Over at Gawker, Brian Moylan has had enough of waiting for TV shows to become good:

That’s the problem with these slow burn shows, especially ones with fancy pedigrees backed by highbrow channels like HBO or AMC. We can’t imagine how they could not be good, so we keep watching, episode after boring episode, all the while waiting for some amazing payoff. And sometimes, like a skilled horse coming from behind, it pays off. But remember: For every The Wire there is a Treme, and for every Mad Men there is a The Killing

…

Sometimes slow isn’t good. Sometimes slow is just drab.

This is an interesting point and one I’ve thought about from time to time. Are you getting tired of “prestige” shows that promise payoff down the line but ask you to invest a lot upfront?

However, for me, I’m not sure that Moylan is looking for the same things out of TV that I am. Is all TV inherently about some sort of “payoff?” To put it another way, I think its damaging to look at TV shows in terms of a cost-benefit analysis and assume that the time you’re putting in should be rewarded down the line.

That is not to say that shows shouldn’t continue to get better the deeper and more intricate they become. TV has the luxury of time, a luxury that no other visual medium really has, and that allows it to set up more intricate ideas and play with different modes of storytelling. Take Treme, which, according to Moylan, is an utter failure because it did not adequately reward his time. But Treme is not a show about plotting and payoff, it is more of a low-key, character based drama about people living their lives. The stakes are much lower and the payoffs will be much smaller than on The Wire.

But Treme never pretended like that wasn’t the case. From the first episode, it was clear that we weren’t dealing with the life-or-death, all-in-the-game world of The Wire. Treme has gotten deeper and more involving, its characters more complex, but it is the same show that it was in the first episode. On the other hand, The Killing isn’t a bad show because it never told us who killed Rosie Larsen; it is a bad show because it took a bunch of hollow, uninteresting characters and drowned them in a sea of red herrings without ever giving us a reason to care. It didn’t take 13 episodes to realize that show wasn’t going to be good.

Of course, shows change and improve over time and there are programs that you have to invest some time in at first to be truly rewarded by them. But they also have moments, even early on, that make you want to invest in them. The Wire was puzzling at first, but it still had the chess scene and the “fuck” scene in the first four hours. Mad Men was gripping from its first moments. Shows may be paced slowly, but that doesn’t mean they’re uninvolving. Moylan brings up Boardwalk Empire as an example of this problem but BE just finished its season with about as big of a payoff as it could have possibly done.

It is important that the shows that are usually held up as an example of this form, The Wire, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, are shows that people usually caught up on after they aired. If an episode was disappointing or somewhat unsatisfying, you didn’t have a week to stew about it and increase the pressure on the next week. All of which is to say that if you are watching a show because you need it to vindicate itself for making you watch it, then it is probably time to cut the cord. Whether that takes two episodes or two hundred, it is up to you. But it isn’t a TV show’s job to turn itself into what you want it to be so that you don’t have to feel like you’ve wasted your time.

Somehow, we have reached a point where M.I.A. can play the Super Bowl Halftime show, where she made an appearance along side Madonna, LMFAO, and Cee-Lo. Somewhere, in 2005, 18-year-old me just had his head explode. Anyway, M.I.A., as she is wont to do, gave us all the finger, predictable people responded predictably, and it turns out that anyone who would be inclined to listen to M.I.A. probably didn’t care too much about this whole thing to begin with. Now let’s watch the hilarious, hilarious Bradshaw touchdown and never speak of this again.

Like everyone else, my favorite new show of the season has been Showtime’s Homeland. Homeland is kind of like 24 for adults, a counter-terrorism thriller with strong characters and more of an emphasis on realism. The show is about Carrie (Claire Danes), a CIA analyst who believes that a POW (Damien Lewis) who was recently recovered in Iraq is actually a double agent. Here’s a few thoughts/ideas I had about the show, while mainlining its first season a few weeks ago (spoiler alert for the whole season, so maybe don’t read this until after you’ve watched the show?)

Terrorism:

For a show about terrorists and the people who fight them, Homeland is actually at its least interesting when engaged with issues of national security. While I don’t agree with Pamela Aucoin, whose article suggesting that Homeland validates and slyly supports the excesses and abuses of the War on Terror, I do sense an ambivalence towards the War on Terror in the show. It balances between different notions of how to fight terrorists before, in the end, pretty clearly endorsing the empathic mode used by Mandy Patankin’s Saul and, eventually, Carrie. Saul gets important information, not through torture or illegal surveillance, but by just spending time getting to know the suspect and understand her reasons. Similarly, Carrie saves the day in the season finale because she knows Brody and his family well enough to know how to reach out to him.

But this all can’t help but feel a little tired. In the ten years that we’ve had the war on terror, there’s been plenty of entertainment raising questions about the exchange of liberty for security. Homeland doesn’t have much to add to the conversation, but it also doesn’t seem too interested in that, either. I appreciate the matter -of-fact way that it deals with all of the tactics its characters use to fight terrorists, whether its Carrie’s illegal wiretap or the illegal airstrike that ignites much of the plot. It presents these as things that happen and generally trusts the audience to make its own decisions about whether it is right or not.

Gaslighting

Gaslighting is a clinical term that refers to when a person tries to manipulate another person into thinking they are crazy, like in the film Gas Light where a husband tries to gain possession of his wife’s jewelry by convincing her that she is crazy and having her committed. As depicted in this essay, gaslighting is something that happens to women a lot, and this same problem forms the spine of Homeland.

Carrie’s illness is not imaginary; she is bipolar and, towards the end of the season, has a manic episode that gets her fired. However, despite her illness, she is the only person who recognizes that Brody is a terrorist from the beginning. She figures out a large part of the case and even saves the day in the end. But as a reward, she is fired from her job at the CIA, everyone dismisses her as crazy, and she ends up having electroshock therapy to try and fix her illness.

Carrie is the only woman we really see involved in the CIA but her voice is marginalized and dismissed as crazy. This seems important. Would she have to go to such great lengths to hide her disease if she were male? Would her colleagues dismiss her as much? Homeland’s approach to Carrie’s gender is interesting and makes the show much deeper.

Television

In the end, however, I wonder if Homeland’s primary concern isn’t the medium of television itself and the relationship between it and its viewers. After all, Carrie spends most of the first four episodes watching TV: her surveillance footage of Brody and his family. She wears her pajamas and sits on the couch and eats snacks, just like a lot of the audience watching Homeland is doing, I imagine. However, as the season goes on, the walls between Carrie and her TV go down. She meets Brody in the real world and they end up hooking up. Carrie, in many ways, is living out the dreams of every television viewer: she gets to become a part of the action.

Several studies have shown that watching television has the same affect on the brain as forming friendships. Homeland, in some ways, is about the peculiar mix of voyeurism and loneliness that seems to cause that effect. It implicates its audience by making Carrie’s surveillance, so similar to our own, illegal and intrusive. It also questions what we’re getting out of it; Carrie isn’t able to stop the terror attack until she steps out of her living room and actually gets to know Brody as a person. And it shows the psychological cost of this surveillance, by ending with Carrie getting electroshock treatment. In the end, Homeland asks some interesting questions about television as a medium and what viewers get out of it.

Musician, mogul, throne-watcher, and Donda CEO Kanye West is finally returning to his roots as a filmmaker. According to the New York Observer, Ye is in the Middle East to shoot a follow-up short to “Runaway,” which, of course, was so good that it cured world hunger. This time, Yeezy has his sights set even higher, according to his reps:

“His reps seemed genuinely enthusiastic about creating a piece which highlights the culture accurately,” our source explained. “There’s a lot of preconceived notions and stereotypes about Emiratis and Qataris, which Westerners often play up. They discussed how Kanye is looking to bridge the cultural divide and break misconceptions.”

Yup, the film will indeed finally create peace between the West and the Middle East, so we have that to look forward to, along with Ye’s eventual Nobel Peace Prize (and subsequently shoving Philip Roth off the stage to demand the Nobel Prize for Literature should go to Haruki Murakami instead). Of course, its always possible that this is just a ruse to cover up the fact that Kanye is finally beginning work on The Jetsons movie, so more on this story as it develops.

The nominations for the Oscars went out this morning and with them, the first round of quick reactions and predictions. After several months of following smaller, but not insignificant awards, here are our official predictions and complaints. Agree? Disagree? Let us know!

Best Picture

The Artist

War Horse

Moneyball

The Descendants

Tree of Life

Midnight in Paris

The Help

Hugo

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Who Will Win: The Artist. It’s had all the steam throughout the early awards season, and it doesn’t appear any of the other films have the clout to take it down.

Who Should Win: Really it’s a wide open category if The Artist loses, but look for The Descendants to take the statue if Oscar voters aren’t into French silent films.

Who Was Snubbed: Young Adult. Not a single nomination for Jason Reitman’s latest. It’s surprising The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo got nothing, but the lack of any love for Young Adult is a travesty.

Best Actress

Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady

Viola Davis, The Help

Michelle Williams, My Week With Marilyn

Glenn Close, Albert Nobbs

Rooney Mara, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Who Will Win: Michelle Williams. She’s clearly been the front runner through most of awards season and though Meryl Streep has had a lot of buzz, Williams is by the far the safest bet of all nominees.

Who Should Win: If not Williams, it will be Meryl Streep. The other three nominees are all deserving, but Oscar politics always trump anything else.

Who Was Snubbed: Tilda Swinton. I’m not sure if We Need to Talk About Kevin was eligable for the Oscars, but if it was, it’s a travesty she didn’t get a nod. Also deserving: Charlize Theron, who carried Young Adult.

Best Actor

Jean Dujardin, The Artist

Gary Oldman, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

George Clooney, The Descendants

Brad Pitt, Moneyball

Demián Bichir, A Better Life

Who Will Win: George Clooney. He has a Supporting Actor award already, and as is the Oscar way, he’ll win because it’s his time.

Who Should Win: Honestly, this category is dynamite. If it’s not Clooney, expect either Oldman, Dujardin, or Pitt, in that order.

Who Was Snubbed: Michael Fassbender for Shame and Michael Shannon for Take Shelter. Two of the most talked about performances of the year got no attention. I expected at least one to get a nod, and it’s surprising neither of them did.

Best Supporting Actress

Octavia Spencer, The Help

Bérénice Bejo, The Artist

Jessica Chastain, The Help

Melissa McCarthy, Bridesmaids

Janet McTeer, Albert Nobbs

Who Will Win: Jessica Chastain. Sometimes the Oscars are about welcoming people into the community of Oscar winners, and after a huge year, expect Chastain to get that honor.

Who Should Win: This is another loaded category in which anyone has a convincing argument, but if it’s not Chastain, Bejo could steal the show.

Who Was Snubbed: Though she really didn’t get nominated for any other awards, Shailene Woodley from The Descendants deserved at least a little attention for her breakthrough performance.

Best Supporting Actor

Christopher Plummer, Beginners

Kenneth Branagh, My Week With Marilyn

Nick Nolte, Warrior

Jonah Hill, Moneyball

Max Von Sydow, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Who Will Win: Christopher Plummer. This is the closest thing to a lock in this year’s ceremony.

Who Should Win: Honestly, Plummer. He owns Beginners and is truthfully the most deserving.

Who Was Snubbed: Albert Brooks. Without a doubt the biggest snub of the Oscars. Though no one expected him to beat Plummer, not even getting nominated was absolutely crazy. Special Mention also goes to Patton Oswalt for Young Adult.

Best Director

Alexander Payne, The Descendants

Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist

Martin Scorsese, Hugo

Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris

Terrence Malick, Tree of Life

Who Will Win: Martin Scorsese. When Oscar voters are in doubt, they always go with one of the all time greats.

Who Should Win: Alexander Payne. Consider it the consolation prize for The Descendants if The Artist picks up Best Picture.

Who Was Snubbed: David Fincher is notably absent from this list, but given the overall lack of love for The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, it’s not too surprising.

Best Original Screenplay

Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist

Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo, Bridesmaids

J.C. Chandor, Margin Call

Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris

Asgar Farhadi, A Separation

Who Will Win: Woody Allen. Midnight in Paris was a phenomenal film, and given his uneven work in the last 10 years, this could be the Academy’s last chance to honor one of the greats.

Who Should Win: Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo have the best shot at sneaking in if Allen doesn’t win. Hazanavicius has a shot as well, but he’ll win elsewhere, leaving the door open for the breakthrough comedy duo.

Who Was Snubbed: Diablo Cody for Young Adult. It’s ridiculous this film didn’t get a single nomination. It rank with Albert Brooks as one of the biggest snubs of the year.

Best Adapted Sceenplay

Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon and Jim Rash, The Descendants

John Logan, Hugo

Aaron Sorkin and Steven Zaillian, Moneyball

George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Beau Willimon, Ides of March

Peter Straughan and Bridget O’Connor, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Who Will Win: Payne, Faxon, and Rash. Again, look for The Descendants to pick up a bunch of awards that aren’t Best Picture. That’s not to detract from the fact that they actually deserve this award though.

Who Should Win: If the Descendants  lose, the safe money is on Sorkin and Zaillian, picking up Moneyball’s consolation prize.

Who Was Snubbed: Yasmina Reza and Roman Polanski for Carnage. Easily one of the funniest films I saw all year.

Yes, after 9,000 months of campaigning and preliminary awards, today the Academy separated the contenders from the pretenders and announced who was up for Oscars. There were plenty of surprises, both pleasant and otherwise. Support for Terrance Malick’s masterpiece The Tree of Life was stronger than a lot of people expected, as the film garnered Best Picture and Director nods. Best Actor contained two surprises, as Gary Oldman’s soft spoken spy from Tinker Tailor Solider Spy and Demian Bashir’s illegal immigrant from A Better Life edged out expected frontrunners Leonardo DiCaprio and Michael Fassbender. Melissa McCarthy got a well-deserved nomination for Bridesmaids, but unfortunately Albert Brooks got ignored for his work in Drive. Oh and you guys will love this, 9/11 exploitation-fest Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close somehow got nominated for Best Picture. Predictions and analysis to come, but let’s all remember one thing: the Dean from Community is now an Oscar nominee.

First up is “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows”. Where to even begin? I guess I should let you know that I only saw bits and pieces of the first one while on a bus traveling to a rowing event. This meant it had bad sound, I was likely tired and in the process of cutting weight. I came to this movie with fresh eyes (you really don’t need to know much about the first movie to get the plot of this one), so maybe I missed something that would have changed my opinion, but I’m skeptical.

The dialogue is terrible. It’s presented as pithy and witty. But it’s neither. You might get wrapped up in the way it’s acted (which has the airs about it), but don’t be fooled. Just take a look at IMDB’s “Memorable Quotes” page and you’ll get the idea.

The only redeeming quality of this movie is the way it looks. The color of the movie is very cool. Blues and greens pop out creating a look that does seem to evoke a historic feel. The movie also periodically slows things down for certain action scenes, sometimes using a narrative to explain the thought process behind certain movements. This produces some effective scenes that breed excitement. But they are few and far between, and had they been used more, they would have likely lost their charm. The final part of the movie I liked was the abundance of amazing facial hair. It’s just luxurious. It’s hard to go wrong when you have beards like this:

(not even the best one, but no appropriate images are easily available)

Rounding out this post is “The Adventures of Tintin”. Which in my opinion was delightful. It wasn’t perfect, and some parts of the movie seemed to drag a bit for me, but I for one had a good time. When I tell people that I’ve seen the movie, they always ask me what I thought about the animation. “Was it creepy?” or “Was it hard to watch for the entire time?” were the two questions I was asked the most. My response is that it seems so for the first few minutes, but tends to just fall into the background.

(Real)

The plot centers around the first meeting of Tintin and Captain Haddock. The movie merges the plot lines of a few of the different comics to set up the series. In a way, it was somewhat of an overview of the whole series. This provided one of the most interesting features of the movie. Captain Haddock, as any reader of the comics would know, is a terrible alcoholic, and it features prominently into the plot. This is the first kids movie that I recall seeing that features alcohol this prominently. It certainly made for interesting questions from my “Little Brother” Joshua on the way back from the movie. It is brought to attention in the film, but the actions still make it a little fun. I’m guessing most of the readers of this review are over 21 or close. But don’t let the alcohol dissuade you from taking young people to see the movie if it’s appropriate.

Anyways, there are the reviews. See Tintin, don’t see Sherlock. It’s that simple people.

I’ll start where the movie starts, Budapest. It’s one of the most beautiful cities I’ve ever been to, and the opening shot over the parliament building captures it perfectly. We then get our introduction to the story. Having only ever seen the original Mission: Impossible, I can assure you that there’s no need for context. You’re going to get it very quickly. A few bodies later, and we’re straight to the point: Tom Cruise being a badass with a nice cast of backup characters including the always funny Simon Pegg as Benji. 

Directed by Brad Bird (Writer/Director for Ratatouille, The Incredibles, and The Iron Giant among other things) in his first live-action movie, it nails everything down tight. Can we talk about smooth? This movie had some sort of witchcraft that made it so that transitions were completely effortless. Other action movies are like when you play the game Mousetrap. You set it up, but you didn’t set it up quite right. It takes a little bit of human hands to make it work. MI was like the commercial for Mousetrap, it just worked, and it makes it look so easy. We go though such a number of challenges to global safety, threats of defeat, tech failures, car chases, and explosions to fill three action movies, but in the right hands, it just all clicks.

And that brings me to the pacing of the movie. Fantastic. MI puts you through your paces, but recognizes that sometimes you need to cool it off just enough to build a bit of suspense. My cousin who I saw the movie with had just been telling me about this app called RunPee which alerts you when it’s the best time to use the bathroom during a movie. MI only had two spots which they recommended you could skip out on. One of those scenes was a few minutes of the bad guys shooting at things underwater. 

So this movie has it all. Pretty people, cool gadgets, good humor, and awesome title sequence (not quite as good as The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, but more on that later) loads of action, but more importantly smart pacing of said action. If you want to understand why we have so many sub-par actions movies, it’s because movies like this (and Die Hard) make them so enjoyable to watch. And I’m sorry for this, but I feel obliged: Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to go and see Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol. Trust me, it’s an enjoyable and easy mission.

New guy here. Name’s Andrew. I’ll be doing some movie reviews for the good ol’ blog here and might venture further into some other territories like the future of media, it’s cultural impact, and good workout music. But before I do that, I just wanted to take a moment and introduce myself.

To give you a little background, my brother is one of those cool cat you see blogging here. Ah glorious nepotism. Anyways, after a freak science accident left me with super powers charity auction  left me with a year-long movie pass, I decided it’d be cool to write some movie reviews. TUIW has graciously agreed to let me post them here. I warn you in advance many of these reviews will not happen the weekend the movie comes out. So don’t wait for my review before you go out to see movies.

For some personal background, I currently live in St. Louis where I do marketing and product development work for a tech start-up. I was a college DJ for four years and currently am woking on some projects in the music scene down here. I have a wide variety of media taste (including Disco!), and I’m working really hard on being less judgmental of other people’s choices.

I look forward to typing out things for ya’ll. Always feel free to give me your feedback and opinions. And if you want some social ambiance (phatic communication for you nerds) you can follow me on the twitters here. 

Catch you on the flip side,

Andrew

FILMS NOT TO MISS

The Artist

Read Michael’s review here.

Carnage

Lynn Ramsey’s dark story abut a mother raising a disturbed son drew mixed results for the crowd at Trustee’s Theatre, but stood out as being one of the more interesting and better done films of the festival. Tilda Swinton was terrific as always as a the mother of the titular character, played with menacing evil by Ezra Miller. Flashing backwards and forwards through time before hitting the big reveal at the end, We Need to Talk About Kevin employed visuals better than any other film at the festival, providing a sense of dread the entire time. In a lot of ways, it’s a modern day horror film in the vein of Rosemary’s Baby, where the audience knows something bad will happen and spends the entire film waiting for it to happen. Though I don’t see any Oscar nods in its future, We Need to Talk About Kevin is definitely one of 2011’s must see films.

Jeff Who Lives at Home

The latest film from the Mark and Jay Duplass (Cyrus, The Puffy Chair) escaped a lot of attention as one of the last films to be screened, but was among the most enjoyable of the festival. Jeff Who Lives at Home follows the titular character (Jason Segal), a lazy pot-smoker who still lives with his mother (Susan Sarandon). Looking for signs in the world to give him his true purpose, Jeff ends up on a journey around Baton Rouge, where he ends up connecting with his jerky brother (Ed Helms) and sister-in-law (Judy Greer). The Duplass Brothers’ loose, improvisational style gives both Segal and Helms a chance to do their best work on the big screen, each showing depth and range previously unseen. Jeff  is also a significant step up for the directors from last year’s Cyrus, a film that failed to meet its potential. In contrast, Jeff features a tighter story and relies more on the emotional beats of characters than emotional beats in the story. Just as it did at the SFF, Jeff Who Lives at Home could fly under the radar for most moviegoers, but if you have the chance, check it out.

Boy

After a heavy night with Coriolanus (more on that in a bit) I was ready for some laughs. Thankfully, I decided to see Boy, a hysterical and charming film from New Zealander Taika Waititi. The film follows the titular character, a Michael Jackson-loving 11-year-old kid in a small New Zealand town who is left in charge of a house of even younger cousins and his brother Rocky when their grandmother goes out of town for a funeral. When his estranged criminal father (Waititi) returns, Boy finally has a male role model, albeit one that has him steal marijuana and dig holes to find the money he had stashed in a nearby field. Waititi is pitch perfect as the slightly insane Alamein, making him likable and detestable at the same time. The film started right away with laughs and never let up, even in its heavier moments. Boy may not be on the radar of a lot of film followers here in the U.S. yet, but it should be. Unfortunately, it’s not playing again at the festival, but be sure to keep an eye out for this charming and thoroughly enjoyable film.

The Bully Project

In recent years, issues such as climate change, America’s school system, and the financial crisis have been greatly impacted by some incredible documentaries. An Inconvenient Truth changed the way we think about the environment, Waiting for a Superman was watched and mentioned by President Obama, and Inside Job put a spotlight on who was actually responsible for the financial collapse. What made these documentaries so successful was not just that they were well done, but that in some way, they impacted every viewer. Appropriately screening after a panel on how films can change the world, Lee Hirsch’s The Bully Project aims to do the same with a problem that impacts many kids and their parents across the country, hitting all the right notes in the process. The film tackles bullying from nearly every facet, following a middle-schooler facing it in his school, a girl who brought a gun on a bus to stop bullies, a small-town lesbian, and the families of two kids who took their own life because of bullying. Each segment features crushing moments of cruelty that largely goes unpunished or recognized by school and town officials, including one in which an assistant principle tells a boy to just ignore the bully that had told him he would kill him. It’s an incredibly touching film that at times touched very close to home. It may seem bleak at points, but The Bully Project does an excellent job at leaving its audience with a feeling of hope and purpose. What was especially great about yesterday’s screening was walking out and seeing a large group of local students in their seats. All of them were quiet and evidentially shaken by film. As much as it’s a documentary for adults unaware of the issue, The Bully Project is an should be required watching in middle and high schools around the country. See it if you can.

THE GENERALLY GOOD

The Muppets

Kermit, Miss Piggy, and Fozzie got their world premier in Savannah as the secret Director’s Choice on Friday night, a move that simultaneously delighted and infuriated the festival crowd. As far as the film goes, it’s a classic Muppet movie, full of laughs, celebrity cameos, songs, and plenty of positive vibes. Jason Segal’s script does a great job of staying true to the Muppets while also bringing them into the 21st Century. Followed up by a predictably great Toy Story short, The Muppets is a great family movie that will entertain both kids and their parents. That being said, it was a particularly odd choice for a festival that featured many darker, adult films in the marquee 7:00 screening. A large number of people left when it was revealed as the film, many more (including myself) complaining outside afterwards. While an enjoyable film and one I’m glad I stuck around for, The Muppets is in no way a festival film, representing a gross misunderstanding of the audience on the part of the film festival.

Like Crazy

The closing night selection, Sundance winner Like Crazy, also lead to a split decision from the audience. An entirely improvised film shot on a prosumer camera (the Canon 5D), I found Like Crazy to be a film with terrific performances, a great visual style, and a lackluster story. The film follows Jaccob (Anton Yelchin) and Anna (Felicity Jones), two college students that fall in love and suffer through a long distance relationship after visa problems keep her stuck in her native England. Both Yelchin and Jones are terrific, and the small camera allows the filmmakers to capture some terrific, intimate, improvised moments, but the film’s biggest flaw is its glacial pace and some plot decisions that lack explanation or motivation. There’s a good story in Like Crazy that is largely lost, leading the film to rely on visuals to work. While it doesn’t stick the landing, it’s an impressive low-budget indie that deserves the attention its gotten.

FILMS TO SKIP

The biggest disappointment of the week came with David Cronenberg’s latest, a period piece about the relationship between groundbreaking psychologists Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) and Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender). Dry dialogue, relatively conventional visuals, and poor performances doom the film, which felt like it dragged on forever. Kiera Knightley offers a terribly over-acted performance as a patient of Jung’s that begins an affair with him after he gets her craziness under control. Fassbender breaks his hot streak, playing Jung with virtually no emotion, providing no reason to connect to his character. The film’s saving graces are Mortensen, who is charming and funny as Freud and Vincent Cassel, who turns up for about 15 minutes as a doctor/patient that encourages Jung to pursue his affair with Knightley. Overall, the film is sterile and devoid of any sort of emotional connection with the audience. Though the temptation to see a Cronenberg film may be there, skip A Dangerous Method and to avoid crippling disappointment.

Coriolanus

Hands down the worst film of the festival, Coriolanus is clearly the vanity project of director/star Ralph Fiennes. Taking one of Shakespeare’s lesser known plays and setting it in “modern day Rome,” the film is an overindulgent mess that finds Fiennes in constant closeups while forgetting a terrific roster of supporting actors including Brian Cox, Vanessa Redgrave, Jessica Chastain, and Gerrard Butler. If Fiennes knows anything about film directing, it’s not apparent in Coriolanus. Do yourself a favor and spend two hours doing something other than seeing this movie.