Ben Affleck calls the shots in THE TOWN

Quentin Tarantino once said about making his first film, Reservoir Dogs (1992), that it’s safer to work in a subgenre, like a heist film, than to tackle a broad genre, such as horror, comedy, crime, or western. A heist film is a subgenre of the crime genre. Other subgenres would include mobster films, screwball comedies, and slasher films. Basically, it’s a genre that’s a little more concentrated than what a thriller or a comedy would offer. That is exactly what Ben Affleck, the co-writer, director, and star of The Town utilizes here. I’d have to say, nobody can paint the small hoods of Boston better than someone who grew up there. Sure, The Town lacks the cerebral narrative construction of Reservoir Dogs and the extensive character development of Michael Mann’s Heat (1995), but Affleck’s The Town delivers the goods, bottom line. After I walked out of the theater I wasn’t sure if this film was worthy of three stars or an extra half a star, just for relentless entertainment. By the time you finish reading this review, you’ll notice my answer at the very bottom. Ben Affleck plays Doug MacRay, an ex-con and bank thief, part of a tight crew of criminal misfits, growing up in Charleston, a close-knit town, most likely on the grubby side of Boston. The gang of thieves is under tight scrutiny by FBI agent, Adam Farley, played by Mad Men’s Jon Hamm. His best friend growing up and trusted partner-in-crime, James Coughlin, is a trigger-happy cowboy played by the Oscar-nominated actor, Jeremy Renner. I really hope that Renner doesn’t get typecast as these macho, adrenaline-seeking characters, but what can I say, he’s got the perfect look, build, and edgy attitude to deliver these kinds of action performances. I just think that after The Hurt Locker (2009) he should explore more intimate and in-depth portrayals. The opening robbery jumpstarts the film into overdrive and the energy never lets up. The errors of the bank heist call for extreme measures; it involves a hostage situation where the gang kidnaps the bank manager, Claire, played by Rebecca Hall. Who would’ve thought that the victim would lead to a love affair with one of the robbers? Affleck’s character eventually falls for Claire, and after foreseeing his inevitable downfall as a criminal, he tries to find a way to turn his life around. Like most criminal characters, escaping a dangerous lifestyle leads to stepping on others’ toes. The Town is an entertaining heist film mixed with the authentic flavor of the Boston hoods. Affleck’s directorial achievement is well-done, well-executed, well-acted, and contains one terrific set-piece after another. My only problem with The Town is that I’ve seen this type of heist film before, specifically with Heat, which I think, is one of the best heist films ever made, next to The Asphalt Jungle (1950). The Town covers the same grounds as Heat, except there are fewer dots to connect in the plot. 125 minutes flies by incredibly quickly, like a shot of adrenaline pumping through the plot in a swift pace. However, I could sense the beginning action sequence before the credits appear, and pictured the resolution before the grand slam finale started rolling. Besides the predictable nature of the plot, this is pure entertainment. The excitement and array of flawless performances make up for what I’ve already seen in similar heist films. I remember reading the promotional reviews for The Town on the newspaper ad, and a critic said, “It’s Heat meets The Departed.” Well, those of you who’ve seen Heat will certainly notice the similarities, but just because The Town takes place at the same location as The Departed (2006), doesn’t mean you’re going to walk into the same cinematic experience. I need to make this perfectly clear; Boston, LA, New York—it doesn’t matter the location, The Departed takes place in Martin Scorsese’s universe and no one else’s. Sure, somebody else wrote the sensational cop-and-gangster drama, but once Scorsese gets involved, it transforms into his own directorial vision. I can’t say that Ben Affleck has established himself as an auteur director. There isn’t a distinct taste that says I’m walking into a Ben Affleck film and no one else’s. Perhaps down the road he’ll achieve what other prominent actor-turned-directors have accomplished, specifically Clint Eastwood (Mystic River, Unforgiven), Sean Penn (Into the Wild), and Ron Howard (Frost/Nixon, A Beautiful Mind). Let’s not forget that Play Misty for Me (1971) was Eastwood’s first directorial effort, and it took him almost twenty years until he could shine as a gifted talent in Unforgiven (1992). Affleck’s first foray in the director chair, Gone Baby Gone (2007), was a milestone more ambitious than Play Misty For Me, and who knows, maybe in less than twenty years he’ll bloom into a gifted auteur. Widely-receptive and hardworking actors spend a plethora of time on the film set, working with a variety of talented directors. I think it’s safe to say that actors have some of the best training in filmmaking. Ben Affleck has already received an Oscar for screenwriting (Goodwill Hunting), maybe directing will be his next statue. With that in mind, Affleck does an overall, excellent job at co-writing, directing, and acting in this action-packed heist drama. Box office receipts are in line with the critical response—don’t miss it! ***1/2 (out of four stars)

LEBANON is an intense tank ride

Lebanon concerns the Israeli and Lebanese conflict in 1982, told from the point-of-view of an army tank. The film keeps the perspective inside the tank, creating a claustrophobic atmosphere, never letting us breath fresh air for ninety minutes of screen-time. This film is similar to The Hurt Locker (2009), in that it doesn’t contain a political message, but instead, offers the viewer with an intense experience of common warfare. We see the vast destruction and horrid carnage the weapons attached to the tank produce, and also see how protected they are compared to the soldiers on-foot. The filmmakers don’t waste any time setting up the scenario and immerses the viewer right into the elliptical focal point of the young men driving the tank. The ill-trained soldiers see the scared civilians and hostile enemies shown in a magnified close-up with a target in the middle of the frame, and they sense the people of Lebanon staring right back at them. Paranoid, hot, sweaty, nauseous—they are shutout from the outside world, yet have the power to cause the greatest destruction to their surrounding environment. This is a job they wish they never had. The first forty-five minutes depicts a brilliant, militant experience. A rush of adrenaline is felt through every striking image. The filmmakers are very clever in establishing the atmosphere. Dark liquids and dripping sweat is a recurrent visual motif inside the killing machine. There’s a murky puddle of water on the floor of the tank, and in the beginning, it seems clean and calm, not a single cigarette butt or a ripple, for that matter. Towards the end, the filmmakers explore the destructive elements of the invasion by showing the damage and utter mess inside the tank. Soup croutons, soda cans, cigarette butts, mechanical leakage, smoke, and a prisoner of war occupy the limited areas. Another attribute I enjoyed about the film was that you never see the exterior of the tank, which confuses the distance between the drivers point-of-view and the targets they’re locking in on. Unless I’ve read about periscope lenses or actually have been inside a tank myself, I would have no idea how far I am from my external targets. However, after about the first hour, I kept waiting for a new development in the narrative. I enjoyed the realistic perspective inside the tank, but now I wanted the scenario to backfire on me—surprise me, which I wasn’t. It’s one of those films that strives for greatness, like the Hurt Locker was, but in this case, I wanted the dangerous elements to both explore and expand the narrative beyond what the first forty-five minutes had to offer. I can’t say it’s a bad film because it’s very well-done, but it’s more of a tease. The movie left me wanting more than the rip-roaring experience the filmmakers brought to the table, but for what it is, it’s a tank worth driving. *** (out of four stars)

ANIMAL KINGDOM is one of the best films of the year

Animal Kingdom, the award-winning Sundance favorite, is about a young teenager’s survival in a family of dysfunctional sociopaths, headed by the diabolic, ringleader mother. The film opens with the main character, “J” (Josh), calling an ambulance for his biological mother who overdosed on heroin. He passively observes the paramedics checking his mother for vital signs, while glancing back and forth at the television program. Initially, the audience senses that the youngster is desensitized to a corrupt lifestyle. He calls his grandmother, Janine, played by Jacki Weaver, and is deceptively welcomed with open-arms to live with her and his four uncles, all of whom are born and bred criminals. Animal Kingdom has been labeled as a crime movie, but it’s much more than that. Sure, it touches on classic criminal celluloid, such as cops, robbers, drug dealers, corruption, but mostly it’s about a bizarre family of criminals and the lost child trying to survive his teenage years as normally as possible. His only living proof of a normal existence is his teenage girlfriend, Nicky, whom he attaches himself to. After an act of violence occurs between the cops and one of his uncles, he spends more time at Nicky’s parents’ house, hoping to become accepted into their family. Substitute parenting is an important theme in the film. When two cops windup dead, J becomes the prime target of an investigation, headed by the incredible, Guy Pearce. At this point, the teenager becomes a threat to his own family and a victim of terrible circumstances. The film is crafted in a subtle manner, but the threat of danger is ever present. The writer and director, David Michod, has a keen sense for building tension; the film works by the absence of pretentious camera movements and an overwhelming score. The filmmaker brings as much realism to the scenarios as possible, saying, that these vicious crimes are committed by ordinary people, some of whom are posing as law-abiding officials. This is a modestly-budgeted film, meaning that most of the camerawork is handheld. Now, even though I am a big fan of stylish films with kinetic camerawork, it doesn’t mean it always works for the story. The writer/director of Animal Kingdom is very aware of what kind of style is best suited for this juicy story. I was reminded of other recent Sundance hits, such as Winter’s Bone (2010), Sin Nombre (Without a Name-2009), and Frozen River (2008), where the conflict of the central character was organically thrilling to the narrative, and the film as a whole. Gritty realism can easily out-win pretentious style, especially when the filmmakers know they have a compelling story to tell. The primary reason I loved Animal Kingdom was because there was so much psychological and sociological depth to the family portrayal. Pay careful attention, and you’ll notice how the profound elements are nicely interwoven in the subtext of the performances and direction. The film lured me into the young teenager’s dilemma. I sympathized with his emotional pain and empathized with his own violent tendencies, which ironically mimic the criminal lifestyle he was trying to escape. Jacki Weaver gives a riveting and layered performance as the conniving, mama-knows-best ringleader. Her devilish, on-screen presence is reminiscent of Bette Davis in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane (1962) or Ruth Gordon in Rosemary’s Baby (1968). She is absolutely sizzling! Animal Kingdom builds to a jaw-dropping conclusion, an unexpected sucker-punch to the face, and it’s a knockout! This is one of the best films of the year and not to be missed. **** (out of four stars)

GOING THE DISTANCE is too far for comfort

I kept telling myself, okay, it is what it is, and it works on some level. I wanted to believe, Justin Long and Drew Barrymore have chemistry, and the two leads can save the tiresome string of profane one-liners. I’m going to go easy on it. It’s fun and friendly and appeals to your average moviegoer. Forget it, halfway through, I changed my mind. That’s it! I’m going to rip this film a new one. Going the Distance is a formulaic piece of mediocre garbage. I didn’t laugh. I swear, not once. Not even the faintest smile. This is your average, goofy comedy; nothing romantic about it, nothing comedic about it. The dialogue is so geared to the one-liners, I kept wondering, are these actors trying for improvisation, or did someone actually write this? What this script needed, since it didn’t want to work the romantic angle, was a golden comedic talent, such as Will Ferrel, Steve Carrel, or Tina Fey. Sure, Christina Applegate is a wonderful comic actress, but the jokes are worse than eating a bag of stale corn nuts. The humor is so sophomoric they might as well change it to a Van Wilder sequel. What the film is about? Well, you know, boy meets girl, boy likes girl, girl likes boy, their distance gets in the way, and well, they work it out somehow. I’ve seen this kind of formula before, so many times. Every now and then, the performances and humor can rise above the material, but in this case, the formula outweighs the talent. The only way this film would've worked is if the love affair seemed real on-screen. I wasn’t sold by the chemistry between the two leads, even if they are dating in real life. So, consequently, the rest of the film can’t work, and doesn’t. A goofy bore, that’s all I can say. Save your money and rent 500 Days of Summer (2009) , which is a playful, refreshing romantic comedy; a sincere observation of an offbeat relationship. 500 Days of Summer is the opposing force of studio trash like Going the Distance. There, I feel better. * (out of four stars)