Lawless (2012)

No cheeky lead-in for this one, folks. Not feeling it. I'll just say that I wish snazzy suits like dudes wore back in the 30's were still hip. I'd wear the crap out of those things.

"Lawless" focuses on Prohibition era Franklin County, Virginia, a place notorious as "The Wettest Country in The World." In Franklin County back then all you had to do to stub your toe on a moonshine still was to walk 12 feet and kick blindly. I'm also assuming it was likely also known as "The Most Flammable County in the World."

The Bondurant brothers run a fairly successful bootlegging operation, and have an understanding with the local police that allows them to continue doing so. The understanding is slightly complex, but it involves moonshine and the continued decreasing health of the sheriff's liver. The oldest brother Forrest (Tom Hardy) and middle brother Howard (Jason Clarke) are manly men - tough and no-nonsense. Forrest in particular has a special talent of being physically impossible to kill, which comes in handy when the local competition decides to do things like murder him. Apparently the anti-pain stuff in Bane's mask must still be in Tom Hardy's system, because when Forrest gets his throat cut, he just kind of sleeps it off and lowers his voice for a few days. No big deal.

"Are you sure you don't want to at least lay down? I'm pretty sure he made contact with your spine."

"You know I never miss a Redskins game. Keep driving."

"How are you breathing?"

The more wimpy third brother, Jack, is played by everyone's favorite fast-talking geek with the stupid name and very punchable face, Shia LaBeouf. I'm just going to go ahead and admit that I dislike him. Quite a bit, actually. When he first came on the scene I thought he was alright, but as the years have gone by his schtick has gotten more and more insufferable - reaching the capstone with the "Transformers" series.

Fortunately for us, in "Lawless" he plays someone who is a hick. So because of that, he speaks slowly and without much "witty" LaBeouf banter. I have to give him credit for actually being able to shut his mouth for once, but at the same time he's still not that spectacular. But when you're dealing with him, it's really just for the best to call it a day when he's not teeth-grindingly annoying. But hey, he has proven he can play a person of low to middling intelligence.

If you have that haircut, you are required by law to have an IQ under 85.

Even though "Lawless" follows Shia LaBeouf's Jack around most of the time, it really doesn't feel like Jack's story. The real main character here is clearly Forrest, and for the life of me I have no idea why that character wasn't put more front and center, despite nearly every event revolving around him. From the start of the film he's in charge of the bootlegging operation, and only steps down temporarily once, and the only reason he did that was because he needed to give the sutures a chance to glue his head back on his neck. But after that, once he's healed he's back in the thick of things. And I'm having difficultly remembering an occasion where Jack made himself indispensable.

That's not to say that Forrest isn't in the movie a lot, because he certainly is. Tom Hardy gets the second most amount of screen time next to Shia, it's just a matter of perspective. I don't really see the point of having the movie be told through the viewpoint of Jack. It'd be like watching "Die Hard" from the perspective of Argyle, the limo driver who drops McClaine off and waits in the parking garage for most of the movie until he does that one useful thing at the end. Yeah, he did do something, but in the long run, it wasn't anything that McClaine or someone else couldn't have found a way to accomplish just as well. Jack is just nowhere near as interesting or as cool as Forrest is.

Also, Tom Hardy sounds spot-on like Tom Berenger in "Platoon" in this. I kept waiting for him to ask Shia what he knew about death.

But as awesome as Tom Hardy was in "Lawless," there are only two things you'll remember - Gary Oldman and Guy Pearce. These guy were both amazing, although one gets totally shafted.

Gary Oldman plays a Chicago gangster who Jack sees gun down a car right in the middle of the street. Jack is admittedly impressed and inspired by the act. I'm not quite sure if Oldman really had too much else to do with the plot, even though he spares Shia's life at one point for reasons I can't really remember since it wasn't made abundantly clear. I think he was there mostly to showcase the brutality of a true criminal and to inspire the brothers to step up their game.

Oldman is only in this movie for 5 minutes. Tops. It's really a damn shame because casting Gary Oldman in anything for just 5 minutes is just a stupid thing to do. I wanted to see more of him, especially after he bashes in a dude's head with a shovel. It's brutal, shocking, and really really awesome. And funny. And it's the last you see of him. Damn.

"Gary? Back up. If you want to shoot the barber pole...Gary...you're shooting...GARY! BACK UP!"

Guy Pearce plays Rakes, a Special Deputy who comes to Virginia to shake down the bootleggers and get a cut of their profits. Pierce, I must admit, is pretty entertaining in this movie. I've never thought too much of him as an actor but I'll give credit where credit is due - after Gary Oldman he's the most entertaining character in the film. Fortunately for us he functions as what is essentially the main antagonist, so we see a lot of him. He actually reminds me a bit of Gary Oldman's character from "The Professional." He's over-the-top and corny, so much so that you really don't think a whole lot of him at first. That is, until you see him work.

His hair looks like a Michigan Wolverines helmet.

There are several scenes where so you see Rakes become an absolute monster. The most memorable one being the time he gives Shia LaBeouf the epic beating that I've fantasized giving him myself. It's particularly fun to watch as Rakes is a bit of a fastidious clean-freak, what with his impeccably neat suit. surgically combed hair and spotless gloves. He doesn't really get "serious" about the beating until Jack has the gall to bleed on his suit. Then it's personal. And yes, it's a bit weird having a guy who seems like he'd be better off in a Bond movie in this period piece, but he injects some much needed life into what is otherwise an almost plodding script.

Other than that there's really not more to recommend "Lawless." It's not bad. It's just not that memorable. I will say it's better than the overly long and far more tepid "Public Enemies" from a few years ago. That's not a huge endorsement, but it's something.

Pretty much just watch for me. Yeah, pretty much.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Lawless" is notable for having Shia LaBeouf not being completely insufferable, for Tom Hardy doing an awesome Tom Berenger impression, Guy Pearce having a silly haircut, and Gary Oldman hitting someone with a shovel. That's about it. If you like period pieces about 30's America, it's worth a look. Otherwise don't kick yourself over missing it.

Chronicle (2012)

I love being surprised by movies. I had not heard fantastic things about "Chronicle." I believe the term "teenage wangst" was used more than once when I overheard discussion about it. And if there's one thing I hate, it's wangst. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, allow me to clarify.

Wangst - n - a portmanteau of "whiny" and "angst." Symptoms include complaining constantly about maintaining your 4.0 GPA, your hot girlfriend not leaving you alone, and how nobody "understands you" despite having a large group of friends. Often seen among popular, good looking rich kids in film and television.

This...this crap needs to stop. If there's one thing I can't stand it's this. And it wouldn't be so bad if real life was anything like it. I mean, I was a kid. I went to high school. I don't remember anything that exciting or epic. In fact it pretty much sucked, along with college. Where were my $500,000 house parties and friends with convertibles and really tough decisions to make about which of the 10,000 super-model ladies attending the school I wanted to take to the most important event of your life, THE PROM?

Hah! Trick question! It's always the nerdy one who cleans up real nice who you go with!

 Seriously, Daphine would have just played with your heart and stomped on it...

Getting back to "Chronicle," while it does possess a handful of those issues (mostly the INSANELY elaborate and expensive house party WTF), the amount of wangst is kept at a moderately acceptable level. Not only that, but by about halfway through the film, for the most part the film has deserted it completely in favor of a riveting and engaging film that I was, admittedly, enthralled by.

The first half of the film consists of mostly high school douchbagery, sure enough, with characters talking in that very obnoxious way that screenwriters think that young people talk. Once the 3 leads get their powers, it becomes even more irritating because it basically turns into "Jackass" with super powers as the main characters, Andrew, Matt and Steve go around and basically terrorize Seattle with their new found telekinesis. And at first I was really get annoyed with the movie, although I did acknowledge that if a bunch of high school kids got super powers, this is probably exactly what they would be doing.

But then, something unexpected and wonderful happened: consequences. Andrew and the others screw up. A lot. And, although they do get off clean because nobody can prove anything, bad things happen as a result of them screwing around, and they realize that they should be more careful with their new found powers.

This effectively put an abrupt halt to the douchbagery from before, which was a relief, but it also begins the character development of the second half of the film, where Andrew and the others begin having very different ideas about what their powers mean, and how they should be used. Matt and Steve, who have always been popular, are of the opinion that their powers should be used for good. Andrew, on the other hand, who has always been an outcast and has had a much more difficult time than the others, feels that these powers make him better than human. Looking at nature, he decides he is an "apex predator," and should rightfully crush anyone who causes him trouble, which would be most everybody. Dane DeHaan, who plays Andrew, does a great job portraying a character who you both sympathize with, and despise by the end.

 "A lion does not feel guilty when it kills a gazelle."

And that's what a good superhero story needs: a good villain. And oftentimes the most interesting villains are ones that, had things happened a bit differently, could have been allies with the heroes. True evil, although it has its place in fiction, is kind of boring because it really never started anywhere. It just IS. But Andrew is not "evil," although he's doing bad things. From what you see of his life beforehand, his progression from Matt and Steve's friend to nemesis feels totally natural, and had things gone down in a different fashion than they did, I think "Chronicle" could have made a very good origin story for a new, unique series with an interesting and tragic superhero/supervillain dynamic.

From a technical standpoint, there were a few annoyances, particularly having to do with the camera. While the movie is not shot entirely in a documentary style, there are significant sections of the movie that are. A good portion are from Andrew's camera that he got to document his life, and that he carries around everywhere. It's a tad more believable than other movies like "Quarantine" or "Cloverfield" in that there are fewer instances where any sane person would have dropped the camera ages ago, but those moments still happen occasionally.

The way they get around that is that they inter-cut the handheld footage with other things like security cameras, but there is also a good amount of traditional style footage as well. This is reserved for the moments when it would either be impossible to catch all of the scene with one non-omniscient camera, or those moments when there are no cameras around.

In fact, some of the most impressive moments of the film come from those moments of security camera footage, because depending on the camera, there is (fittingly) no sound. There are a couple moments, particularly one in a hospital room, when the mute video works almost like a "reverse stinger," meaning those really loud orchestra hits that play in horror movies when something scary happens. Yeah, those annoying things. Only in this movie, it's silence instead of a loud bang. It's fascinating to me the greater impact that silence can have over that when something big happens. It lends a gravity and almost dignity to the moment that shrieking violins can't match.

So overall I was not bothered at all by the changes in perspective. Some may find that irritating that it switches, but consider the alternative where the entire climax of the scene would have been a big, scrambled mess. And that would have been a shame, because the climax of "Chronicle" is fantastic. It plays out much like a video game not unlike "inFamous" or perhaps a good "Matrix" sequel. I'm not joking when I say that I was wide-eyed and slack jawed for the entire ending fight.

If there was one thing that bugged me from a technical standpoint far more than the camera did, it would have to be the flying scenes. The rig that they had for making the actors float worked well when they were moving and flipping around and whatnot, but whenever they had to just kind of float there, it looked terrible. The actor's center of gravity seemed to be located somewhere around the back of their necks with how slouched over they looked while just "standing" there.

Looking like a cat picked up by the scruff of your neck diminishes the majesty of flight.

Lastly, the issue of "where did their powers come from?" may be really off-putting to some. To sum it up briefly, you don't know. That's about it. They find the source of the power, and when they go to see it again, it has been buried again, beyond their reach. There are no answers given to us beyond "it was this that did it to them." And of course, you never even know what "it" is.

Did this bother me? Meh. Not really. I took it as something that was mysterious, and that's all you needed to know. "Chronicle" stayed consistent enough with the powers the characters had so as not to raise any significant questions about "why this and not that," so I really didn't need to know. I think being given an answer would have raised far more questions than answers in this case, anyways.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Chronicle" surprised me with how much I enjoyed it, particularly since I had heard fairly negative things about it. While I can't call it a superhero movie, it fits nicely in that genre. One is reminded of "Unbreakable," and it seems to me that "Chronicle" is a much more entertaining and fulfilling version of not necessarily that story, but of the notion of "realistic superhero." Recommended.