Movie Review: Win It All

Win It All *** ½ / *****

Directed by: Joe Swanberg.

Written by: Jake Johnson and Joe Swanberg.

Starring: Jake Johnson (Eddie), Joe Lo Truglio (Ron), Keegan-Michael Key (Gene), Aislinn Derbez (Eva), Nicky Excitement (Nick), Arthur Agee (Arthur), Steve Berg (Berg), Cliff Chamberlain (Paul the Bartender), Kris Swanberg (Kris), Jude Swanberg (Jude).

 

Joe Swanberg is one of those filmmakers I respect, even if I’ve never really liked his films – of which, I’ve only seen a fraction of. He’s making the films he wants to make and doesn’t really care if you like them or not – so if I find his early work to be self-indulgent naval gazing, and his more recent work – where he’s trying something more mainstream – to not quite work, so be it. Few filmmakers seem willing to do what he does, and just keep churning them out. His most recent film – made for Netflix – is Win It All – and I think it succeeds where other recent stuff, like Drinking Buddies, failed for me. That film was an attempt at making a more mainstream romantic comedy – but with a twist, which is that the two people who are obviously perfect for each don’t get together. It was an interesting idea, but if you’re going to twist a cliché of the genre, you have to twist it into something – which is what he failed to do in Drinking Buddies (instead of it turning into a cliché, it turned into nothing).

 

Win It All takes another well-worn genre – the gambling addict movie – and attempts something similar. Fairly early in the film, Eddie (Jake Johnson) really, truly does realize he has a problem and goes straight. He starts working for his brother’s (Joe Lo Truglio) landscaping company – and surprises even himself with how much he enjoys it. He starts dating a nurse, Eva (Aislinn Derbez) who he genuinely likes, and wants to be with. He starts going to meetings, with the help of his sponsor Gene (Keegan-Michael Key). He has really, and truly turned his life around. There’s just one thing though – before he did all of that, he was given a bag by a scary looking friend, and told to hold it for him while he goes to jail for 6-9 months – and if he does, he’ll get $10,000. Of course, the bag contains money – under what looks like evidence of what could have been a fairly gruesome murder – and of course, Eddie gambles some of it away - $20,000 to be exact. He has a plan to get the money back – and it doesn’t even involve gambling. But then, he finds out his friend is getting out early – so, of course, he needs to head back to the tables, for one last time.

 

You could probably write many of the story beats of Win It All right now knowing nothing more about it. It’s not unlike The Gambler – either the James Caan or Mark Wahlberg version, or Rounders with Matt Damon, without an Edward Notion. Or countless other films. Yet, there is something genuinely different about Win It All as well – and it’s that middle section. The beginning, when Eddie falls down the rabbit hole into mounting debt, and the end – when he either has to win it all or get killed – we have seen but the middle, when he really does get clean is somewhat different. If there is a flaw in that, it’s the same type of flaw that was in Drinking Buddies – if you’re not going to follow the clichés, what are you going to follow? The middle section is fairly easy going, with great comic relief by Key and Truglio, and a sweet relationship between Eddie and Eva (including a rather chaste sex scene – by Swanberg standards). But all of that cannot fully cover up the fact that what we’re doing is watching someone do yardwork, and enter invoices into a computer for an hour. There isn’t much momentum there – and we know how the film will end.

 

But even during the rough patches in Win It All, there is Jake Johnson’s performance – which is the best I’ve seen from him in a film. His Eddie is kind of sweet guy – even if he is an idiot. He’s more believable as a broken down gambler than most of the stars who do it – in part because you really do believe that him being down $2,000 is horrible for him. The movie keeps things on a believable level throughout – and Johnson delivers a raggedly charming performance.

 

I didn’t much like the end of Win It All – it’s almost as if Swanberg and Johnson (who co-wrote the script together) didn’t really know how to get Eddie out of a certain situation, and just said screw it, and came up with something silly. But other than that, Win It All, is something more traditional from Swanberg – which isn’t really a bad thing. For one thing, for once, I enjoyed it.

Movie Review: Happy Christmas

Happy Christmas
Directed by: Joe Swanberg.
Written by: Joe Swanberg.
Starring: Anna Kendrick (Jenny), Melanie Lynskey (Kelly), Mark Webber (Kevin), Lena Dunham (Carson), Joe Swanberg (Jeff).

The films of Joe Swanberg all seem to be of a piece –he rejects anything resembling a plot or resolution, and seems to want nothing more than to hang out with his characters for extended, seemingly improvised scenes. Some of his films have been insufferable – the acting terrible, the style, which is basically a complete lack of style, annoying and the whole project seeming like little more than navel gazing. His last two (or at least the last two I’ve seen – he is a strangely prolific director) have shown a little more promise, a little more intelligence – or at the very least acknowledges that his hipster characters can be completely and totally insufferable. Like Drinking Buddies, last year’s film in which best friends Jake Johnson and Olivia Wilde do not know they are perfect for each other, Happy Christmas is a movie that takes a more seemingly mainstream genre and gives it a Swanberg-twist. In this case, it’s the coming home comedy-drama – where Jenny (Anna Kendrick), comes to live with her brother Jeff (Swanberg himself) and his wife, Kelly (Melanie Lynskey) – who are new parents. Jenny, younger, more free spirited, most also more irresponsible, turns their life’s upside down – and they everyone grows a little bit. This probably sounds like a horrible, family Christmas comedy – and yes, in different hands, that is perhaps what it would be. But Swanberg twists it enough to make it an interesting sit – not a particularly good one, but an interesting one.

At first, Jenny seems to be a completely normal, young 20-something, and her brother and his wife seem like a perfect happy, 30-something couple with kids. But early in the film, Jenny goes to party with her friend, Carson (Lena Dunham), and gets so drunk she passes out in the closet – prompting Carson to have to call Jeff to come pick Jenny up. It isn’t the last time Jenny will get black out drunk in the film –though oddly (and somewhat refreshingly), no one ever uses the word alcoholic – although that is clearly what Jenny is. She also smokes a lot of pot – and when she meets Kevin (Mark Webber), a friend and of Jeff and Kelly, and their son’s part-time babysitter (and part-time pot dealer) – the pair do a slow dance of seduction – with Jenny being the more aggressive of the two (also, somewhat refreshing). Meanwhile, even though Kelly initially doesn’t think much of Jenny, she eventually gets inspired by her – Kelly, who is a novelist, needs a good kick in the pants to get going again after the birth of her son – and Jenny gives her that. And also an idea – why not just churn out one of those “mommy sex” books, and make a boatload of money.

Perhaps the biggest difference between Swanberg's more recent films and his earlier work is the quality of the acting. He was one of the first to recognize the brilliance of Greta Gerwig – but Gerwig often outshined everyone else in the movies. Now, with a slightly higher profile, he can hire better actors. Kendrick, so naturally sweet and likable, is well cast as Jenny – who loses and regains our sympathy more than once during the course of the movie. Lynskey is also very good as the put upon mother, who simply wants a little bit of freedom for herself. The best scenes in the movie are between these two – or these two alongside Dunham’s Carson, just spitballing ideas for the novel, or shooting the shit – with the two younger women completely unaware of how ridiculous they sound (ah – the arrogance of youth). I did appreciate the fact that Swanberg doesn’t make Jeff into some sort of selfish asshole – unlike many movie dads and husbands, he actually wants to spend time with his son, doesn’t complain about it, and also does what he can to give Kelly time to herself. Yes, that’s normal husband behavior (or should be) – but in this sort of movie (basically a big screen sitcom), that practically qualifies Jeff for sainthood.

 
I liked some of the ideas behind Happy Christmas – and liked how Swanberg refused to give into easy clichés. He takes a well-worn genre, and twists it a little. The problem is that by itself, that just isn’t enough. The complete lack of structure in the film is charming for a while, but slowly wears out its welcome (and this is only an 82 minute film). Swanberg has found a slightly different way to tell the same stories Hollywood always does, but minus the clichés. The problem is, while he doesn’t do the same things in the story that Hollywood would be – his substitute is just as inane and boring. Swanberg already has 26 directing credits in just over a decade (I told you, he was strangely prolific) – and I think he’s finally showing real signs of there being an interesting filmmaker in there, somewhere. He hasn’t quite showed himself yet – but he’s getting closer.

Movie Review: Drinking Buddies

Drinking Buddies
Directed by: Joe Swanberg.
Written by: Joe Swanberg.
Starring: Olivia Wilde (Kate), Jake Johnson (Luke), Anna Kendrick (Jill), Ron Livingston (Chris), Ti West (Dave), Jason Sudeikis (Gene Dentler), Mike Brune (Mike), Frank V. Ross (Frank), Jim Cibak (Jim), Alicia Van Couvering (Amy), Joe Swanberg (Angry guy in car), Michael Zeller (Eli).

If you’re like me, you probably spent more time reading about Mumblecore films than actually watching them. These films, which began in 2002 with Andrew Bujalski’s film Funny Ha Ha, are extremely low budget American indie films – most often shot with amateur actors, with largely improvised screenplays, shot on digital video, and most often concern young hipsters navel gazing. Outside of film festivals most of the films barely got released into theaters, but found a cult following on DVD, and later the internet. The films were shot quickly and cheaply, which allowed the directors to make many of them. Some critics championed the films, some despised them, and for the most part, everyone outside their target demographic of other hipsters completed ignored them. The mainstreaming of Mumblecore started a few years ago – Greta Gerwig, a mumblecore staple, moved on to making bigger movies, and her presence have infinitely improved the last two Noah Baumbach films (Greenberg and Frances Ha – the second of which she co-wrote). The Duplass brothers have made two films – Cyrus and Jeff, Who Lives at Home – with bigger movie stars, and Mark Duplass has started a nice little acting career for himself. Lynn Shelton has also moved onto films with bigger stars – Your Sister’s Sister, and the upcoming Touchy Feely. Lena Dunham’s lone directing effort in film, Tiny Furniture, is often called a mumblecore film, and she’s now one of the biggest names on TV. Actress Amy Seimetz is having a great year this year, with her performance in Shane Carruth’s excellent Upstream Color, and her own film, Sun Don’t Shine, which while some call it a mumblecore film, it doesn’t really seem like one to me. So I suppose it was only a matter of time before Joe Swanberg – arguably the director most associated with mumblecore – tried his hand at something more mainstream.

With Drinking Buddies, Swanberg doesn’t stray too far from his mumblecore roots – the characters are still hipsters (they work at a craft brewery, and if there’s anything more hipster than that, I’m not sure what it is), and the film is still largely improvised by its cast. The film however does have a more standard issue setup – two friends, one male, one female, who the audience knows are perfect for each other, but are involved with other people when the movie opens.

The two characters are Kate (Olivia Wilder) and Luke (Jake Johnson) – and the two of them have an easy chemistry with each other. They laugh, flirt and joke around with each other, and seem completely at ease with each other. And then we meet their significant others – Kate’s is Chris (Ron Livingstone), a slightly older, dullard and Luke’s is Jill (Anna Kendrick), a cute, perky super organized artist. We know when the four of them go away together for the weekend something is going to happen – but we’re not quite expecting what does.

It becomes clear at some point in the running time that Swanberg isn’t going to give the audience exactly what they are expecting. This is his way of twisting the romantic comedy genre if you will – there’s only one real problem with that – once he decided to not have the movie payoff in the way we are expecting, he doesn’t really come up with a way for it to pay off at all. The result is an amusing diversion – but really not much else.

The acting it must be said is quite good. We expect Johnson to be at ease in this type of role – it isn’t all that far away from his character on New Girl, who of course, would fit right in a mumblecore movie. I wasn’t expecting Wilde to be as good as she is – but she is charming and funny, and fits it well. It’s nice to see her have a role to play that isn’t literally the personification of female perfection she played in Tron: Legacy or Cowboys and Aliens. Anna Kendrick proves once again why she’s going to have a long career – she fits in with ease to whatever movie you’re making. Livingstone is rather dull and boring as Chris – but then again, I think the entire point of his character is to make him dull and boring, so kudos to him I guess.

The movie doesn’t really go anywhere – but then again, I don’t think Swanberg really wants it to. If he’s going to make it as a mainstream filmmaker, he’s going to do it on his own terms. Good for him. I hope the next film he makes is better than Drinking Buddies – there’s a lot of promise in it, but it ultimately left me wanting more.

Movie Review: V/H/S

V/H/S

Diected by: Adam Wingard, David Bruckner, Ti West, Glen McQuaid, Joe Swanberg, Radio Silence.

Written by: Simon Barrett, Matt Bettinelli-Olpin, David Bruckner, Tyler Gillett, Justin Martinez, Glenn McQuaid, Radio Silence, Nicholas Tecosky, Chad Villella, Ti West.

Starring: Calvin Reeder (Gary), Lane Hughes (Brad), Adam Wingard (Rock), Hannah Fierman (Lily), Mike Donlan (Shane), Joe Sykes (Patrick), Drew Sawyer (Clint), Jas Sams (Lisa), Joe Swanberg (Sam), Sophia Takal (Stephanie), Kate Lyn Sheil (The Stalker), Norma C. Quinones (Wendy), Drew Moerlein (Joey), Jason Yachanin (Spider), Helen Rogers (Emily), Daniel Kaufman (James), Chad Villella (Chad), Matt Bettinelli-Olpin (Matt), Tyler Gillett (Tyler), Paul Natonek (Paul).

V/H/S is an good example of two types of films that normally suck. The first is the anthology film, which always seems like a better idea in theory than it is in practice – normally, what happens is you get one great segment surrounded by a bunch of crap that you have to wade through to get to the good one. The second is the found footage horror film – that was popularized by good movies like The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity, but is normally just shaky camera work crap. But V/H/S is an example of why anthologies sometimes work and why found footage horror films can be extremely scary if done right. The film has two excellent shorts, one very good, one passable and only one that is downright awful to go along with  a framing device that grows more tired every time we revisit it. Yet, when the film works, and the first two segments work amazingly well, it scared me more than any other horror film I’ve seen this year.

The framing device for the film, directed by Adam Wingard, is about a group of 20 year assholes, who film themselves doing despicable things and then post them on YouTube. They get a job offer to rob an old house – the only thing the client wants is some old VHS tapes. They have no idea what is on them. They break into the house, find an old dead man in a chair in front of a bank of TVs, and then find the VHS tapes – which they play one after another in mounting horror. The framing device is effective, but grows a little more tiresome each time we revisit it. This really isn’t Wingard's fault, who has less freedom than the other directors since he needs to set up the whole film, but it is effective.

The first real segment is by personal favorite in the film – and the one that scared me the most. Three horny college boys hit the bar, one with a hidden camera in his glasses. They get drunk, and pick up two women, and take them back to a hotel room – and this is when all hell breaks loose. The film is a slow burn before its shocking climax, but it is brutally effective, and the line "I like you" will now never cease to send chills up my spine. Directed by David Bruckner, this segment is brutal, bloody and brilliant.

The second film is by the great Ti West – who with his segment here and his features The House of the Devil and The Innkeepers has established himself as one of the hopes for American horrors future. His segment stars Joe Swanberg and Sophia Takal as a young married couple on their second honeymoon, who are filming their adventures. First they get a strange fortune by one of those fortune telling machines seen in the movie Big. And then things get even creepier when it becomes clear someone is watching them – and films them while they sleep. Another slow burn of a horror film, leading to a truly shocking finale, this segment keeps the intensity of Bruckner’s segment going.

The third segment, directed by Glenn McQuaid, is the one that doesn’t work at all. It has an interesting, if well-worn setup, of a group of college kids heading out for a weekend in the wilderness – where of course, it has been long since rumored to be the hunting grounds of a demented serial killer, which of course, is true. I admire how McQuaid tries to put a new twist on this old as the hills concept, but what he actually puts onscreen is awful, cheesy and just not scary. This is the segment it’s safe to go to the bathroom during without the danger of missing anything.

The fourth segment is directed by Mumblecore mainstay Joe Swanberg, and takes place entirely over Skype (how a Skype conversation ended up on VHS is a question better left unasked). In it, a scared young woman, who just moved into a new apartment, talks to her boyfriend over Skype, and shares her interesting creepy stories of what is happening in her apartment. This segment is more creepy than scary and the ending, which like the others tries to add a twist, really doesn’t work at all. It may just be the best thing Swanberg has ever done – but considering I don’t normally like his films, that may be damning the film with faint praise.

The final segment is by a group who calls themselves Radio Silence, and is about a group of college kids who head out to a Halloween party – and gets in over their heads. This segment seems to have been the critic’s favorite when the film debuted at Sundance, and it’s easy to see why – out of all the segments, it is the one that keeps you guessing the most from one scene to the next. You’re never quite sure what is going to be around the next corner, what is going to happen next. And while I prefer Bruckner’s sequence – and maybe even Wests, it is creepy and scary in the extreme.

V/H/S is a good horror film – that has some great moments and perhaps proof that horror anthologies work better than most other genres. Perhaps that’s because the best part of horror films is usually the setup, but often has to pad its mid-section with needless bloodletting to get up to feature length. Here, by the time each segment is done with its setup, it’s already moved directly into its climax, so as not to overstay its welcome. Unfortunately, after the first two segments, the third one is a massive disappointment, and the film never quite regains its momentum – even though the Radio Silence directed finale comes close. I know a lot of people hate the found footage genre, with its constant shaky camera work – I often do as well. But perhaps I’m just getting used to it – more and more films are using the concept, and sometimes it works – as it does in the best segments here. V/H/S cannot sustain its effectiveness throughout the whole film – but there are moments that make it worthwhile.