Jersey Boys Review

Clint Eastwood’s “Jersey Boys” is a handsome looking movie. As with “J Edgar,” Eastwood and his cinematographer Tom Stern shoot this one in mostly low light giving the entire picture a noir-ish look that also punctuates James M Murakami’s production design, making the period décor—the movie spans from the 1950’s to the 1990’s—pop off the screen.

Based on the hit Broadway musical, “Jersey Boys” recounts the story of the music group Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons, from their origins in a tough New Jersey neighborhood, to their fame and finally to Valli’s solo career. Unfortunately, the production design is the only thing that really pops as the movie—despite featuring some great music—suffers from a narrative that gets increasingly less interesting and more cliché, and from a general lack of energy. Even the musical performances failed to resonate in my mind as I type this review.

That being said the film gets off to a pretty great start. When we first meet the Four Seasons they’re just a bunch of young Jersey hoods getting into trouble, going nowhere, and in their own words “busting each others’ balls.” There’s the bandleader Tommy DeVito (Vincent Piazza), the biggest troublemaker of the group, the bassist Nick Massi (Michael Lomenda, who does fine but for the life of me I can’t remember anything else about the character’s personality) and of course Mr. Valli himself (played by John Lloyd Young), the shyest member of the group but also the one with the voice that would catapult the band to fame. There’s also Bob Gaudio (Erich Bergen), the songwriter of the foursome who joins a little later.

This is the only section of the movie that has any kind of energy in it. Watching the four of them mess around with one another, bullshitting, spouting New Jersey slang as they play nightclubs and try to stay out of trouble—usually failing to do so—is intoxicating. Not to mention the fact that the four actors have incredible chemistry, playing off each other almost perfectly. There’s something authentic and easygoing about this first section. Even Christopher Walken in a minor role as a mob boss and supporter of the group manages to make a small but memorable impression.

However, it’s when it moves away from being about The Jersey Boys (a group of scrappy underdogs from the wrong side of the tracks) and about the Four Seasons (the band) that the picture begins to decline in quality. “The Jersey Boys” falls into the typical musician biopic traps; there’s the “we’re getting famous montage” showing them writing and recording songs—we get to hear all of their hits, one after the other-- as well as some heavy partying. And of course there’s the falling out between the group. Tommy becomes the loose cannon of the group, running up a huge debt to some mobsters. Aside from the fact that this is Musician biopic 101 stuff the drama feels forced and soap opera-esque. There are moments between the band members that are meant to be taken serious but are undone by some really bad overacting and dialogue. All that easygoing, genuine energy that’s built up in the first thirty or forty minutes practically dissipates and Eastwood puts the film into autopilot.

Things get even worse when the band breaks up and the focus of the movie turns to Frankie’s solo career (with Bob writing and producing). That’s because Frankie—as a character—is, well…bland. He can sing, god bless him, but he’s by far the blandest of the group. He’s the good boy, the only one who gets married and has a family, and the one who gets stepped on. And he stays in this one note for the entire movie. He’s tolerable in the early section of the movie because he’s part of a group and the brotherly relationship he has with the other three is kind of endearing. Though, when it’s just Frankie it’s not compelling. I would have preferred the movie follow Tommy around. Newcomer Lloyd Young does the best he can and singing wise he’s very good but the role simply doesn’t have enough meat to sustain the last act of the movie.

On top of that, more drama is shoehorned into the plot. Frankie’s fame and constant being on the road takes its toll on his family. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this but Eastwood handles it in such a flimsy way, introducing this domestic drama at seemingly random moments. The trouble involving Frankie’s troubled adolescent daughter comes out of nowhere and we’re supposed to care about it even though we’ve never seen this kid or heard about this trouble before. At this point though, the picture has pretty much slowed to halt.

There are other issues. The musical numbers, while not bad, don’t really stick with you. Instead feeling like an afterthought to the narrative when they should be front and center. Since this is a movie adaptation of a stage musical I imagine screenwriters Marshall Brickman and Rick Elice (the original authors of the musical) had to add a lot more story and dialogue and you can see that. At two hours and fifteen minutes the movie is weighed down by its cliché story and drags on. And finally, there’s some really really bad old age makeup at the end of the picture. I know this sounds like nitpicking but this is the second time in a row (after “J Edgar”) that an Eastwood movie has had bad old age make up. I’m talking about some amateur zombie movie makeup in certain shots. I’m thinking he should stay away from that.

I could list more problems but there’s not really any point. I’m sure die hard fans of the musical will go see this “Jersey Boys,” and probably find enjoyment from it but I feel like they—and everyone else curious about the movie—would be better off staying home and listening to the original Four Seasons music. I haven’t seen the original stage play but my mom who has says that the music is really the only thing that matters. The music is what’s going to live on whereas this movie will be quickly forgotten.

C-

The Rover Review

In “The Rover” director David Michod excels in creating a harsh and remorseless post apocalyptic atmosphere. One where everybody has either given up or is struggling to find a reason to hang on. It takes place ten years after a worldwide economic collapse, in the sunbaked Australian Outback. Everything’s dusty and barren and hot. And for the most part it’s still everyman for himself.

The movie revolves around Eric (Guy Pearce), who’s your quintessential Post-apocalyptic drifter. He’s solo of course (at least at first), doesn’t talk unless he has to and when he does talk it’s mainly in an unpleasant and semi angry tone. Although, this anger isn’t totally unwarranted. “The Rover” gets going when Eric’s car is stolen by a group of fellow wasteland travelers. From there, with the forced help of Rey (Robert Pattinson), an American whose brother is one of the thieves, Eric proceeds to track them down to get back his vehicle. 

As far as plot is concerned, there isn’t much. It’s as simple as two guys in search of a car. However, “The Rover” is more about character and atmosphere, something that’s sorely lacking from most mainstream cinema. Eric and Rey are basically polar opposites, Eric intense, calm, calculating and slightly insane. Whereas Rey is…well, a stuttering dimwit and that’s putting it mildly. It comes as no shock that when we first meet him he’s been left for dead (by his brother and friends) after some kind of attack and if it weren’t for the fact that he knows where his brother and friends are heading (so Eric can get the car back), he would be of no use to Eric. But it’s this peculiar character juxtaposition that makes “The Rover” interesting. In a normal setting these two would never interact with each other in a million years and yet, when the apocalypse strikes and survival becomes the only priority all kinds of relationships form.

Not surprisingly, Pearce is very effective in playing Eric, a man who has nothing left to lose, a man who before getting his car stolen just wandered around the Outback without purpose and practically dead inside. As the movie goes on you keep asking yourself why he’s so determined to get his car back, but really, what else does he have to do to pass the time? And at the end we find out the very personal reason why he’s so driven to get his car back.

The real surprise in the cast is Pattinson, the “Twilight” star giving an extremely authentic performance as a naïve, dimwitted young man who’s trying to recover from a large dosage of harsh post apocalyptic reality: essentially being abandoned by people he thought cared about him. It can be frustrating to watch his character stutter and stumble around at times but Rey is, nevertheless, endearing and by the end you find yourself caring about him.

There is a general air of pessimism and futility in “The Rover,” which isn’t surprising in a gritty post apocalyptic thriller such as this one. However, what‘s interesting is that amidst all the desolation and lawlessness, small traces of civilization and society try to claw their way back on to the continent.  There’s a minor military presence—at one point Eric gets captured by a group of them and is almost sent to Sydney for some unknown purpose—and there are trains up and running carrying some kind of cargo. And perhaps most surprising, the small businesses that sell food and supplies scattered about the Outback accept paper money. In one scene Eric gets infuriated because a gas station will only accept American dollars saying, “Why does it matter? Its just paper!” This question (“why does it matter?”) lingers all throughout the picture – and raises a few more. Why bother trying to restore things to the way they were before? Why try to rebuild society? So that there can be another economic collapse or something even worse? And why is value still placed on paper money when there’s been a major economic collapse? Overall, “The Rover” is about what things have value, or rather what things should have value. What’s worth saving? What’s worth caring about?

 “The Rover” is admittedly a slow burn and I have a feeling some viewers will be underwhelmed by how the movie plays out. There is a reveal at the end, but it’s a subtler reveal and I could see some audience members saying, “is that it?” That being said, the picture does a phenomenal job of winding up the tension and creating a level of discomfort. Michod doesn’t give us a lot of time at the start to get comfortable with the movie’s environment or to get acquainted with the characters.

And this being a post apocalyptic film you can expect that Eric and Rey will run into their fair share of roadblocks. Michod manages to keep us on edge the entire duration of the picture; I know it’s a cliché to say that I was on the edge of my seat but there were moments when I was sitting up straight, clutching my armrest. Cinematographer Natasha Braier lets most of the individual shots linger, which helps create even more tension and Antony Partos’ stirring electronic score does its part to amp up the suspense. However the quiet moments feel just as tense. “The Rover” isn’t for everyone but those looking for a deliberate and compelling thriller should be pleased.

 B+

Palo Alto Review

Gia Coppola’s debut feature “Palo Alto” is a well made but ultimately slight depiction of high school life in Palo Alto, California. Based on the book of short stories by James Franco of all people (who also has a small role), “Palo Alto” mainly centers on three restless, angst ridden teenagers --their grade isn’t explicitly stated but I assume either sophomore or junior--as they navigate their way through various social situations in high school life.

There’s April (Emma Roberts), the timid good girl who’s somewhat attracted to her benevolent and hip soccer coach Mr. B (Franco). Then there are the two self-destructive males, who have all sorts of angst and restlessness. First up there’s Teddy (Jack Kilmer), who seems to be upset that he’s not getting anywhere with April—at least, I think so—and as a result gets into trouble with the law, drunk driving and resisting arrest. Punk kid. However, he does get the chance to get his life back on track. And then there’s Teddy’s friend, Fred (Nat Wolff), who appears to just have a bone to pick with life in general and so he spends the whole movie just being irresponsible and annoying, alienating himself from his friends.

In fact that’s a good way to describe all three of these characters’ actions in the movie. They all intentionally alienate themselves from regular high school social life. They may interact with other normal high school students (like two attractive, gossiping gals) and attend parties, but they never really seem to fit in at any of these social gatherings, remaining right on the fringe. There are a lot of shots of them sitting or standing in places by themselves silently staring off into the distance, contemplating their existence. And so they act out.

As far as plot is concerned, there isn’t one. The film also doesn’t have much direction, I guess, because these teenagers don’t have much direction themselves. They just exist and don’t appear to have any long-term goals or aspirations. There’s only one mention of college in the entire movie, when April goes to a college counselor and when the counselor asks her what she wants to do she responds “I don’t know.” Their parents aren’t much help: they’re either absent or they don’t really care, often times just sitting around smoking weed while their kids do the same.

Gia Coppola is the granddaughter of Hollywood legend Francis Ford Coppola and the niece of Sofia Coppola (another talented director) and, like her aunt, Gia already has a fairly acute eye and ear for teenage life. All of the situations feel down to earth and the dialogue exchanges come off authentic, like in the opening scene when Teddy and Fred just sit in their car drinking and shooting the shit about whatever topic comes to mind. For the most part nothing feels overdone or artificial. The acting is also on par, all of the players looking and sounding like real teenagers.

Other than that, there’s not much else to say. “Palo Alto” is a competent film but it’s not very deep and it comes off rather insignificant. This isn’t exactly new ground that Coppola is covering and she doesn’t do enough with the material to take it to the next level. The characters will undoubtedly resemble teenagers you went/go to school with, but they don’t have much of an arc. And after a while it is sort of difficult to remain fully invested in them because they are, in the end, just spoiled Palo Alto teenagers in need of an extracurricular activity. Seriously. More than anything these kids are just bored. Why not get a hobby? Or a part time job?

Nevertheless, “Palo Alto” is a fine first feature and continues to show that the Coppola family has immense filmmaking talent.

C+

Cold in July Review

Jim Mickle’s “Cold In July” is a peculiar mix of genres. At times a revenge thriller, and at others a noir, slasher, with a splash of grindhouse. It can get messy at times and there are some awkward changes in tone, but it never fails to be entertaining and unpredictable.

The movie revolves around Richard Dane (Michael C Hall), a mild mannered upstanding East Texas citizen with a wife and son who runs a picture-framing store. The trouble begins when he shoots an intruder dead in his home in the middle of the night. Being the passive nonviolent fellow he is, this event leaves him nervous and shaking, even feeling guilty. Because of this guilt he decides to go to the funeral of the man and runs into the intruder’s dad Russell (Sam Shepard), who’s just been granted parole and isn’t happy.

In many respects Richard resembles a typical Film Noir protagonist: the seemingly innocent civilian who puts his life and his family’s on the line. For a while we think it’s going to be about Russell’s attempt to kill Richard out of vengeance and Richard’s obligation to protect his family from danger once again. And this is the way it plays out for a while, Russell stalks the family, seeming to materialize out of nowhere similar to a horror movie villain such as Michael Meyers. And Jeff Grace’s old school synthesizer soundtrack gives this entire section a slasher film vibe.

However this story resolves itself after about twenty minutes or so when the movie mutates into something totally different. Richard becomes uncertain as to whether the guy he shot was actually Russell’s son and becomes suspicious that there’s a cover-up involving the police. Things take an even stranger turn when Russell and Richard join forces and together with Houston private eye (Don Johnson, decked out in cowboy gear) try to uncover what’s really going on.

In some respects “Cold in July” plays out like a pulpier version of a Hitchcock film. Screenwriters Mickle and Nick Damici (based on the book by Joe R Lansdale) keep the viewers on their toes the entire time, just when you think you know how the movie is going to play out it takes a left turn into darker and darker territory. Near the end when the final disturbing twist of the plot is revealed (accompanied by Grace’s synthesizer music again) it turns into a full-blown, gory 70’s/80’s grindhouse style movie.

Admittedly, “Cold in July” doesn’t have quite the same finesse of a Hitchcock film, as I mentioned above there are some sudden shifts in tone. The movie primarily wants to be dark in tone but at times it veers into silliness, which doesn’t always work. I also thought Richard and Russell’s transition from foes to friends was a bit abrupt. I find it strange that Richard would be so quick to help Russell after being threatened by him. In fact at one point Russell even breaks into his house and hides in the crawlspace only to almost kill his son. Kind of creepy if you ask me.

Nevertheless, the picture still succeeds in being a tense and compelling southern noir. Hall, who’s known mainly for playing a serial killer with a strict moral code on the TV show “Dexter” does a fantastic job of portraying an innocent family man who becomes capable of doing violent acts for the sake of “good.” While Shepard goes from being an intimidating ex con in search of vengeance to a concerned dad in search of truth and ultimately has to make an extremely tough decision. And Johnson is amusing as the private eye character that provides a little comic relief as the film mines darker and darker territory.

 B

God's Pocket Review

John Slattery’s “God’s Pocket” introduces various characters and plot strands but doesn’t seem to know what to do with them. It boasts an impressive cast, with the likes of Phillip Seymour Hoffman (in one of his last roles), John Turturro, Christina Hendricks and Richard Jenkins. While cinematographer Lance Accord gives the picture a naturalistic, at times noir-ish look. However the screenplay—by Slattery and Alex Metcalf, based on the book by Peter Dexter--doesn’t do an adequate job of developing the characters and overall, the story is half-baked and bland, resulting in the movie being underwhelming and pointless.

The film is set in the Philadelphia neighborhood God’s Pocket. It’s one of those dead-end blue-collar neighborhoods full of simple folk that are born and raised there and never leave. They work some manual labor job and then go to the local dank and dim bar and, in the words of one of the characters, “talk about things they don’t understand.” If the movie is about anything you can be sure of it’s that the world is a harsh unforgiving place. God’s Pocket is the kind of neighborhood where people will cover up a murder that’s blatantly taken place on a job site, or where the funeral home director will leave a cadaver outside in the pouring rain because he didn’t get his fee.

Oddly enough, both those things happen to Mickey (Hoffman) one way or the other. When we first meet him he’s in a lifeless marriage with a woman named Jeanie (Hendricks) and his involvement in illegal activities (gambling, stealing a meat truck, etc.) with his friend Arthur (John Turturro) seems to be his full time job. The trouble begins when Jeanie’s son Leon (Caleb Landry Jones) is killed at a construction site. The workers cover it and Mickey makes funeral arrangements. However, Jeanie thinks something is up and wants answers; meanwhile, due to a gambling loss, Mickey has no money to bury his stepson. Poor Leon only has about five minutes of screen time but in that he’s shown as being a racist, ignorant, stubborn asshole that gets what he deserves.

The problems with “God’s Pocket” begin right away; why should we care whether this guy gets buried or not? And why should Mickey go through as much hassle as he does to do it? He’s his stepson after all and the two spend zero time together. Now you could say, “but he’s married to Jeanie so he’s doing it because he loves her.” Well the two of them spend practically no time together either, there’s no sign of a relationship between them and their individual characters aren’t fleshed out well enough to make us look past this.

At only ninety minutes, “God’s Pocket” is unbelievably short and could have easily benefited from being longer to allow for more character development and more story development. By the end, so little is accomplished. Jeanie’s decision to look for answers as to what happened to her son is never really followed through, and since we know what happened to Leon and also know that he’s a jerk, there’s no reason for the audience to care about any of it either. A subplot involving Arthur and his run-in with gangsters is barely developed and resolves abruptly and unsatisfyingly.

There’s also the character of Richard Shellburn  (Jenkins) an alcoholic newspaper columnist who writes about the neighborhood (usually condescendingly) and who is asked to get to the bottom of Leon’s death. Again, like much of everything else, this isn’t followed through. And the character doesn’t serve much of a purpose, other than to be a depressed and sum up the movie’s themes in voice over (disguised in his newspaper columns). A romantic fling between him and Jeanie pretty much comes out of nowhere and doesn’t evolve into anything worthwhile either. The movie is full of flat characters and stories that don’t go anywhere.

The only plot strand that’s actually followed through is Mickey’s adventure (filled with much bad luck) in trying to come up with the money to give Leon a funeral. However, the film begins with said funeral so any chance at tension is immediately eliminated. All the actors give it their best shot, Hoffman gives a good unassuming performance and Jenkins is entertaining as a journalist who thinks he’s above everyone else. Though, they’re ultimately let down by a script desperately in need of a rewrite, or two.

D+