Stop-Loss

Acclaimed director Kimberly Peirce’s second feature length film (after 1999’s BOYS DON’T CRY) is the latest entry in the recent wave of war-themed films that appear to be anti-war while never really pushing the envelope. STOP-LOSS could best be described as “VARSITY BLUES Goes to War” – a rather unsurprising connection, since both were produced by MTV Films. A melodrama that targets twentysomethings instead of the generation that made this war, it gives a few poignant glimpses of the devastating affects war has on soldiers while never being brave enough to show the outrage it feels.

The film centers on a small group of Texas All-Americans (friends since elementary school, all championship football players in high school, etc.) returning home after fighting in Iraq. The troop was recently caught in an ambush that left two of their friends dead, one seriously wounded and their leader, Sgt. Brandon King (Ryan Phillippe) a decorated hero. It is the last deployment for Brandon and his best friend Steve (Channing Tatum), until he discovers that the army has stop-lossed him; he is to report for duty to serve another tour in Iraq. Infuriated, Brandon and Steve’s fiancée Michelle (Abbie Cornish) flee their small town to try and find a way out. In the process, he will challenge everything he knows about patriotism, friendship, family and honor.

The film does well on examining the humanity of war and the devastating after-effects it has on its soldiers. Unfortunately, the film is plagued with wooden or over-the-top performances that never fully translate the impact of the characters’ actions. As Steve, Tatum remains expressionless most of the time, marginally summoning actual emotion only when it is absolutely essential. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who delivered a fantastically nuanced performance in last year’s THE LOOKOUT, rants and raves here. He fills the typical role of dark, moody wild child but adds no further dimension to it between his manic ups and downs. Couple that in with spotty southern accents from most of the cast and you’ve got what this film offers; a bunch of attractive, marketable faces with no real substance underneath.

However, any success the film has must be credited to Phillippe and Cornish. The real impact of the film rests on Brandon’s journey, and Phillippe does not disappoint. He gives the most layered and focused performance of his career; showing genuine emotion in spades when the others cannot. The film teeters on near-ridiculous melodrama as it is, but Phillippe remains genuine throughout. In the hands of a more bombastic actor, the film would have veered into soap opera-like dramatics with no chance of recovering. Cornish acquits herself too in a rather limited role; when faced with the possibility of being stuck between friend Brandon and fiancée Steve, she sidesteps being the wishy-washy girl who can only watch, as the script points her to.

Director and co-writer Peirce clearly set out to make an anti-war film; the only character in the film who doesn’t find the stop-loss procedure completely repulsive is the army general. But she never drives the film to a point of ending as anti-war, seemingly for fear of offending anyone. It may be because the focus was meant to be aimed at the characters rather than the war itself, but when every person in the film is negatively affected by the war (whether they are stop-lossed, wounded, killed, experience violent flashbacks or return to a destroyed home life), the viewer doesn’t really come out of the film feeling that these people were glad for their experiences.

The filmmakers make it clear that the act of stop-loss is a terrible thing, but focuses its argument almost exclusively on that. The affects of war are touched on explicitly, but no statement is ever really defined, leading the film to an ending that feels incomplete. While it does raise questions for the viewer to contemplate themselves, they will inevitably be influenced by the anti-war track followed throughout most of the film. And despite the strong presence of Phillippe and Cornish, add in the mixed message with the unconvincing performances and you’ve got STOP-LOSS. It is a film that has all the makings for greatness but settles for mediocrity, so as not to offend anyone.

**/****

Funny Games

Acclaimed German filmmaker Michael Haneke makes his English language debut with FUNNY GAMES, a remake of his 1997 film. Unlike most American remakes of foreign films, FUNNY GAMES manages to retain the same visceral impact of its source, especially to those who have never seen it before. For those who have, there are no surprises (it is, after all, a shot-for-shot remake) save for the uniformly spectacular performances and the sadistic joy of watching the uninitiated become more and more disturbed.

The premise is simple. A small family of well-to-do vacationers (Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Devon Gearhart) is settling down in their blindingly white home-away-from-home when two strange faces (Michael Pitt, Brady Corbet) come to the door. After a small number of decidedly eerie encounters, the two young men reveal the real reason for their presence; they are sadistic killers who throw the family into a series of violent and degrading “games” to make the whole process entertaining. Who is being entertained, however, is the question.

The film is made with no intent to be liked by anyone. In fact, anyone who says they love it should be ready for all sorts of strange looks from the others who’ve seen it. The family makes all the wrong decisions when attempting to escape, and Haneke relishes devilishly in what we expect from it. The film is alienating and accusatory in the same way it was before. Unfortunately, Haneke takes a slightly subtler approach to the film’s meaning and it loses some of its bite. It will still shock and offend many, even if it isn’t as wicked or biting as before.

Aside from a few entirely plausible cell phone-related additions to the film, it remains entirely the same. The main interest for viewers to revisit the film’s world is the performances, which are very strong. While Roth and Pitt suffer in comparison to their German-language counterparts, they still commit strong, manipulative and gut-wrenching performances. Pitt in particular eschews his typical whiny poutiness and manages to be truly intimidating. However, Watts and the young Gearhart provide the film with the images that will stay in audiences’ minds. Any sympathy that one feels while watching is due largely to them. Their perpetual state of humiliation and terror is exhaustive; the audience often feels just as traumatized as they do. As Ann, Watts has never been better. Her desperation is emotional without ever being melodramatic. Ann walks a fine line between being sympathetic and being cold and unlikable but Watts maneuvers around it perfectly; a feat that Susanne Lothar was not always successful at in the original film.

FUNNY GAMES is essentially an American translation of the original Austrian film. It is a shocking and thrilling experience, daring you to stay and expecting you to leave before the film is over. Those going in having seen the original will know exactly what to expect and will put themselves in for another exercise in hopelessness. Unless they want to see the others squirm.

***/****

The Other Boleyn Girl

There’s nothing more fascinating than royals. When it involves Henry VIII’s relationship not only with Anne Boleyn but her sister as well, it was only a matter of time before Hollywood caught on. Adapted from the trend-setting 2001 bestseller, THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL is a bodice-ripper of the most melodramatic kind. The whole film is a bit ridiculous, but made manageable by its outstanding production values and a surprising performance from Scarlett Johansson.

Young Anne (Natalie Portman) and Mary (Johansson) are the Boleyn sisters, growing up in the midst of Henry VIII’s (Eric Bana) court. But his marriage with Catharine of Aragon is failing; after the latest failed attempt to give birth to a male heir, the girls’ uncle (David Morrissey) is certain that the king will be looking for a mistress, and believe Anne is the perfect candidate that could catapult the entire Boleyn family into wealth and power. But not all goes as planned; the king turns his eye to the recently-wed Mary, and a bitter rivalry ignites between the sisters. The tryst goes on for years, with both sisters playing for the king’s affections until Anne decides to put herself in the highest place of all; as Henry’s queen.

The film would not be quite so insufferably soap opera-ish were it not for the jealous, seething and ruthless portrayal of Anne Boleyn. Midway through the film, when Anne is called from France to return to court and seduce the king, she is given a montage as if Freddy Kruger or Michael Meyers were being resurrected. What surrounds it is a large quantity of Anne either glaring at people or delivering sexually-tinged comebacks. It is a credit that Portman manages to lose her typical cutesiness and inject a few moments of genuine smolder, but she becomes rather trying and overtly weepy towards the end. It’s understandable that one would be upset when about to be decapitated, but when all she does is cry for the final half-hour of the film, it gets a bit old.

The real (and only) surprise here is Johansson, who gives an impressive performance playing against type. Anne is every bit the demure and innocent girl who finds herself in over her head. As she begins to realize the extent of the relationship between her sister and the man she loves, her emotions are effective without falling into the level of melodrama that everyone else falls victim to. As Henry, Bana is not much more than a thing to be looked at or, more often, talked about.

The production values are understandably impressive, with the exception of the film’s grubby cinematography and curious use of handheld cameras. Director Justin Chadwick tries to inject the film with the same kind of modernity found in the most recent PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, but seems to think that shaking the camera around a bit is the only way to do this. Peter Morgan’s script is a far cry from the sharp wit and affecting nature of his work for THE QUEEN two years earlier.

All in all, the film may be a diversion for those who appreciate a decent period film, especially if they can get past the historical inaccuracies, which are doubtlessly many. The premise has enough potential, but when the entire thing plays like an expensive episode of DAYS OF OUR LIVES, everything comes off a bit forced and fake. Royals are still fascinating, but surely they must have done something other than betray each other, have sex and cry. Supposedly they ran countries as well, but THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL apparently doesn’t find that worthy of examination.

**/****