelley Sane (or Streep for that matter) to invest this woman with just a twinge of humanity? And of course we're treated to the big money scene of Isabella screaming at her to release her husband. Arkin's senator isn't much better, but thankfully he's in fewer scenes.

While Streep and Arkin may be gifted actors I really could care less what they choose to with (or to) their careers, especially Arkin. But I can't say the same about Reese Witherspoon, who I hold to a higher standard. Why she would take a role like this is even more perplexing when you realize that despite being given top billing, she's hardly in the film at all. She isn't given nearly enough time to flesh out a person you care about which ironically causes the film to suffer from the opposite problem as A Mighty Heart, which gave us too much Marianne Pearl and not enough Daniel. This does let us get to know the victim a little bit better…except we'd rather not because he's bland and the actor playing him has no real presence or charisma. The only performer who escapes free of embarrassment is Gylenhaal who, while also miscast, does give it everything he has even when the script completely lets him down. Those curious to see whether he and Witherspoon have any chemistry onscreen won't be given any answers as they don't share so much as a single scene together in the film.

Rendition, as a motion picture experience, only really falls somewhere between the categories of bad and fair but I think what makes the film seem so much worse is the possibility that something similar to this COULD happen in reality. Rest assured that if it did, the issue wouldn't be nearly as one-sided and cut and dry as this screenplay makes it out to be. The idea of exploring extreme rendition is a fascinating one, but I was under the impression the debate concerns the torture of suspected terrorists for information, not American businessmen kidnapped at airports as our government gleefully celebrates.

I have no problem with any film taking a political stance but my only wish is that they treat the subject at hand with intelligence and we leave the film thinking about something. There's nothing to think about here. It instead succeeds only in combining the worst elements of Babel and Syriana. After this I'm more hesitant than ever to see what's supposed to be Hollywood's other political propaganda piece of the year, Robert Redford's Lions For Lambs, co-starring Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep (again). With Redford at the helm hopes should be a little higher, but the possibility that liberal Hollywood could come up with something more empty-headed than this is truly frightening. I'm all for fighting for a cause, but they're doing themselves no favors.

Zodiac

Director: David Fincher
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Edwards, Robert Downey Jr., Brian Cox, Chloe Sevigny, John Carroll Lynch, Elias Koteas, Running Time: 158 min.
Rating: R

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

I've been waiting ten years for this day to come. The day when I no longer have to constantly justify and defend David Fincher's place among America's greatest living directors. That place, in case you haven't guessed, is at the top and now it is rightfully secure. In 1997 Fincher directed a film called The Game that completely changed how I viewed motion pictures and challenged my perceptions of what they can do. Then in 1999 he did it again with Fight Club. Now, with Zodiac he's made what stands thus far as the best film of 2007. Hands down. It may not break the creative boundaries those other two films did, but it is a technical masterwork deserving of a Best Picture nomination come January.

Fincher, a director who has previously existed only on the fringe, can now sit at the table with the big boys. He's earned it. This is certainly his most mature, mainstream endeavor to date and the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences have run out of excuses this time. He deserves a nomination if not a statue for this. An expert at directing films with high concepts, this time he takes a simple, minimally complex police procedural and turns it into a gripping, terrifying film that doubles as a deep character study. And we're not just talking about one character either, but many. Major ones and minor ones. There wasn't a single person in the film I didn't care about and not a minute of this film's admittedly lengthy two and a half hour running time that I felt should have been cut. I sat on the edge of my seat the entire time, glued to the screen by what I watching. I like to think I can go into any movie without any preconceived notions, but when you enter David Fincher's universe there comes a certain set of expectations. This film exceeds them.

The film, based on Robert Graysmith's two non-fiction books (Zodiac and Zodiac Unmasked) is epic in scope and covers a thirty-year period starting in the 1960's when a serial killer known as "The Zodiac" terrorized the San Francisco Bay Area. He left a trail of victims and taunted the police with numeric codes (known as ciphers) and letters to the San Francisco Chronicle stating his intentions. He was never caught and to this day the case remains unsolved. The film begins with the shooting of Darlene Ferrin and Mike Mageau at lover's lane in Vallejo on July 4, 1969. Mike survives. Darlene doesn't. One of the many fascinating details about this killer and the case is that he gets so caught up in killing the women he often forgets to finish off the guys.

Police Detectives Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and Bill Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) and are almost out of necessity forced to work with the staff of the San Francisco Chronicle, who have been receiving cryptic letters from the fame seeking Zodiac that he wants printed on the front page. The top beat crime reporter for the paper at the time is the booze and drug addicted loose cannon Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.), but soon the case attracts the attention of the Chronicle's political cartoonist Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal). The first half half of the film focuses primarily on the initial investigation into the case during the late 60's and early 70's and how it consumes and nearly destroys the lives of the police and journalists investigating it.

What's most interesting is that Zodiac is far from a criminal genius (an old married couple even solves one of his ciphers), but the police cannot catch him mainly because of poor communication, stupid decision-making, politics and red tape. As a result, more and more people die and his rampage continues. By the time the film's over we realize that if just one eyewitness had been questioned all of this could have stopped. This is a movie we shouldn't even be watching. Sensing this weakness in the system, Zodiac wisely spreads his murders across different counties correctly assuming each police precinct has their agenda and can't possibly work together to solve any crime.

The saddest part of this is that if these murders were to occur today he probably would have been caught in a week, yet because of limitations in communication and technology the terror rages on. The Zodiac killings, more than anything else, are a reflection of the time. Fincher understands this and milks it for everything he can. The police departments become so tangled up in their incompetence that they begin to panic and suspect Zodiac may even be taking credit for murders he didn't commit sending the whole case into a tailspin. He craves celebrity and notoriety even going so far as to contact well-known television broadcaster Melvin Belli (the great Brian Cox) to get his point across. In a funny touch Belli seems genuinely excited and intrigued to be talking to a serial killer and Cox brings the same eccentric panache to this role as he did to his loony psychiatrist in last year's Running With Scissors.

After this, it becomes clear to the police the only predictable pattern of Zodiac is that he has no predictable pattern. Toschi and Armstrong are two smart, dedicated detectives who do everything right but fail because the system around them doesn't work. In one memorable scene Armstrong tries to send information to another police precincts but discovers they don't have a fax machine. The look on his face says it all. Against all odds, and largely due to that dedication, they finally zero in on a main suspect. He's a convicted child molester named Arthur Leigh Allen (John Carroll Lynch) and all the signs point to him being the guy. Unfortunately, while the circumstantial evidence may add up, the physical evidence doesn't. They also must deal with the self-destructive Avery, whose desire to put his name on the journalistic map jeopardizes their case and his life. All these characters are in a free fall and watching fascinated from the sidelines is cartoonist Robert Graysmith.

It isn't until 1974, four years after Zodiac's last attack that Graysmith launches a personal investigation of his own and falls into the trap of obsession that befell the detectives and his own colleague Avery. Except, unlike the police investigation years earlier Graysmith's is actually effective and what he uncovers puts himself, his wife Melanie (Chloe Sevigny) and his children in danger and even raises the ire of Zodiac himself. One the best moments of the film comes when he states that he won't stop this until he's standing in the same room with the killer, looks him straight in the eye and knows it's him. Whether that line has a payoff I cannot reveal, but how ironic that a mild-mannered cartoonist could unlock the mysteries of one of the greatest unsolved mass murders in our country's history, but the police couldn't. A tricky situation develops here because audiences know going in that Zodiac was never caught and the case was never closed, so the film is practically forced into an ambiguous ending. James Vanderbilt's brilliant screenplay gives us that ambiguous ending, but at the same time leaves us completely satisfied. The case may not have an ending, but this movie does have a clear and emotionally powerful one that will haunt you for a long time.

Movies that span over decades or hinge on recreating certain time periods are among the most difficult to film and once again Fincher employs his trusted cinematographer Harris Savides, whom he's worked with previously on Seven and The Game (which was also set in San Francisco). According to Savides the goal this time out, unlike those films, was to shoot it in a way that wouldn't sensationalize anything. The result is that the movie almost has a washed-out documentary style to it, very much reflecting the time period it's set in. The newsroom scenes are very clearly inspired and influenced by All The President's Men. So many directors go too far when a movie is set in the 60's and 70's bombarding us with visual gimmickry and littering the soundtrack with every top 40 hit from the decade. Fincher knows that just one song placed at just the right time during a film can make a huge impact. In The Game it was Jefferson Airplane's "White Rabbit." In Fight Club it was The Pixies' "Where is my Mind?" This time it's Donovan's "Hurdy Gurdy Man," and when the film's over, you'll be hearing it in your nightmares. I know I am.

That's the thing with Fincher films. You're just there. No games. He doesn't need to rely on any tricks or crutches. All the details are right but they're never distracting or call attention to themselves because the story and the characters are always front and center. Ironically, while it may seem like Fincher is doing his least, in doing it he's actually achieving the most. Watch the scene with Graysmith and Melanie on the their first date at the restaurant and pay attention to the subtle clues Fincher drops that this date is really their future. The roles they play at that table are the ones they'll play when they're married. It'll be a mess, but one they'll have to share in together. Under Fincher's skillful eye, Gyllenhaal and Sevigny put on an actor's clinic in a scene that would just be a throwaway in another film.

Then there are the killings themselves. The first two murders in the film (especially the second) are among the most horrifying I've ever seen in a major motion picture. Not because they're gory or bloody, but because Fincher makes the moments leading up to them pure emotional torture. You feel like screaming and crying for the victims because you know what's coming, even if they don't. He plays with that idea for a while and let's us think about it. Hard. This is the first time I can remember wanting the killings to get going because the waiting was scarier than anything we could possibly be shown. Then when they came I wanted to take that wish back.

A lot of important characters come and go through the course of this nearly three hour film, so unexpectedly, there are a lot of memorable performances, one of which I think is Oscar worthy. You may be surprised which one that is. Mark Ruffalo continues his streak of strong leading man work as nearly entire first half of the film belongs to him and Anthony Edwards, and they actually have a somewhat thankless task if you think about it. They must deliver copious amounts of police exposition, while at the same time give affecting portrayals of two honest, loyal men being dragged to the depths of Hell by this case. They're the moral conscience of this story. Their scenes could have played like a re-run of CSI but they don't beacuse they keep us engaged. It's also great to see Edwards, long underrated, find the right big screen role in his post-E.R. career.

Robert Downey Jr. again excels at the role he's always been best at: playing damaged goods. If anything, I wish he had a little more screen time, but it's a miracle Fincher even fit all these people in and gave them an adequate showcase at just under three hours. Gyllenhaal's Graysmith is not your typical Fincher protagonist. The first half of the film he could almost be described as a self-reflective wallflower just standing in the corner and observing. It isn't until the third act of the film where he shows us what he's got. A lot of people have complained that Gylenhaal really doesn't appear to age throughout the film not even looking old enough to have a wife and three kids. I agree to an extent, but I don't think it has a huge bearing on the effectiveness of the story or his performance. He's solid here.

In 2005 the Academy nominated William Hurt for Best Supporting Actor for A History of Violence even though he appeared in basically one scene and for no longer than 10 minutes. It was well deserved. Here's hoping History repeats itself and John Carroll Lynch is rewarded with one for his role as Arthur Leigh Allen, the man who may or may not be Zodiac. He makes that same kind of impact here, with just as little screen time. Lynch, a character actor, probably best known for playing Marge Gunderson's loyal husband in Fargo, really does have just one big scene. That scene, however, is the most important one in the movie.

We may never know who Zodiac is, but when he's questioned, Lynch's Allen somehow in just a few minutes and with only a couple of lines of dialogue meets our most frightening expectations of who the man behind that mask could be. This is clearly an actor who did his homework on Allen as little details about the real man subtly manifest itself in his performance, including everything from speech inflection to physical mannerisms. Even if he's not Zodiac, he's the creepiest, scariest person you could imagine encountering and you'd see why he'd be considered a prime suspect for any crime, not just this one.

This film has been criticized as being "overlong." "Overlong" means scenes have been added to pad the film's running time. This movie is not overlong. I could have watched ten hours more. I'm not going to lie though. It certainly would play better for someone like myself who's incredibly interested in the subject matter. I could easily relate to Graysmith's obsession with the case, as the details surrounding it are endlessly fascinating on many different levels. It's not too often I urge people not to purchase the DVD of what may end up being the best film of the year but that's exactly what I'm doing here. DO NOT BUY THIS DVD. Apparently Fincher was forced by the studio to commit to the scheduled DVD release date even though he was preparing a special edition director's cut he told them couldn't possibly be ready on time.

So what we have now is a bare bones single disc release of the theatrical version with a trailer in front of it for his director's cut to be released in 2008. This director's cut will include commentaries, deleted scenes, and an in-depth look at the actual Zodiac killings with witness accounts. I'll have to lock myself in the house, take the phone off the hook and plant myself in front of the tv for days when that comes out. Fincher was put in a tough position here and apparently was none too happy about it as he's stated the last thing he wants to be accused of is taking advantage of consumers by double dipping on a DVD release. I don't blame him. Everyone should just rent this version to tie them over for now, then wait until early next year to buy the director's cut. Here's hoping it comes out earlier to coincide with a strong Oscar campaign for the film.

Of the many cryptic notes sent from the Zodiac, one leaves the most lasting impression. It reads: "I am waiting for a good movie about me." He gets a great one. But you can't fight the uneasy feeling that maybe he's still out there and knows it. If that's not enough to send chills down anyone's spine, I don't know what is. Unfortunately, by making such a brilliant film about one of our country's greatest unsolved cases, Fincher may have also given this deranged killer exactly what he wished for all along.