The Village

What is director-writer-producer M. Night Shyamalan associated with? The twist ending. The BIG twist ending. From The Sixth Sense to Signs, Unbreakable to The Happening, Shyamalan has made a career out of that pull the rug out from under you feeling. I've seen most of them, and now I can check off 2004's The Village, another Shyamalan vehicle with a twist in the end.

In a small, isolated village in the Pennsylvania countryside in the late 1890s, life goes on pretty much as normal on a day-to-day basis. Well....pretty much. The close-knit community is isolated from the rest of the world, all the townspeople unable to leave a perimeter surrounding the village. Why? The town has a delicate truce with something living in the woods, creatures dubbed "Those We Don't Speak Of." One of the townspeople, Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix), a young man, is sure the creatures will let them pass if approached in non-aggressive fashion. He is close to Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard), a young woman who lost her vision as a child, who also believes Lucius' plan. It is a pleasant if limited life, but Lucius wants to explore, to question. Can he convince the village elders to give him the chance? Will Those We Don't Speak Of stop him before he can do anything?

Here we sit. Though his films have struggled some at the box office and especially critically, Shyamalan is a talented director. He is. He has few rivals when it comes to building tension, to setting the mood, creating that unbearable sense of doom looming just over the horizon. What's coming next? What's gonna happen?!? Sometimes though, it feels like the films get so wrapped up in building up to the twist that the movie suffers. The focus becomes all about that twist. 'Village' suffers from that issue to a point. At different points, there is A TON of potential that seems to be building to something really crazy, interesting and entertaining. The gloomy setting -- it's seemingly always cloudy -- sets the mood in ideal fashion, and composer James Newton Howard picked up an Oscar nomination for his haunting, eerily beautiful score. So where does it go....

Semi-SPOILERS for this paragraph. I won't give anything specific away, but I've got to at least address it. There's actually two different reveals, one revealed about the hour-mark of the 109-minute movie, the other popping up about the 90-minute checkpoint. They're not bad. The big twist doesn't feel so forced, so out of left field that you question why the script (Shyamalan doing the honors) even went there. It's original. It's unique. It's just not necessarily....well, good. There are some hints dropped along the way, but it did catch me by surprise. If there is a goof, it's in the reveal of the first twist. It comes along too early, taking away from a later scene that would have been dripping with tension and terror if we didn't know what we do (if that makes sense). The biggest issue is that the ending feels rushed without letting things breathe a little bit. Too bad because as far as twists go, this one could have been a doozy of a gem.

Now with the mood, the tension, the mystery, the cast and characters do a good job with a story/script where the focus isn't specifically on them. They're a means to an end. Phoenix does a good job as the moody, questioning Lucius (quite a stretch, huh?) while Howard especially shines as Ivy, the blind young woman who is a favorite in the village because of her generally pleasant outlook on everything. As for the town elders, look for William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver, Brendan Gleeson and Cherry Jones.  For some of the other townspeople, keep an eye out for Judy Greer, Michael Pitt, Jesse Eisenberg, and Adrien Brody as Noah, the mentally challenged adult who never grew up. Some very good actors committing to generally unwritten parts and doing their best to bring it to life.

There's something missing in general here. The build-up is there, that tension and fear of the unknown palpable through much of the first hour. From there on in though, the story loses momentum with a focus on the village and the people. I wanted to like it more. I wish I had liked it more, but it's not bad, just not as good as it could have been unfortunately. A disappointing semi-misfire.

The Village (2004): ** 1/2 /****

The Master

If this sounds pretentious, so be it, I believe it to be true. Some directors make films, not movies, and Paul Thomas Anderson certainly applies under that distinction. These aren't movies you sit back and laugh at or even simply enjoy. There's supposed to be something more. Maybe we're not supposed to enjoy them at all, just appreciate them. That's where I sit now having watched Anderson's 2012 film The Master.

A Navy veteran who served in the Pacific during World War II, Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) wanders aimlessly with his life. He moves from job to job, fired by one or forced to leave by others. Running from one job to the next with no sense or purpose or future, Freddie stumbles onto the boat of Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), a well-to-do middle-aged man who most definitely knows his own purpose. Dodd has started The Cause, a movement that encourages its believers and followers to expand their minds and what they think they know. Freddie is instantly drawn to Lancaster, and the feeling is mutual. These two vastly different people have a common bond, a link somehow. Freddie starts to travel with Dodd's Cause movement, but those around Dodd start to question Freddie's motives, even fearing his violent outburst, and also begin to question what Dodd hopes to achieve himself?

Other film reviewers I trust and respect generally liked this movie while some even loved it. I came away.....disappointed. I say this for one, because I had extremely high expectations. Two, I thought the first hour (maybe a little longer) is a nearly perfect start. I was curious, fascinated, disgusted, and I wanted to see where it went. Then something changed in a huge way. Near the halfway point of Anderson's 144-minute film, Freddie and Dodd are arrested and put into adjacent cells. They scream at each other mercilessly, eventually getting their release. From there on in, the movie loses any purpose. I don't know what it's trying to say -- if anything -- up until the conclusion. An immaculately spelled out, hand-fed story is not necessary in my head, I like trying to figure things out in a film, but the second half of the movie felt wasted to me as if it didn't quite know where it was going or how to wrap things up.

There are very few perfect movies (if any) out there, right? It's always in the eye of the beholder. Individuals as an audience are drawn to different things. So while I didn't love Anderson's film, I can also appreciate that as a film, it is a gem. Anderson and Co. -- including cinematographer Mihai Malaimare Jr. -- elected to shoot in 65 mm, a throwback to Hollywood days of old when everyone now prefers to shoot in digital. In the visual sense, the movie is a masterpiece. The look of the film alone is worth it no matter how you feel in the end about the story or characters. This isn't characters having to act to look like its the 1950s. This truly feels like the 1950s from the clothes to the hairstyles, cars to the sets. Anderson's shots are full of depth, characters hovering on top of each other, full of rich colors that benefit from the old school filming technique. A member of Radiohead, Jonny Greenwood did the musical score, an unsettling, moving score similar to his music from Anderson's There Will Be Blood.

Directing this film, Anderson is without question a freakishly talented director. This isn't a typical Friday release. 'Eh, what crap can we go see this weekend?' this is not. It is a self-assured confidence and talent that I'd like to think directors either have or they don't. I don't know if you can work to get to this level. Writing the script for 'Master,' Anderson is counting on you being able to follow with the story and make some decisions on your own. Freddie bumps from one job to another without a transition. He's there, now he isn't, and now he's elsewhere. Figure it out for yourself. Anderson's script never spells things out for us, and his story as a whole....well, it isn't a story. There's no real plot, no huge set pieces. It moves from one scene to another without warning. He has style though. That's evident. Beautiful long shots, extreme close-ups that linger on for seemingly endless periods, uninterrupted shots that speak to a more classical time in Hollywood, Anderson's got that innate ability.

For the recent award seasons (I'm looking at you, Academy Awards), 'Master' was in that odd category that earned acting nominations, but nothing else. There are flaws, but the characters are interesting if highly unlikable. Phoenix was nominated for Best Actor, but as good as his performance is, I got the sense it was just a continuation of the weirdness we saw on Letterman years ago. It's very good, but it's not the all-time classic performance some make it out to be. He did become Freddie though, making the character come to life, especially his awkward walking, hands on his hips. Freddie could have PTSD from WWII (although his problems seem deeper-rooted), but there's also trouble with his alcohol addiction, sex obsession, and horrifically violent outbursts. It is a character from the moment we meet him that we know it will not end well for him. Tragic isn't a spot-on description, but it sure is close.

Similarly nominated is Hoffman as Lancaster Dodd, loosely based on Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. I liked this performance more than Phoenix, even though both are worthy performances. Hoffman's Dodd is interesting because we see the good and bad. He presents himself as this brilliant, philosophical thinker, but it's all an act. I especially liked the dynamic between Freddie and Lancaster, the two inexplicably drawn to each other. The third nominated performance, Amy Adams as Lancaster's wife, Peggy, is all right but nothing more. Also look for Laura Dern as one of Lancaster's loyal followers, Jesse Plemons as Val, Lancaster's questioning son, and Ambyr Childers as his daughter, recently married to fellow believer, Clark (Rami Malek).

Something fell short here for me. Every little thing doesn't have to be spelled out, and a non-linear story isn't a deal breaker. The second half of the story falls short though in a big way. It never goes anywhere, ending in disappointing fashion that brings the story full circle without any resolution. An incredible visual with some worthy performances go a long way, but there is simply some missing ingredient here that prevents it from being a classic. It needs to say something.

The Master (2012): ** 1/2 /****     

Gladiator (2000)

The age of the historical epic has long since past, the 1950s and 1960s full of three-hour movies with a cast of thousands, scale to spare and a window into a historical time long since past. It's hard to beat these movies in terms of pure entertainment quality, a time when Hollywood -- a pre CGI Hollywood -- was willing to drop a lot of money for that quality. Over 40 years later though, there was and still is a demand for movies like that, and when done right, they rank up there with the best of the past, especially 2000's Gladiator.

Having won a brutal victory for Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) in Germania, Roman general Maximus (Russell Crowe) is betrayed and left for dead for when Marcus' son, Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), forcibly takes the throne away from his aging father. Maximus races home to find his wife and son tortured, raped and murdered, but in the aftermath he is scooped up by a traveling caravan and as a slave is sold to Proximo (Oliver Reed), the owner of a gladiator school in Zucchabar. At first wanting nothing to do with this life, Maximus realizes that with each win in the gladiator ring, he takes one step closer to meeting Commodus again, and for the general-turned-slave-turned gladiator, all he wants is one more shots at meeting the Roman emperor who took his life away from him.

If the story has a little bit of a scatter-brained quality, I apologize. That's more on me trying to condense a 155-minute movie into a paragraph synopsis. Fans of 1960s epics will no doubt recognize some of the story; it borrows somewhat liberally from 1964's The Fall of the Roman Empire and does use some real-life historical basis for its story. Some historical inaccuracies aside, director Ridley Scott has an epic gem here. It has the feel and look of an epic, and sometimes that alone can be enough. Is the portrayal of ancient Rome spot-on in terms of accuracy? No, not especially, the screenplay taking some liberties there. But traveling from the gloomy battlefields of Germania to the far-off desert communities of the Roman provinces to the glory and majesty of Rome, Scott gets it right in spite of any historical inaccuracies.

A respected and at least somewhat well known actor who'd been working in Hollywood for years, Russell Crowe became a household name courtesy of this movie and his starring role. Crowe won the Best Actor Oscar for his part as Maximus, the betrayed Roman general who must avenge his family's murder at all costs. It's appropriate that Crowe was chosen for the part because he has the star-power quality of a Charlton Heston or John Wayne. As an actor, he belongs in big, expansive epics where that star power can shine through. A story of an obsessed man looking for revenge can be tricky, but Crowe makes Maximus likable which sounds easy but is essential to the movie's success. He is an ultra-capable commander, a brutally effective and skilled warrior, and a stout and ready leader of men. Great lead performance.

Without the huge A-list supporting cast, Gladiator is probably a little better for it. The cast -- big names or not -- does not disappoint, the depth of the cast making up for any lack of star power. Phoenix is uncomfortably evil as Commodus, the power-hungry but ultimately insane Roman emperor. He sneers and glares as he scoops up power, wanting nothing more than an incestuous love from sister Lucilla (Connie Nielsen in a very strong supporting part). My favorite character is Reed's Proximo, a former gladiator granted his freedom and now an owner of a gladiator school. A cynic looking for the biggest payday, Proximo sees that potential in Maximus -- dubbed the Spaniard in the gladiatorial ring -- but also starts to see more than that, sees there's good and bad, right and wrong, more than just money. Reed unfortunately died before production wrapped, but it is a scene-stealing performance. The same goes for Harris as Marcus, an aging, dying emperor looking to right wrongs he's done and save Rome from itself.

Beyond those key supporting roles are several more, a little more in the background but just as important. This was my first introduction to Djimon Hounsou who plays Juba, an African slave turned gladiator. He bonds with Maximus, both men having been violently separated from their families. Ralf Moeller is also very good as Haken, a bear of a man and a Germanic gladiator who sides with Maximus and Juba. Derek Jacobi plays Gracchus, a strong-willed member of the Senate who hates what Commodus has done to Rome, with David Schofield and John Shrapnel as other Senators of varying loyalty. Tomas Arana plays Quintus, Maximus' former second in command, with Tommy Flanagan playing Cicero, Maximus' aide in camp. David Hemmings also has a brief but memorable part as Cassius, the Colosseum's announcer.

With the epic story moving all over the Roman Empire, one thing rises above all others as I rewatched Gladiator recently, and that's the scale and blood-splattered quality of the action sequences.  Oh, and there's plenty of them. In creating these sequences, Scott uses computer-generated images, but he never overdoes it. The opening battle in muddy Germania is a bloody, chaotic mess, the action then moving onto the equally bloody but beautifully photographed gladiatorial fights. The fights in the provinces are efficient and bloody, the scale more impressive once Maximus, Proximo and Co. reach Rome and the Colosseum. All of the action is aided by composer Hans Zimmer's score, everything you hope and want an epic musical score to be. Listen to a sample of a battle sequence music HERE. Action galore and on a gigantic scale, you should not be disappointed in that department.

The only thing I did come away somewhat disappointed on my recent viewing was the talky quality of the movie as Commodus takes power in Rome. Yes, they're necessary scenes to establish characters and motivation, but dialogue scenes of Rome, republic, the mob, and the Senate become a little tedious. Scott seems to know it too, never waiting too long to unleash another action sequence in our direction. That said, the last 45 minutes are nearly perfect, the pieces all falling into place for one final showdown. Epically dark and cynical as betrayals, backstabbing and murder rule the day, the last half-hour plus does not disappoint, helping make up for some of the slower portions building up to it.  An epic and a great one at that. They're getting rarer these days so enjoy them as much as you can.

Gladiator <---trailer (2000): ****/****

Signs

Bursting onto the movie scene like few other directors have, M. Night Shyamalan had a huge, surprise hit with his first movie, 1999's The Sixth Sense.  It was a movie that caught people off guard with its quality and especially the huge, twist ending that on repeated viewings seems painfully obvious, but that first viewing? About as complete a shock as a movie can produce.  But since Sixth Sense, Shyamalan's movies have gone progressively downhill for the most part.  The one exception seems to be 2002's Signs.

It's easier judging movies at the time they were made and not 8 years later because a lot can change in that time.  But with Signs, it's hard not to see how the mighty have fallen.  Shyamalan's four movies since have ranged from below average to panned and stars Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix have both hit some road blocks in their career, more on a personal level with personal choices than actual career choices. But at the time they were all near or at the top of their games in terms of fan following and a general popularity.  Since? Maybe not so much, but it's hard not to watch this movie and think about the departures from success this trio has gone through.

Living on his family farm some 45 miles outside Philadelphia, former reverend Graham Hess (Gibson) wakes up one morning to find huge crop circles in his cornfields.  What could they mean?  Are they elaborate pranks, hoaxes performed by teenagers, or just maybe, could they be something else, something other worldly?  With his brother Merrill (Phoenix) and his two kids, Morgan (Rory Culkin) and Bo (Abigail Breslin), Graham begins to question what's happening, and he's not the only one.  Similar crop circles start popping up in countries all over the world while strange, unexplained lights float over these cities. As the world questions what is going on, Graham remains focused on getting his family through whatever is about to happen.

From the moment the opening credits started and composer James Newton Howard's score kicked in, all I could think was how much the movie's style reminded me of an Alfred Hitchcock thriller. Playing on some Hitchcockian tendencies, Shyamalan makes an often unsettling thriller that for the most part keeps you guessing. He creates a very thick tension, a sense of the coming doom that is about to hit this little farm.  The story is almost entirely contained at the Hess farm with a few quick detours and a character here and there making an appearance.  But above all else, this is a story about the Hess family and their struggles and solutions for this unexplained phenomena taking place all over the world.

Through his handful of movies, Shyamalan has become typecast as the "ending twist director."  You go into his movies now thinking 'I wonder how he's going to trick us here' thanks to the con job he pulled in Sixth Sense.  Well, here's the twist...sort of.  There isn't a major, shocking slap you in the face surprise.  If anything the ending is a little weak in its execution.  Like a lot of thrillers that start off so strongly, Signs struggles to maintain that pace throughout.  It's like Christmas Eve.  You see the presents and wonder what's in them.  The wait and wonder can be half the fun.  The revelation here -- while creepy and well-handled -- falls short in a lot of ways, especially in its resolution.  This isn't a movie-derailing flaw, just one that prevented it from being a near-classic.  The ending is good, but not great.

In the news more for his anti-Semitic rants lately, Gibson shows here that as always, he was a very capable actor capable of pulling off incredibly dramatic roles.  His Graham Hess is a tortured soul, one struggling with an incident from the past that claimed his wife's life.  He tries to trudge on, to start life over again in a sense, raising his kids as best he can.  Graham struggles with the faith that carried him through even the roughest patches in the past and doesn't quite know how to handle this dilemma.  Phoenix has said he's retiring from acting -- a shame because of his epic talent -- and this is another quirky role for him.  I can't put my finger on Merrill, a middle-aged man who never quite lived up to his potential and knows it but is nonetheless a good man who moves in with his brother to help raise the children.  A very solid supporting performance.  Culkin and Breslin also impress on the child actor scale, never grating or annoying, just good actors.

The movie has its fair share of creepy moments with the sense of the unknown hovering over the world.  Shyamalan's shooting style emphasizes all this with camera work that is never invasive or over the top.  His camera isn't moving all around.  Scenes are long, unedited takes that put you on edge because you keep waiting for something huge, something shocking to come flying at the camera.  The fact that the huge surprise never comes? A complaint, but not a major one.  The build-up and tension is strong enough to carry the movie past some of its struggles in the last third.

Signs <---trailer (2002): ***/****