Movie Review: Wuthering Heights

Wuthering Heights

Directed by: Andrea Arnold.

Written by: Andrea Arnold & Olivia Hetreed based on the novel by Emily Bronte.

Starring: Kaya Scodelario (Catherine Earnshaw), James Howson (Heathcliff), Lee Shaw (Hindley Earnshaw), Nichola Burley (Isabella Linton), Amy Wren (Frances Earnshaw), Oliver Milburn (Mr. Linton), Steve Evets (Joseph), James Northcote (Edgar Linton), Paul Hilton (Mr. Earnshaw), Shannon Beer (Young Catherine Earnshaw), Solomon Glave (Young Heathcliff).

Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights is one the best known novels in the English language, and according to IMDB, this most recent film is the 15^th screen adaptation of it. So, if you’re going to make another adaptation, you damn well better have something new to add. Luckily for audiences, that is precisely what Andrea Arnold brings to this enduring story – something new. This is a rawer, more primal, more animalistic adaptation that I have seen before, and it adds a racial element to the story that works remarkably well.

The movie tells the story completely from Heathcliff’s point of view – and Arnold casts first Solomon Glave and then James Howston – both black – to play the role of the orphan who is taken in by Mr. Earnshaw as one of his own. Growing up, he falls in love with Cathy (first Shannon Beer than Kaya Scodelario), and she with him. But Heathcliff runs afoul of brother Hindley (this time the reason is clearly racial as when Mr. Earnshaw says to Hindley “I thought you would treat him like a brother”, he responds “He’s not my brother, he’s just a nigger”), so when Mr. Earnshaw dies and Hindley becomes master of Wuthering Heights, the family estate, he makes Heathcliff into a servant (in this version, essentially a slave) instead of a member of the family. But despite what happens between them, Heathcliff and Catherine remain in love – the fact they are kept apart destroys them, and everyone around them.

That is the same story that every adaptation of the book tells – and like many of them, this one stops at the half way point of the novel (which is just as well – I never really liked all the stuff about an aging Heathcliff, and the kids from the first half growing up). But this version of Wuthering Heights feels much more animalistic, more primal than the previous versions. Heathcliff is more up front with his animosity than ever before (he uses some decidedly no period language to express himself).  But the relationships are much more physical than before – the beatings Heathcliff takes are more brutal, Cathy literally licking his wounds for him, Hindley and his wife screwing like animals outside. This, and the multiple shots of animals, draws connections between the people and the animals. And this underlines the inherent cruelty at the heart of the story. Wuthering Heights is a story about cruelty, as Hindley is cruel to Heathcliff and to a certain extent so is Cathy, who drives him away. But when Heathcliff returns, now richer than the rest of the people he left behind, he becomes even crueller – especially how he treats poor, dumb Isabella, just to get back at the man who married Cathy. These are all horrible people – perhaps they would not be if society hadn’t kept Heathcliff and Cathy apart.

The performances in the movie are excellent. James Howson and Solomon Glave do an excellent job of making Heathcliff`s anger feel real. He’s more dangerous than in past versions, more vindictive. Glave is mostly silent in his half of the movie, always lurking and listening to what everyone is saying. Just as good is Kaya Scodelario and Shannon Beer as the two versions of Cathy. Beer and Glave have a much more physical connection to each other. Howson and Scodelario have to keep their distance from each other, but their pleasantries are packed with meaning and heartbreak.

Co-written and directed by Andrea Arnold, Wuthering Heights is more proof that she is one of the most interesting young directors working right now. Her debut film, the thriller Red Lights, was great until the conclusion, and her follow-up, Fish Tank, was an excellent depiction of a seduction of a teenager by an older man. In Wuthering Heights, she uses hand held camera work – with a narrower aspect ratio than normal (1:1.37) that makes the film feel more immediate and real. Arnold has done something quite special with her Wuthering Heights – she has made one of the most well-known stories feel new and different.

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.

DVD Review: A Cat in Paris

A Cat in Paris

Directed by: Jean-Loup Felicioli & Alain Gagnol.

Written by: Alain Gagnol & Jacques-Rémy Girerd.

Starring: Dominique Blanc (Jeanne), Bruno Salomone (Nico), Jean Benguigui (Victor Costa), Bernadette Lafont (Zoé's Nanny), Oriane Zani (Zoé), Bernard Bouillon (Lucas).

When the Oscar nominees were announced last year, the Belgium film A Cat in Paris surprised many by being nominated for Best Animated Film. Having seen the film now, I am even more surprised, as I found the entire film to be rather thin, and not very involving. Yes, it has some charming moments – and the animation has a certain flair to it – but overall, this was just an exercise in style.

The plot centers of Zoe, a young girl living in Paris with her mother, Jeanne, who is the police superintendent. Zoe’s father was killed by a gangster named Victor Costa, and Jeanne has been trying to prove it ever since. Zoe has taken to stop talking since her father’s death – her only friends her seemingly nice Nanny, and her cat Dino – who unbeknownst to everyone, leads a double life. At night, Dino sneaks out and accompanies a cat burglar – Nico – on his jobs. While following Dino one day, Zoe not only discovers his secret – but also her Nanny’s, and falls into the clutches of Victor. Nico, car burglar though he may be – is not that bad of guy, and tries to save her.

A Cat in Paris has its charms – it falls with film noir conventions at times, and there are some wonderfully choreographed chase sequences over the roofs of Paris – including the climax, which ends up at Notre Dame. And while I liked the character animation – which uses some bold geometry to create the characters, there was a constant flickering of shadows across everyone’s faces that I found to be rather distracting.

Overall, I’d say that at best, A Cat in Paris is an interesting, mildly amusing distraction. It is charming in fits and starts, but it never really adds up to anything.

Movie Review: Pitch Perfect

Pitch Perfect

Directed by: Jason Moore.

Written by: Kay Cannon based on the book by Mickey Rapkin.

Starring: Anna Kendrick (Beca), Skylar Astin (Jesse), Brittany Snow (Chloe), Anna Camp (Aubrey), Rebel Wilson (Fat Amy), Ben Platt (Benji), Alexis Knapp (Stacie), Ester Dean (Cynthia Rose), Hana Mae Lee (Lilly), Kelley Jakle (Jessica), Wanetah Walmsley (Denise), Shelley Regner (Ashley), Caroline Fourmy (Mary Elise), Nicole Lovince (Kori), Adam DeVine (Bumper), Utkarsh Ambudkar (Donald), Michael Viruet (Unicycle), David Del Rio (Kolio), Elizabeth Banks (Gail), John Michael Higgins (John), John Benjamin Hickey (Dr. Mitchell).

There has been a lot of talk about “movie culture” lately – whether it is dead or dying or has just become more expansive, and more niche driven. If you want a reason to think that movie culture is in fact dying, looking at Jesse, a character in Pitch Perfect, who says he wants to write film scores when he graduates college – and shows Beca DVDs of the movies with the best soundtracks in history – Jaws, Rocky, Star Wars, E.T. and The Breakfast Club. Amazed that Beca hasn’t seen these movie he is intent on giving her a movie education – or as he calls it, in the way of annoying teenagers the world over who don’t have time to say two words when they can do a god awful mash-up of the two – “medication”. Let’s leave aside the fact that Beca has not seen any of these movies – who says she doesn’t like movies because she gets bored before they’re over (and you wonder why some people think young people have ADD) because not everyone can be a movie person or wants to be (and how sad for them we all feel). But how can someone who wants to work in film, writing scores, think that those five represent the best movie music can be? Someone get this guy some DVDs of Hitchcock, Leone and Fellini so he can marvel at the work of Bernard Herrman, Ennio Morricone and Nino Rota so he can start his own “medication” on what great film music can be. The last thing the movies need is another composer who wants to be John Williams, as great as he may be at times.

It may seem odd to start a review of Pitch Perfect with this kind of rant, but first of all, it’s true, and second of all, it was went ran through my mind while watching this movie. It isn’t a horrible movie by any means – it certainly isn’t painful to sit through – but it also isn’t all that interesting either. This is movie where I was searching in vain for a real moment – a moment where at least one of its characters reacted to something without ironic detachment or a quippy one liner. The moment never really came. Beca who complains that all movies have the same clichéd ending, would no doubt complain about the ending of Pitch Perfect – which may just have the most clichéd ending any movie this year.

Pitch Perfect takes place in the world of collegiate a cappella singing. The film opens at last year’s national finals where first we see the champions, an all-male group from Bardem University, perform and then we see their arch rivals – an all-female group from the same school. Things go from bad – old songs boringly performed – to worse – a member projectile vomiting – for the girls. Flash forward to the new school year, and the all-girl group is now the laughing stock of the school. Other than the projectile vomiter, Aubrey (Anna Camp) and her best friend Chloe (Brittany Snow), everyone else has left – and they have to assemble the kind of ragtag group that only ever assembles in the movies – an overweight, African American lesbian, a slut, an Asian girl so quiet no one can actually hear her, and Fat Amy (Rebel Wilson), who calls herself Fat Amy so, in her words “Twig bitches like you don’t do it behind my back”. We know that “rebel” girl Beca (Anna Kendrick), who is only in college because her father, who is a professor at Bardem is making her, will join in soon enough as well – and that she will transform the group from boring to thrilling. We also know that she’ll fall for Jesse (Skylar Astin), that future film composer, who is now on the girls arch rivals. Oh, we also know at some point, Jesse’s lovable nerd roommate Benji (Ben Platt) will get his chance to shine.

So yes, Pitch Perfect is as clichéd as it comes, but the movie is not without its charms. Chief among them is Anna Kendrick, an actress who like Amy Adams, I find impossible to dislike any time I see her, even if, as is the case here, she really doesn’t have much to work with. She’s still charming, cute and amusing throughout. Another highlight is Rebel Wilson who plays Fat Amy who delivers all of her one liners with gusto – and provides the films biggest laughs. Now if only the screenplay gave her something to do OTHER than deliver one liners, she may have been great. And I did enjoy the byplay between John Michael Higgins and Elizabeth Banks as the color commentators for all the competitions, even if, like Fat Amy, they have nothing to do except make jokes.

But, for me anyway, watching Pitch Perfect was an odd experience. Is the movie mocking a cappella groups or does it actually like them? I still have no idea, as every time anyone sings, it seems that we are encouraged to laugh at them, but also admire their skills – and yes, the people here are talented singers. The movie never really strikes the right note here. Pitch Perfect is a pleasant, but rather dull experience. If you’re a teenage girl or a fan of Glee (which the movie mocks which is odd considering Glee fans would seem to be the target audience), who may well like Pitch Perfect. If not, you should probably stay away.

Movie Review: Looper

Looper

Directed by: Rian Johnson.

Written by: Rian Johnson.

Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Joe), Bruce Willis (Old Joe), Emily Blunt (Sara), Paul Dano (Seth), Noah Segan (Kid Blue), Piper Perabo (Suzie), Jeff Daniels (Abe), Pierce Gagnon (Cid), Summer Qing (Old Joe's Wife), Tracie Thoms (Beatrix), Frank Brennan (Old Seth), Garret Dillahunt (Jesse).

There’s a scene in Looper where Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) sits down with his older self (Bruce Willis) in a diner and starts asking questions. Old Joe says “Let’s not start talking about time travel shit, or else we’ll end up diagraming everything out with straws”. That’s good advice, not just to Young Joe, but the audience watching Looper as well. I guarantee you that you won’t have to look very hard on the internet to find someone who will point out all the time travel contradictions in Looper – and to find others who disagree with them, and “prove” them wrong, only to have someone else correct them. This is true of pretty much every time travel movie ever made. But delving too deep into all that crap would, for me anyway, spoil the fun of Looper – which is a great time travel story. It sets up its own rules, and doesn’t really violate them in any way that became immediately apparent to me. Looper, like all time travel films, requires the audience to take a leap of faith for it to work at all. But if you take that leap, than Looper rewards you handsomely.

Joe is a Looper. What that means is that although it is 2044, he works for the mob from 2074. When they need someone killed, they send them back in time; Joe kills them and disposes of the body. Time travel is highly illegal in 2074, and hasn’t been invented yet in 2044, so eventually the mob will decide to end the contract with their loopers. The loopers have no idea when this will happen – they just know it will eventually. What happens when they end their contract is simple – they end up killing their future selves. Because everyone who gets sent back is bound and has a hood over their head, the loopers don’t know they’ve just killed their future selves until they go to the body to get their payment, which has been strapped to their victims – in place of the regular silver bars are gold ones. You’re now down being a looper, and know that in 30 years, you’ll be sent back in time and you’ll kill yourself. The profession, as Joe admits, doesn’t attract many forward thinkers. The consequences of NOT killing your future self are dire. But when Joe comes face to face with his future self – something is off. He isn’t bound, and has no hood on. Joe hesitates, and that’s all the time Old Joe needs to get away. I could explain more of the plot, but it would fruitless – and unfair to you, as one of the pleasures of the movie is the unexpected twists and turns it takes. Needless to say, Young Joe is being pursued by his employers as he pursues Old Joe – who is also pursued by Joe’s employers, and Joe himself. How Young Joe ends up on a farm, with Sara (Emily Blunt) and her young son, and what they mean, I’ll leave it for you to discover.

Looper is writer/director Rian Johnson’s third film – and his best to date. His debut Brick was an immensely entertaining high school noir, where all the characters talked like they were the stars of a 1940s classic noir. His follow-up with the caper comedy, The Brothers Bloom, in which Johnson seemed to be trying too hard to be Wes Anderson, instead of just being himself. Looper is his first film where he seems to be working on his own level – that isn’t as beholden to his influences as his previous films were. This is intelligent sci-fi, a movie that takes itself and its implications seriously. It is also a stylish action movie – with more violence, that at times is disturbingly realistic even when it seems outlandish. If his first two films showed promise, than Looper delivers on that promise.

The acting also helps a great deal. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who has been with Johnson since the beginning, delivers an excellent performance as Young Joe – even under all the makeup and special effects applied to his face to make him look more like Bruce Willis. He may start the movie as a soulless killer and drug addict, but he transforms throughout the movie – into someone willing to see the big picture. As Old Joe, Bruce Willis is perfectly cast. Johnson doesn’t spend anywhere near as much time with Old Joe, so having an actor like Willis – who we are used to seeing as a kick ass action star, does some of the work for him – and Willis does the rest. Often, Willis sleepwalks through roles, but not here. Emily Blunt is also terrific as the young, single mother – devoted to her child. The supporting cast – Paul Dano as Gordon-Levitt’s sniveling friend and Jeff Daniels as the mob boss in particular – are also terrific fun.

The real star here though is Johnson – especially his screenplay, which is one of the more original works of the year. This is an intelligent sci-fi action movie – that tackles some interesting issues, while still managing to be a superb, mainstream entertainment.

Movie Review: The Perks of Being a Wallflower

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Directed by: Stephen Chbosky.

Written by: Stephen Chbosky based on his novel.

Starring: Logan Lerman (Charlie), Emma Watson (Sam), Ezra Miller (Patrick), Nina Dobrev (Candace), Mae Whitman (Mary Elizabeth), Erin Wilhelmi (Alice), Johnny Simmons (Brad), Paul Rudd (Mr. Anderson), Dylan McDermott (Father), Kate Walsh (Mother), Melanie Lynskey (Aunt Helen), Nicholas Braun (Ponytail Derek), Tom Savini (Mr. Callahan), Adam Hagenbuch (Bob), Reece Thompson (Craig), Joan Cusack (Dr. Burton).

There are times when, against all reason, you simply feel like they made a movie just for you. The Perks of Being a Wallflower is one of those films for me. I find most movies about teenagers to be silly, hollow entertainments – even the good ones – that pretty much forget what it was like to be a teenager – raked with insecurities, shy, nervous, lacking confidence. At least that’s what my teenage years were like – and that’s what they’re like for Charlie, the “hero” of The Perks of Being a Wallflower. No, I wasn’t as screwed up as Charlie was – but I relate to him much easier than most stars of movies about teenagers.

Charlie (Logan Lerman) is about to start high school – and is anxious about the prospect. His best friend killed himself late in the previous school year, and now Charlie is left with no friends. His brother was a football star, but graduated last year, and Charlie doesn’t play. His sister Candace (Nina Dobev) is a senior, and as such doesn’t want to hang around with a loser freshman. So Charlie is all alone- left sitting at a table in the back of the cafeteria, by himself, reading a book – and wanting to join in with everyone else, but having no idea how to do so.

That is until he meets Patrick (Ezra Miller). Patrick is also a senior, but for reasons unexplained, is taking freshman shop class with Charlie. Patrick is different from other seniors – mostly because he is not really popular. When the shop teacher calls him Pattycakes, Patrick tells him to call him Patrick or nothing – to which the shop teacher replies “Okay, Nothing” – and everyone else at the school follows suit and starts calling him Nothing as well. Charlie sees Patrick sitting alone at a football game, and joins him. Soon, Patrick’s step sister Sam (Emma Watson) joins them as well – and Charlie soon figures things out. Patrick is gay and is seeing the captain of the football team, Brad (Johnny Simmons) on the down low. Sam is pretty and sympathetic. Both seem to like Charlie – so he is adopted into their crowd.

The film is written and directed by Stephen Chbosky, based on his own novel (making him one of the few examples of a writer who gets to direct the film version of his own book). The book is better, of course, a little harsher, a little crueler, but Chbosky does an excellent job of adapting it. The book has become a classic of Young adult literature – in fact it fits in nicely with all the books Charlie’s supportive English teacher (Paul Rudd) gives him to read – like The Catcher in the Rye. The book is “controversial” in some circles who deem it unsuitable for teenagers because of Patrick’s homosexuality, the novels frank depiction of sex and drug use and because of an abortion (that has been excised from the movie – most likely because it’s inclusion may have gotten the film a R Rating, meaning the target audience of the film would be unable to see it). But the people who think it’s not suitable for teenagers are those idiots who seemingly have no idea what teenagers today are going through – or for that matter, what they have always gone through.

Like many writers making their directorial debut, Chbosky’s visual style is limited. He pretty much shoots the movie in a simple, straight-forward style – but it’s still effective. This is a movie that relies heavily on its writing and performances – both of which are excellent. Logan Lerman, who I didn’t think much of in Percy Jackson and the Olympians, is quite good here. Shy and awkward, sometimes barely able to get the words out of his mouth, Lerman embodies the movies theme of passivity vs. participation – sometimes sitting back too much, putting everyone else ahead of himself. When he does participate – as in the wonderful sequence where he slowly comes off the wall during a school dance to join Patrick and Sam dancing to Come on Eileen, it’s a thrilling moment. Emma Watson successfully distances herself from Hermione here – although of the three major roles hers is the most underwritten – but that’s by design. Since the movie is told from Charlie’s point of view, and he sees her as perfection personified, it isn’t until late in the movie when we see her as more than that – as a fully, three dimension person. Undoubtedly the best performance in the movie is by Ezra Miller, so good as the teenage psychopath in last year’s We Need to Talk About Kevin, whose Patrick is flamboyant, without going over the top. It would have been easier to make him yet another gay stereotype, but Miller goes further than that – to show the intelligent, sensitive, screwed up person Patrick really is. They are surrounded by a good supporting cast – especially Mae Whitman as a girl who has a crush on Charlie, along with Rudd, who is the type of teacher we all wish we had, and Melanie Lynsky, seen only in flashback, as Charlie’s beloved Aunt.

To a certain extent, The Perks of Being a Wallflower contains many clichés of the coming of age genre. And yet, to me anyway, the film felt fresh, original and fun. Had I seen it as a teenager, I would have loved it even more – but watching it now, as a 30 year old, The Perks of Being a Wallflower made me remember what it was like to be a teenager – and all the good and bad that entails.

Movie Review: Arbitrage

Arbitrage

Directed by: Nicholas Jarecki.

Written by: Nicholas Jarecki.

Starring: Richard Gere (Robert Miller), Susan Sarandon (Ellen Miller), Tim Roth (Det. Michael Bryer), Brit Marling (Brooke Miller), Laetitia Casta (Julie Cote), Nate Parker (Jimmy Grant), Stuart Margolin (Syd Felder), Chris Eigeman (Gavin Briar), Graydon Carter (James Mayfield), Bruce Altman (Chris Vogler), Larry Pine (Jeffrey Greenberg), Curtiss Cook (Det. Mills), Reg E. Cathey (Earl Monroe), Felix Solis (A.D.A. Deferlito), Tibor Feldman (Judge Rittenband).

Nicholas Jarecki’s Arbitrage wants to be an update of Tom Wolfe’s brilliant novel The Bonfire of the Vanities. Both Wolfe’s book and Jarecki’s film are about a “Master of the Universe” on Wall Street, who are in over their heads financially but believe they can get away with anything. Both have at their center men whose success affords them a beautiful, younger mistress, and involve a car accident where someone is killed – and the Master of the Universe thinks he can get away with it. But Jarecki’s film is even more cynical than Wolfe’s novel. Where Wolfe’s character eventually has to face the music, Jarecki’s proves himself right – he really is above the law.

Richard Gere gives a very good performance in Arbitrage as Robert Miller, who runs a successful investing firm worth hundreds of millions of dollars. He keeps his wife, Ellen (Susan Sarandon) in the style in which she is accustomed, loves his grandkids, and seems to be a good father – especially to his prized daughter Brooke (Brit Marling), who is following in his footsteps. He has been a big success on Wall Street – smart enough to avoid collapse when the bottom of the market fell out in 2008. A big bank wants to buy his company – something that will make him even richer than he already is, and will finally let him retire. But Robert has some secrets.

For one thing, he isn’t as smart as he thinks he is – he lost hundreds of millions in a deal on a copper mine in Russia, and has been covering up these losses – with the deposit from a friend who wants his money back. Robert just has to make it until the deal closes, then he can replace the money, and no one will know the difference. He also has a mistress on the side – Julie Cote (Laetitia Casta), a beautiful French woman, who he has set up with an apartment and an art gallery. She, like all mistresses, thinks that eventually Robert will leave his wife for her – and is starting to get antsy and demanding. But all of that pales in comparison to the trouble Robert is about to get into – while driving his mistress, in her car, one night he falls asleep at the wheel and crashes. She’s killed instantly – but rather than call in the accident and face the music, he decides to run for it. He calls a friend – Jimmy Grant (Nate Parker), a young African American son of his former driver, who he helped out. He needs a ride – and he needs no one to know about it. The police, led by Detective Bryer (Tim Roth) aren’t fooled by any of this – but they need proof. And like Robert, Bryer is not above breaking the rules to get it.

Arbitrage flips the idea of a traditional thriller on its head. This is not the story of an innocent man, wrongly accused just trying to prove his innocence. This is the story of a guilty man, rightly accused, trying to cover his tracks. You find yourself cheering for Robert – hoping that he’ll get away with everything, even though you know he’s guilty and he damn well should be punished. This is partly because of Gere, who is so good in the lead role. He looks and acts the part of a Wall Street millionaire – he is affable and charming. And we’re used to liking Richard Gere, so you go with it, even though you know it’s wrong.

But, for me, something is holding Arbitrage back from being a truly good movie. I think writer/director Jarecki’s film is lacking a real sense of urgency – of outrage. Oliver Stone may lay his contempt on Wall Street types a little too thickly in his films on the subject, and goes overboard with the stylistics, but Jarecki has gone too far in the other direction – making a strangely matter of fact film. There is also so little complexity to any of the characters, that even though the entire cast is good – they never truly seem like three dimensional people. The best one if the cast is Roth, who contempt for Gere is palpable, and who doesn’t play his cop as a typical “just the facts, ma’am” movie detective, but something altogether more unique. Nate Parker has some nice moments as well as Jimmy, who wants to do the right thing, but doesn’t know what that is. The rest of the cast is too one note – and I never bought that Marling’s Brooke could be so naïve, and you spend the whole movie waiting for Sarandon to do something – which you know she will because why the hell else would you cast an actress like Sarandon in such a seemingly throwaway role?

There is an interesting idea at the heart of Arbitrage – something that should have made a very good movie. And yet Jarecki’s film, in trying to be realistic, sucks the tension out of it. Arbitrage is still an ok film – an engaging one in which I was never bored. But it never grabbed hold of me the way good thrillers do.