Irrational Man Review

No flight of the Phoenix--Emma Stone as a college student and Joaquin Phoenix as a philosophy professor in Irrational Man
                           Irrational Man, the latest from Woody Allen, is only a film in the sense that it has moving images and sounds on a screen. This is a miserable, depressing experience that doesn't exactly start out as a classy venture and yet manages to get progressively worse every second it inches along. This film doesn't have characters, a story, dialogue, ETC. Sure, actors show up and say a few words but there's no link between any two words any of these people say nor any of the "events" that "take place" on screen. I use quotation marks to indicate that nothing really happens. There are just movements by people on a screen.

                        Whenever I went to my local arthouse theater (even a week before this atrocity opened,) I saw the poster for it and yet had only vague hints of seeing the trailer once. Considering this is a "film" by Woody Allen, it seemed to be completely under marketed. Watching it, I realized why. Even a first time director with no dignity whatsoever would feel completely ashamed of having made something like this. Before I come across as too much of a jerk, I understand films are an incredibly hard thing to get made and I suppose I can give Allen the benefit of the doubt and say he put effort in and it just wasn't in the cards this time. However, this film is so pathetic and sad that I still can't tell whether I should hate it or pity it.

                            Joaquin Phoenix and Emma Stone, both at great points in their respective careers, will no doubt be able to shake this off as a misfire. Allen has made so many clunkers over the years that this will just go down as another one of those. However, this was near unwatchable to me (I literally almost left 18 times, and it's only a little over 90 minutes!!!) Allen has made some terrible films. However, I never found one this unpleasant. Between Aloha and this, Stone seems to be trying to prove that her Oscar nomination for Birdman was just a flash in the pan and has helped in providing two of the most unpleasant movie going experiences I have had this year. She's an extremely talented actress but she needs to find a new agent because she's terrible in these roles. Phoenix has also caused me two of the most unpleasant experiences this year. Between Inherent Vice and this garbage, this talented and versatile actor who is almost always interesting (he was actually the only genuinely good part of Inherent Vice) perhaps needs to reconsider the roles he is taking. As for Parker Posey in a brief role that is simply the Town Bimbo, she's a solid actress but needs to find a different role to put herself back in the spotlight.

                               There is something to be said about a film that causes me to write a review that is simply an angry rant. I almost have to give Irrational Man credit for being a film that is a level of awful I have never seen before  and will never see again. However, it is all too dull and unpleasant to give that much credit. I don't know what went wrong that all these talented people came together for such an abysmal production. I would love to see the making of for this garbage. It would be fascinating to see who is to blame (if anybody, really.) Perhaps it was truly just an incredibly unfortunate production. For now, I'll just warn you not to be shocked if this ends up in a  spot that comes before #2 on my worst of 2015 list come January 2016.
(0 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for some language and sexual content)

The Diary Of A Teenage Girl Review

Growing into it----Bel Powley as a teenager whose mother (Kristen Wiig) seems painfully unaware of her sleeping around in The Diary Of A Teenage Girl
                               The Diary Of A Teenage Girl is a film written and directed by a woman, based on a novel by a woman and feels like no less would have been acceptable in this politically correct times. This is strange because the film is most reminiscent of James Toback and Todd Solondz (especially When Will I Be Loved, with its heavy sexual themes and Welcome To The Dollhouse, with its theme of a young woman coming into her own.) Just like films by these two directors, writer-director Marielle Heller's film (based on a novel by Phoebe Gloeckner) is uncomfortably close to home in the ways it explores the idea of human interaction and the temptation to push that interaction over the edge. However, it's also an enthralling, inventive and somewhat quirky drama held together by the lead performance of Bel Powley.

                                  The film follows Minnie (Powley,) a socially awkward, neurotic teenage girl living in 1970s San Francisco who is tired of being looked at as a kid. One day, she makes a proposal to her mother (Kristen Wiig)'s sleazy kind of boyfriend Monroe (Alexander Skarsgard) to engage in sexual relations privately. Immediately, Monroe seizes the opportunity but Minnie soon finds out that it's not all about the carnal nature of a relationship.

                                   Powley is excellent here, showing a tortured soul who just wants to feel grown up. Every little look she gives, movement she makes, ETC, totally informs Minnie. Her performance completely reminded me of Heather Matarazzo's brilliant work in Solondz's Welcome To The Dollhouse. This is as fully realized a film character as I have seen. Skarsgard also does a really good job, showing once again that no one plays a creepy weirdo quite like him. Wiig provides solid supporting work as the completely oblivious mother.


                                    As adapted by Heller, the screenplay is dynamite. The way the interactions always seem to be teetering on the creepy is so flawlessly done it often made me very uncomfortable to listen to the characters talk. Even a conversation between Minnie and Monroe about food is so wickedly evil in its own little way that the viewer can't help but be engaged, no matter how much they are cringing. Minnie's whole way of speaking totally informs who she is viewed as VS. who she actually wants to be. There is obvious hesitant in her to sleep with Monroe from the get-go but she feels the obligation to. The first bit of dialogue between she and Monroe perfectly shows this strained connection the two have.

                                      The direction is also really good. Heller, along with the set designers, costume designers and other crew members, should be praised for the look of the film. I've always found the 1970s is the toughest decade to pull off in film and they absolutely nail it here. Not only the way the surroundings and clothes look but the way people talk and act totally brings the decade back to life.

                                       The film does drag a bit as it reaches its conclusion and it feels as if there are a couple of moments that feel more shoved in than perhaps they should have been. However, The Diary Of A Teenage Girl is a risky, engaging, altogether successful film that makes me realize just how much I miss the prime years of Toback and Solondz.

(4 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for strong sexual content including dialogue, graphic nudity, drug use, language and drinking-all involving teens)
                   

The Stanford Prison Experiment Review

Simulated experiment, real harm---Tye Sheridan as one of many college students who get caught up in the idea of a fake jail in The Stanford Prison Experiment
                                  The Stanford Prison Experiment is an amazing story. The experiment itself was a real thing that took place at the titular college back in 1971. It was run by a man named Phillip Zimbardo and the fact that any of it ever happened is fairly incredible to think about. The human brain is a very complex tool. When given nothing to do, it often seems to wander out of one's head. However, when given nothing but control, it takes full advantage of this newfound power like a moth to light. The new film from director Kyle Patrick Alvarez and writer Tim Talbott is a completely electrifying and visceral experience. It is a perfectly enclosed little indie film, with a great sense of just why this experiment went so, so wrong.

                                    For those not familiar with this experiment, it is the summer of 1971 at Stanford University. Twenty-four male students who all have spite toward the people in power are picked for an experiment. The idea--twelve will be shoved into prison (which is just a hallway in an empty campus building,) complete with a real police officer coming to their house and arresting them. The other twelve will be given the role of guards. However, Professor Phillip Zimbardo (Billy Crudup) will be closely observing these guards to assure that nothing gets crazy. Oh boy, do things get crazy.

                                      The guards eat up the power they were against just a few days ago. One guard, Christopher (Michael Angarano) even gets so caught up that he puts on a Cool Hand Luke-style southern accent and immediately grabs the respect (or at least reluctant faking of respect) every time he even breathes near them. Naturally, other guards follow his lead, especially one seemingly harmless guy (Nicholas Braun) who figures if he can get the prisoners to do whatever he wants, why not make them? This sets off a chain of unbelievably creepy events that even lead to extreme breakdowns by some of the prisoners.

                                        One thing that Alvarez and Talbott do exceptionally well is show that who became who was just in the flip of a coin. If the prisoners and guards were the other way around, it is more likely than not that the exact same thing would have happened. It's easy for the prisoners to say they would never do what the guards are doing but until you get that power, how do you truly know your full potential?

                                          Alvarez and Talbott also do a wonderful job of giving all perspectives. We see how reasonably disturbed the prisoners are but we also see why Zimbardo doesn't want to stop, even when he sees the chaos, why Zimbardo's girlfriend, Christina (Olivia Thirbly) thinks he should and why the guards can't help but become this way. One particular aspect is showing the guard's true colors. We see that Christopher is not really a bad guy at all. He's a nice guy who just has trouble holding back from using his power. This is also due to the performance of Angarano. While everyone is great in here (the cast is filled to the brim with up and coming actors such as Tye Sheridan, Ezra Miller, Kier Gilchrist, Johnny Simmons, Moises Arias, Jack Kilmer and Thomas Mann,) Angarano takes the cake.
       
                                       He is fascinating to watch from start to finish. From the first scene he appears in which he is being interviewed for a position in the experiment, he brings both humanity and an uneasy feeling that he may unexpectedly snap to the character. I haven't seen such a rich and complex performance in quite some time. However, everyone is wonderful. One of the biggest compliments I can give the actors is that despite knowing almost all of them extremely well, not once did I see the actor come out in any of them. I not only completely bought their characters but didn't even recognize them within the performance.

                                        The ending is also totally profound. I understand that the ending is the one part Alvarez and Talbott had to take some creative licensing on. Knowing a lot about the real experiment (it's such a fascinating thing to read and hear about,) I can say what they did is not completely farfetched. While the real experiment does not exactly conclude the way the film portrays it, the idea of the real ending is still pretty much there. They did, however, also manage to write in a fascinating ending that says a lot about human beings and who we are.

                                           The Stanford Prison Experiment is a completely worthwhile thriller (yes, it's in that genre simply because of how damn creepy the events are) that demands to be seen at least once. The complete sense of realism created by Alvarez, Talbott and their crew of phenomenal young actors is unlike anything I've ever seen. If there's ever such a thing as time traveling back to a certain event, this is it. Whether or not you know about this story, see this film as soon as you can!
(5 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for language including abusive behavior and some sexual references)

Mistress America Review

New York state of mind---Lola Kirke & Greta Gerwig as soon to be sisters who meet up in The Big Apple in Mistress America
                            I've always had a like-strongly dislike relationship with Noah Baumbach & Greta Gerwig, the two minds behind the new comedy Mistress America. Often the films they make and characters they produce feel way too quirky to ever really enjoy. Other times, they get into a more subdued state and impress the hell out of me. In this year's fantastic drama Eden, Gerwig has a brief but effective role as a former lover of the main character. Baumbach has produced some gems from Kicking And Screaming to the criminally underrated The Squid And The Whale to this year's very enjoyable While We're Young.
                           The quirk level on this newest independent comedy is high and it really took me a while to warm up to it but the more I thought about the film, the more I liked it. The film does have a lot of the usual tropes that I don't like in Baumbach & Gerwig (who wrote the screenplay together, Gerwig is one of the two leads, Baumbach directs) but this one is short, sweet and to the point. I was not a big fan of their last big collaboration, Frances Ha (it may be important to note that Baumbach & Gerwig have been together since 2011 and thus will continue to make films together as long as their relationship doesn't fall apart.) The problem I had with that film is the quirkiness was the entire film. Every time Frances (Gerwig) opened her mouth, I wanted to just tell her to stop. But I digress & am now unfairly comparing two films.
                             What works in Mistress America is the fact that the quirkiness of it all is just one part of the overall film. Gerwig does do her usual Zooey Deschanel-lite schtick but it's in service of the character rather than being the entire character. In one particular moment set in a house of someone Gerwig used to know, she even does a bit in which she "rewinds" herself. In a film with less restraint, this would have completely bugged me. Here, it's just part of the character.
                                The plot follows Tracy (Kirke,) an awkward but sweet college student who finds out her mother is planning to remarry. One particularly lonely night, she decides to call her sister-in-law to be, Brooke (Gerwig) and they decide to have a night out together. However, their relationship gets much deeper when a fortune teller informs Brooke that she still has business in her life to take care of.
                                In my opinion, the best scene is one early in the film set in a dingy bar. Without giving away what happens in the scene, it is incredibly well done in how it will leave audiences divisive about what to make of it. After my screening, I heard many people debating this scene and whether it tried to convey X or Y. This scene also stays completely away from the quirk and allows the audience to see these people through a different light.
                                 Gerwig & Kirke have amazing chemistry, instantly making it totally believable that these two people not only enjoy one another but largely need the other. At the Q&A that followed my screening, Gerwig mentioned that she and Kirke were enjoying each other's company on set so much, Baumbach often got irritated with them. This is totally seen through their natural interactions and palpable chemistry.
                                   The film does have some problems, however. While it is enjoyable and nicely subdued for the majority of the running time, the quirkiness is a bit too much at first. When we first meet Brooke, I felt as if Gerwig was still trying to figure the character out for a bit. It's not until the scene in the bar that I didn't feel as if Gerwig was overdoing Brooke. She seemed to treat her as more of an idea than an actual person. That wasn't the right approach and fortunately she begun to realize that. Also, the extended sequence in the house does drag on for a bit too long. It was a clever set up for a 10 minute gag but it went on past the point of being enjoyable. Half of the film if not more is set in this house and after a while, it's just not funny or charming or at all good anymore. Lastly, the film's finale is very touching but would have been so much more effective if it weren't so convenient. At the end, everything is wrapped up in too much of a bow. It's the completely overused cliche of the thing that splits the characters apart before they ultimately get back together. That cliche isn't even so bad if it produces a worth while reveal, middle part and conclusion. However, this film only takes around 10 minutes after the reveal to get Tracy and Brooke back together. This led to a finale that was touching but also felt incredibly rushed.
                                  Mistress America  clocks in at 84 minutes and that was certainly enough. For the most part, I enjoyed what Baumbach and Gerwig had to offer. However, I was glad it ended when it did because it ultimately ends up feeling like an ice cream headache---delicious at first before becoming too much to handle.
(3 and 1/2 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for language including some sexual references)