Go through the massive list of stars that appear in Joe Swanberg’s Digging for Fire and it might be easy to claim that one of the most prolific names in modern indie has “gone mainstream.” But actually watch Digging for Fire (or Happy Christmas or Drinking Buddies), and it’s clear that the mainstream has actually come knocking on Swanberg’s door. This is the same low-key, character-based storytelling Swanberg has been honing for years, only now with a plethora of talent and established names thrown into the mix. And, if anything, Digging for Fire shows Swanberg as a filmmaker in total control, using his ensemble and skills at creating a casual, inviting tone to make a subtle and fascinating exploration of commitment, aging and marriage.

Taking place in Los Angeles, the film opens with married couple Lee (Rosemarie Dewitt) and Tim (Jake Johnson, who co-wrote with Swanberg) taking their son Jude (Swanberg’s own son, stealing every scene he’s in) to house-sit for one of Lee’s wealthy clients. While Lee goes off working as a yoga instructor, Tim—a public school teacher—stays at home during the summer break. Soon after arriving, Tim starts poking around the house and discovers a bone and an old gun buried in a yard behind the house. Tim wants to keep digging, but Lee doesn’t want him messing up her client’s property, and a host of other small disagreements between the two (including Tim’s refusal to put Jude in a private school) leads to Lee taking Jude to spend the weekend with her parents (Sam Elliott and Judith Light).

Tim takes the opportunity to invite some of his old buddies over (Sam Rockwell, Chris Messina, Mike Birbiglia and Kent Osborne, to name a few), and before long he’s convincing all of them to help dig up whatever else might be hiding underneath the property. At this point the film forks off into two narrative strands, one profiling Tim’s weekend with his friends, and the other following Lee trying to have a girl’s night out with her sister (Melanie Lynskey). Both Lee and Tim wind up finding themselves conflicted when they each encounter an opportunity to cheat; Lee meets a British restaurant owner (Orlando Bloom), and Tim makes nice with the young, carefree Max (Brie Larson).

Anyone familiar with Swanberg’s previous work won’t be surprised to learn the film’s central mystery is a nonstarter. It’s more of an excuse for getting characters together to casually chat about the themes Swanberg and Johnson really want to explore. “When did you feel like you got back to yourself?” Lee asks her mom at one point, wondering if marriage and motherhood have removed her ability to live her own life, and Tim admits to Max that he feels like he’s not maturing, he’s just getting older. Their brief exchanges with friends, family and strangers around them reveal that both Lee and Max have hesitations about staying in for the long haul of their marriage, with the hypothetical idea of something “better” existing out there tempting them into seeking individuality over partnership.

What makes Digging for Fire such an enjoyable yet fleeting experience is how Swanberg lets these ideas flow organically into the film through his terrific cast and tight editing. Narrative doesn’t mean much here, as it’s more about how Lee and Tim’s actions reflect their concerns. Dewitt and Johnson anchor the film nicely, and there isn’t a single weak spot in a cast that’s as sprawling as LA itself. Shooting on 35mm with cinematographer Ben Richardson (who also shot Drinking Buddies and, most famously, Beasts of the Southern Wild), the film’s keen eye for composition helps give it a cinematic feel that comes across as a surprise given its dialogue-heavy approach. Swanberg has made films for over a decade now, and at a pretty quick pace too (remember when he directed six films in 2011?), but in some ways Digging for Fire feels like the start of a newer, more refined era for him. It’s exciting to watch Swanberg in complete domination of his craft, but it’ll be more exciting to see what he does next.

An approachable musical about two lovers out of sync, The Last 5 Years is yet another stage for Anna Kendrick to stand on and blow us away, and that in itself makes the film notable. She’s spectacular as usual, and at this point in her career, her movie-musical schtick isn’t tiresome in the least. Her partner in song is Jeremy Jordan, best known for his stint on the short-lived ABC series Smash, a handsome young man with an elastic voice and white-bread appeal. The problem with this Richard LaGravenese adaptation of Jason Robert Brown’s 2002 stage show is that the asynchrony that exists between its characters extends to the actors playing them, making the film feel uneven for the wrong reasons. It’s still enjoyable, though, a modest production that seems geared toward the most casual of musical fans, much like Stuart Murdoch’s 2014 indie-pop gem God Help the Girl.

Made on a shoestring, the film charts the blossoming and eventual implosion of a half-decade-long romance in an imaginative way, shattering the lovers’ timeline and rearranging the shards like a piece of post-modernist art. From aspiring musical-theater actress Cathy’s (Kendrick) perspective, we see the relationship play out in reverse; the film opens with her singing a lover’s lament, alone in the couple’s New York brownstone. “Jamie is over and Jamie is gone / Jamie’s decided it’s time to move on” she sings in the forlorn first number, “Still Hurting”. We then switch over to Jamie (Jordan), a burgeoning novelist whose side of the story starts, traditionally, at beginning of the relationship, when he and Cathy were madly enamored and felt giddy just to breathe the same air. From there the film alternates between the two, their chronologies intersecting on their wedding day in Central Park and then continuing on in opposite directions.

In the stage production, we only ever see Cathy and Jamie together when the timelines intersect (a gimmick accomplished through clever blocking and lighting), but the film sees Kendrick and Jordan share the screen quite a bit, for practical reasons. The high-concept minimalism of the live show poetically reinforces the story’s theme of romantic dissonance, but the film doesn’t appear to suffer from utilizing real locations, elaborate sets, and sweeping camera moves. The cinematography isn’t particularly impressive, but it’s evocative enough to help bolster whatever emotions the songs project.

As the film’s quick 90 minutes fly by we learn in glimpses that the doomed relationship started in earnest with Jamie taking a big risk: after a life-changing phone call from Random House, he promptly calls Cathy in a fit of elation and decides they’re moving in together. We know the relationship ends in flames, however, and it’s slowly revealed that the wedge responsible for the couple’s split is success itself. Jamie’s career soars, his publishing deal with Random House launching him into the company of dignitaries and socialites who he’s obligated to schmooze with at expensive parties. Struggling actress Cathy, who suffers through botched big-city auditions and never ascends beyond summer stock theatre, gets thrown to the wayside as the career-minded Jamie becomes more and more bewitched by the allure of the high life (and beautiful groupies).

Kendrick kicks ass as usual, singing with range and fluidity and emoting only as big or as small as is appropriate for each number. She’s spot-effing-on, and it’s sort of astonishing how in-control she always is, even during tricky numbers like the wrenching opening song. “I’m a Part of That”, a gorgeous ballad of anxiety and doubt, is her best moment, and perhaps the film’s as well. Jordan’s a great singer, too, but he lacks Kendrick’s discipline; his performance is always dialed one notch too loud. (When he sings the adoring “Shiksa Goddess”, he’s so theatrical it’s borderline-aggravating, and it doesn’t help that it’s the first thing we hear him sing.) His enthusiasm is usually cloying, while Kendrick’s is consistently toothsome. Their acting styles simply don’t match up very well, an ironic complication considering the material.

The songs sound more colloquial than your run-of-the-mill musical, focused more on cadence and naturalism than melody and hooks. “Schmuel”, a jaunty story-time ditty Jamie uses to lift Cathy’s drooping spirits, is the bounciest, most divergent song (and Jordan’s shining moment), and represents Brown’s songwriting at its most playful. Brown’s stated that The Last 5 Years is an intensely personal and semi-autobiographical piece, which is interesting when you consider the authenticity and depth of the Cathy character. LaGravenese’s interpretation of the material is pretty straightforward and unremarkable, but his ability to keep the see-sawing timeline organized and easy to follow is impressive and crucial to the success of the film.

Jamie comes off like an arrogant dick (the movie opening with Cathy so utterly heartbroken at his hands probably has a lot to do with it), and Jordan doesn’t have the chops to imbue him with any deeper complexity. We naturally gravitate to Cathy’s underdog status (and Kendrick’s irresistible charm), however, which makes the film perhaps more asymmetrical than intended. The Last 5 Years is enjoyable all the way through notwithstanding, with pleasant (if largely forgettable) songs and a unique storytelling structure that keeps you on your toes. Kendrick’s the real reason to check it out, though, and rabid devotees of the gifted Pitch Perfect sweetheart will only fall deeper in love with their idol.

Fresh off the heels of its world début at the 2015 Sundance Film Festival, The Orchard has acquired Joe Swanberg’s latest, Digging for Fire, for its North American release.

Digging for Fire looks to continue Swanberg’s recent trend of higher profile films with more notable casts. The film stars Swanberg vets Jake Johnson, Anna Kendrick and Melanie Lynskey, as well as Rosemary DeWitt, Orlando Bloom, Sam Rockwell, Brie Larson and Mike Birbiglia. The film follows the discovery of a bone and a gun which sends a husband and wife—each full of doubts about their future and anxiety about the present—on separate adventures over the course of a weekend.

The Orchard is a music, video and film distribution company, founded in 1997. It previously released 2015 horror film Preservation and the upcoming documentary Point and Shoot, which has found acclaim on the festival circuit.

The release strategy and date is not immediately known.

When a movie about chronic pain so embodies its subject matter that it becomes a pain in the ass to watch itself, it’s got to offer something more to prove its artistic worth; otherwise, it’s just a misery simulator. The only “something more” Cake offers is a tedious mystery thread. We follow Claire (Jennifer Aniston), a divorced lawyer with a scarred-up body and face who we watch drink, pop pills (as she drinks), take naps (after she drinks), treat people like shit, moan a lot, and saunter around her expensive L.A. home like a zombie. By gathering clues we discover how she got her scars, why she suffers from such debilitating pain, why she’s such a bitch, and how in the hell her friends can tolerate her self-involved bullshit. Piecing together the tragic history behind Claire’s scars is a chore; Memento this is not.

The most likely reason you’ve heard about Cake is because Aniston’s performance garnered her a Golden Globes nomination and some peppered critical praise. There’s been a fascination with watching our prettiest actors looking as unflattering as possible (i.e. like real people–gasp!) that’s been growing steadily for the past couple of decades, and the inclination may be to lump Aniston in with the likes of other “go ugly” alumni like Charlize Theron (Monster), Halle Berry (Monster’s Ball), and Nicole Kidman (The Hours). But I have no interest in penalizing her for this correlation, nor do I find the juxtaposition of real-life starlets stripped of their glamour illuminative or poignant. Bottom line: Aniston’s performance is really, really good. It’s lived-in, believable, unadorned, and at times moving. The effort is there, but what ultimately stifles her is the sleepy, flat-lined script that perpetually spins its wheels.

At first Claire seems like a relatable protag, even a funny one. In the middle of a chronic pain support group (she looks in agony just sitting there) she incisively undresses the group’s be-one-with-your-emotions phoniness when asked about Nina (Anna Kendrick), one of the group’s members who killed herself by jumping off a freeway overpass. She talks to Nina’s ghost sometimes, which through eye-rolling contrivance leads her to Roy (Sam Worthington), her dead Nina’s husband. Unlike her studly gardener who she bangs on occasion, Claire finds a sentimental commonality with Roy.

But the true life raft keeping the emotionally shipwrecked Claire from drowning (she literally tries to drown herself) is her housekeeper, Silvana (Adriana Barraza, very strong), who’s treated and paid less than fairly for all she does (though Claire’s loaded enough to petulantly throw money at her whenever she owes an apology). There are other people orbiting Claire’s black hole of depression, including her ex-husband (Chris Messina), her physical therapy coach (Mamie Gummer), and her support group leader (Felicity Huffman, who shares with Aniston the film’s funniest scene, involving a jumbo-sized bottle of Costco vodka), but none of them do much more than suffer as they listen to her imperious bullshit.

Aniston and the makeup team do their best to wipe away any memories you have of her as the desirable girl-with-the-hair Rachel on Friends, covering her with those scars and making her hair look as bland and stringy as a Triscuit. Her resting face looks like she puked two minutes ago. You can tell she approached the role with no ego. The most striking facet of her performance is her body movement; watching her wince and groan as she shuffles from one room to the next looks convincingly painful, and even evokes a bit of sympathy for the otherwise icy Claire.

Director Daniel Barnz finds myriad ways to show Claire horizontal: she sleeps a lot, beds the gardener, sleeps with Roy (just sleeps), lays flat in the passenger seat whenever she’s driven, floats belly-up in the pool, passes out in front of the toilet after overdosing on pills…and the list goes on. This is Barnz’ main visual motif, and he’s so obsessed with it that it feels kind of insulting to our intelligence. (Hell, even the opening title has the “A” in CAKE laid sideways.) This is all meant to bolster the impact of the film’s final shot, in which (spoiler alert) Claire sits up straight (WHOA). The strategy backfires, as the moment is so telegraphed you can’t help but cringe at how obtuse it is.

There’s barely a trace of plot to keep things moving, and it seems Barnz is banking on the “mystery of the scars” to propel the film. Screenwriter Patrick Tobin carefully places his little nuggets of information about Claire’s past intermittently and gives us just enough to figure it out on our own. The reason the process isn’t compelling is because it’s a bridge to nowhere; Cake is monotonous, rudderless, and doesn’t make any real statements about depression, suicide, or the act of grieving. It’s a film starving for something more, and while Aniston makes good use of it as a platform to show she’s got chops, it’s not the career-defining film she and many others hoped it would be.

It took about 30 years, but Stephen Sondheim and James Lapine’s musical fairytale cocktail, Into the Woods, has finally expanded from stage to big screen courtesy of the Mouse House and Chicago director Rob Marshall. I wasn’t familiar with the original stage production going into the film, but it wasn’t at all hard to recognize Into the Woods‘ theater roots once I heard the exuberant, winky dialogue (Lapine adapts his own words to screen) and started tapping my foot to the infectious Sondheim tunes being belted out by some of the Brothers Grimm’s most famous characters. The film’s final act feels too deflated to call this overdue screen adaptation a certified triumph, but the first two thirds are so cheeky, unencumbered, and flat-out fun that it’s hard not to give Into the Woods a hearty recommendation, especially with all this holiday cheer hanging in the air.

The story takes several popular Grimm characters–including Rapunzel, Cinderella, and Jack (of beanstalk fame)–and several new characters of Lapine’s creation and throws them into the twisty, shadowy bowela of the titular woods, so that we can watch these familiar childhood characters sing, argue, fall in love, and interact in ways we’ve never imagined! I know, I know…that isn’t really the case anymore. The fantasy mash-up idea has long since lost its novelty since the musical debuted in the mid-’80s (Shrek, Once Upon a Time, Enchanted, the excellent comic book Fables, and many others have aped the gimmick), but it’s as potent (and trendy) today as it ever has been.

While an ensemble piece through and through, the plot is fueled by the plight of two central characters, The Baker (James Corden) and his Wife (Emily Blunt), who have always wished for a child, though their wish never came true. When an old Witch (Meryl Streep, unhinged) blows into the bakery in the showiest way possible (wind, thunder, flashes of light), the couple learns that they’ve been infertile all this time due to a curse she cast on The Baker when he was only a child, after his father stole magic beans from her garden. (In another act of revenge, she also stole The Baker’s infant sister, Rapunzel.) The Witch offers to lift the curse if The Baker can pull off an improbable scavenger hunt in the woods, fetching her four ingredients she needs for a potion: a cow as white as milk, a cape as red as blood, hair as yellow as corn, and a slipper as pure as gold. Sounds tasty.

The carriers of said items, as you might have guessed, happen to be the Brothers Grimm all-stars: the slipper is Cinderella’s (Anna Kendrick), who thrice flees through the woods after abandoning her prince at the royal dance; the cow, aptly named Milky White, belongs to young Jack (Daniel Huttlestone, his campy, old-school British accent unintentionally hilarious); the cape is, of course, Red Riding Hood’s (Lilla Crawford); and the corn-yellow hair comes from the pretty head of The Baker’s long-lost sister, the lovely Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy).

Secondary characters make memorable appearances, from Johnny Depp as Red Riding Hood’s Big Bad Wolf (their scene is uncomfortable, though the sexual tension has apparently been slightly tamed from the stage version), Tracey Ullman as Jack’s mother, and Frances de la Tour as one of Jack’s giants. Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen play Cinderella and Rapunzel’s princes, respectfully, and their epic duet in front of a waterfall, “Agony”, a witty lover’s lament, is one of the funniest things I’ve seen all year. (I laughed so long and hard my wife was thoroughly embarrassed, though that’s hardly an uncommon occurrence with us.)

The characters zip and weave through the trees, bumping into each other now and again, each in a mad search for their own personal “happily ever after”. The Bakers find, then lose, then find again The Witch’s items, while the Grimm characters play out their familiar stories with slightly remixed scenarios. True to the fairytale tradition, all their wishes do, indeed, come true. But that’s not where the story ends; it’s where the real story begins. “Be careful what you wish for” the film’s ad campaign warns us.

The film’s final third sees the characters return to the woods to learn life’s hard lessons, with some of our beloved heroes biting the dust for good. The woods represent the cruelty and sadness of the real world, and forcing historically idealized characters like Cinderella to reckon with wretched things like infidelity. (Her prince is charming no doubt, but is he faithful?) What’s the true cost of our wishes coming true? Is a wish worth making the ultimate sacrifice? This concept of subverting and sobering up our childhood notions of the “fairy tale ending” is brilliant and forever relevant.

Marshall and Lapine handle the 180 degree tonal shift from peachy-keen Disney adventure to dark, somber drama quite well, but the film ends with such low energy compared to the first two acts that it feels comparatively bland. The later musical numbers begin to feel like a homogeneous series of music videos, with the same nighttime forest background providing the numbers little in the way of visual distinctiveness. The songs feel really packed-in, too; the story’s message has a harder time ringing true when we’re so musically fatigued.

The wealth of superb performances are the film’s greatest virtue, chiefly among them being the formidable Streep, whose keen comedic timing is on full display. Corden and Blunt shine as well, with a natural rapport that makes them excellent anchors for the story. Unsurprisingly, the theatrically-trained Kendrick’s the best singer of the bunch, though the less vocally-gifted Pine makes up for his inexperience with flamboyance, prancing and preening and posing his way through the film with the wackiness of a cheap stage show on the Las Vegas strip.

Of the things Into the Woods gets right, perhaps the most pleasing is the way it embraces its origins as a stage production. CGI is kept to a minimum, and practical effects are used skillfully and tastefully. The sets (which all appear to be practical, not digital) are terrific, too, with the ominous trees and misty swamps looking convincing while never hiding the fact that they were built by human hands. With so many big studio cash-in adaptations poisoning our theaters and stealing our money, it’s nice to see one come along that actually deserves our attention.

While zombie movies can be traced back to the 1930s, the modern zombie film era is generally accepted to have begun with George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead (1968). Since then, the zombie movie has been a staple at the cinema and at home, with offerings ranging from the totally ’80s classic Night of the Comet to the biggest box office zombie flick yet, World War Z. Because there are only so many ways to serve up brains, and with TV’s The Walking Dead doing an excellent job of that on a regular basis, filmmakers are taking unique approaches to zombies and treating them as characters, not just mindless threats. Now we have tales of zombie romance such as the latest zombie movie to hit theaters, Life After Beth.

Zach Orfman (Dane DeHaan) is a devastated teen. His girlfriend, Beth Slocum (Aubrey Plaza), has died, and not long after the couple’s last discussion revolved around ending their relationship. In the days after her funeral, the young man clings to Beth’s memory and spends as much time with her parents as he can. He grows suspicious, however, when the Slocums (John C. Reilly and Molly Shannon) stop returning his calls. A visit to their house – where they pretend not to be home – reveals the truth behind their sudden secrecy: Beth is alive.

Well, sort of.

Beth is a zombie, only she doesn’t realize it. (Her parents see her as being resurrected.) As she and Zach rekindle their romance, Beth slowly deteriorates in both body and mind.

Life After Beth’s premise tantalizes before the film even fades in. Despite what feels like market saturation, zombies are still all the rage. The film’s plot (my dead girlfriend doesn’t know she’s dead) is a clever one. The leads are talented, good-looking, and popular. The supporting cast is terrific (including Paul Reiser and Cheryl Hines as Zach’s parents), with decades of cumulative comedic acting experience among them. This is a film that is aching to succeed.

Unfortunately the film’s concept works better on paper than it does as a movie. Life After Beth‘s fatal flaw is that there is little to the story beyond the clever premise.

Writer/director Jeff Baena spends the first act of the film slogging through a set-up that includes creating a contrived conflict between Zach and Beth’s parents. Time is also wasted establishing Zach’s own parents, with their yelling and their disbelief and their short attention spans, as adults from a bad sitcom. Never does Baena show Beth’s death, her “resurrection,” or her triumphant return home. It’s mentioned, not shown.

The middle of the film is nothing more than a series of sketches, each as unfunny as the one before it, and only made different by Beth’s continued deteriorating physical and mental condition. There is, also, the introduction of a girl from Zach’s childhood, Erica Wexler (Anna Kendrick), inserted (I guess) to offer a future for Zach once Beth goes Full Zombie. It’s an inserted idea yet not well-developed; another great talent wasted.

The third act is perhaps the most baffling aspect of the entire film. I don’t want to spoil anything by revealing details, however the path the story takes seems to occur out of the blue as a device used to help bear the weight of the film’s non-full length structure and is highly frustrating. This third act surprise could have been nicely developed early, and then followed throughout the film as a meaty subplot.  Instead, it’s triggered as an escape hatch to bring the film to a preposterous conclusion.

It’s hard to fault anyone in the cast for their work, because no one is given much to work with in the first place. As noted, Reiser and Hines have a sitcom sensibility to them, as does Shannon. Reilly is only slightly elevated because he’s given more relevant dialogue than the rest of the grown-ups. Plaza does fine descending from hapless to mindless. Honestly, there isn’t an MVP performance in the bunch.

Everyone should walk away from this unscathed, but it will be curious to see how DeHaan’s career is affected. In Life After Beth, he’s pale and he broods and stumbles about in a disbelieving haze, none of which is memorable. However, this is his second subpar outing in 2014 (following the terrible The Amazing Spider-Man 2), so 2015 might be pivotal for the young actor. He has a period piece (Tulip Fever) coming out, but more importantly, he is playing James Dean in Anton Corbijn’s Life, a role that might be make-or-break for him.

The zombie genre will (un)live on beyond Life After Beth, a film that feels like a Halloween entry of a Saturday Night Live routine that may have been funny in a short sketch, but can’t survive being stretched out over 90 minutes.

Life After Beth trailer

No one makes indie improvisational comedies fixated on placid relationship observations better than Joe Swanberg. He spent his career producing loosely outlined scripts that trade complicated plots for light storytelling with naturalistic tendencies. And he has made a lot of them. Happy Christmas marks Swanberg’s 16th full-length feature in just 9 years and is his most personal film to date. Swanberg bases the script off his real life, playing a filmmaker trying to raise a child in a home where both parents are artists, which forces one of them to put their career on hold. Happy Christmas is indirectly dedicated to the one who does the sacrificing as its focus is on the hardships of leaving and re-entering the workforce.

Set around the holiday season (the only tie to Christmas really), Jeff (Joe Swanberg) and his wife Kelly (Melanie Lynskey) are busy raising their ridiculously cute two-year-old son (Swanberg’s actual child) in their Chicago home. The couple invite Jeff’s younger sister Jenny (Anna Kendrick) into their home after a rough break-up leaves her without a place to live. In theory, her stay means extra help in the babysitting department, allowing Kelly to focus more on her job as a writer. But on the very first night of her arrival she parties hard with her friend Carson (Lena Dunham) and is too hungover to assume any kind of babysitting responsibilities.

As one could imagine, this living arrangement causes a rift in the relationship dynamic between Jeff and Kelly. She doesn’t feel like she can trust Jenny, but Jeff believes his sister deserves another chance. However, it’s not long before they switch opinions. Jenny sells Kelly on the idea of writing “sexy mom novels” for quick cash and in return earns back some approval. Though her continuous acts of selfish behavior makes Jeff wonder if he made the right decision to stand up for her.

Happy Christmas is essentially an autobiography for Swanberg. The most obvious clue being that he plays a filmmaker living in Chicago (his home city). But it’s made pretty clear the film is personal with the use of his real-life son and shooting the film in his actual home. In an interview, the director reaffirmed the sentimentally explaining when he and his wife Kris had their child, she had to put her career on the back burner since they couldn’t afford childcare. He even has a small role for Kris as a landlord for an apartment that Jenny walks through.

There’s not a lot that happens in Happy Christmas, yet somehow the film flies by. The brisk 78 minute runtime certainly helps, but the main reason the film is so watchable are the endearing performances. The most adorable of the group is hands-down baby Swanberg, who steals every scene with his incredible cuteness. Anna Kendrick doesn’t typically play the out of control dysfunctional type, but she handles it fairly well here while still projecting her regular impossible-not -to-root for charisma. Lena Dunham seems to thrive on an improvised script, making her a perfect fit for a Swanberg film.

Happy Christmas has more meandering and less polish than his previous effort Drinking Buddies, though it does contain similar charm and a lighthearted spirit. While it lacks any sort of climactic punch at the end, the film largely serves as a tribute to his wife, which hits high marks on the ‘Awww, that’s sweet’ scale.

Happy Christmas trailer

Joe Swanberg has quietly become a very prolific filmmaker of increasing prominence. After years of churning out unscripted, low-budget naturalistic movies, last year’s slightly higher budgeted Drinking Buddies (with notable stars like Olivia Wilde, Jake Johnson, and the returning Anna Kendrick) was a surprise critical darling (read our review) and has lead to increased anticipation of his follow-up. Now Magnolia Pictures has released a first glimpse into the upcoming Happy Christmas featuring Kendrick and Swanberg, alongside Melanie Lynskey, Mark Webber, and HBO’s Girls‘ Lena Dunham.

Starring Kendrick as a Jenny, a hard partying 20-something coping from a break-up, she moves in with her film director brother (Swanberg), his novelist wife (Lynskey), and their two-year-old son. Jenny shakes up the young couple’s idillic lifestyle and forces them into some welcome, and unwelcome changes. Watch the trailer below:

Watch trailer for Happy Christmas

Today, Magnolia Pictures and Paramount Pictures announced that they will collaborate to bring Joe Swanberg’s Happy Christmas to theaters and home video worldwide.

The film, which premieres at Sundance this Sunday, is written and directed by Swanberg and stars Anna Kendrick, Melanie Lynskey, Mark Webber, Lena Dunham, and Swanberg himself.

Magnolia will be handling US theatrical and VOD distribution, while Paramount will handle US DVD and Blu-ray distribution and all international rights. Magnolia also handled Swanberg’s Drinking Buddies last year.

Here’s the synopsis, via Magnolia/Paramount:

Anna Kendrick plays Jenny, an irresponsible 20-something who comes to Chicago to live with her older brother Jeff (Swanberg), a young filmmaker living a happy existence with his novelist wife Kelly (Lynskey) and their two-year-old son. Jenny’s arrival shakes up their quiet domesticity as she and her friend Carson (Dunham) instigate an evolution in Kelly’s life and career. Meanwhile, Jenny strikes up a rocky relationship with the family’s baby sitter-cum-pot dealer (Webber).

“I’m excited to continue my relationship with the innovative people at Magnolia and to start a new relationship with Paramount,” said Swanberg. “HAPPY CHRISTMAS is a personal and important film for me and I can’t imagine better partners to help connect it with audiences around the world.”

“We’re thrilled to be in business with Joe again on this lovely gem of a film,” said Magnolia President Eamonn Bowles. “Joe’s skill with actors is formidable, and this terrific cast gives wonderful performances all around.”

“We are looking forward to bringing this original, fresh film to home viewing audiences in the U.S. and internationally,” said Syrinthia Studer Senior Vice President, Marketing and Acquisitions, Paramount Home Media Distribution. “HAPPY CHRISTMAS has broad appeal, an exceptional cast and an engaging story that we believe will be well received both here and abroad.”

Magnolia is eyeing a theatrical release in the summer of 2014.

Joe Swanberg is a well-known independent director who is notorious for his no budget, no script approach to filmmaking. The results tend to be very personal (he acts in most of his films) and highly realistic since the actors are not confined to reading lines off a script. Drinking Buddies is somewhat of a crossover from micro-indie films into a larger budget film for Joe Swanberg; it contains a well-known cast (Olivia Wilde, Jake Johnson, Anna Kendrick) and much higher production values (having a dedicated director of photography, etc.) than his previous 14 films. The Duplass brothers proved it is possible to make a big budget film still feel small and intimate a few years back with Cyrus, Swanberg solidifies the transition can be achieved with Drinking Buddies.

Kate (Olivia Wilde) and Luke (Jake Johnson) are co-workers at a craft brewery in Chicago who get along with each other well enough that at times it would be easy to mistake them as a couple. However, they both are in existing relationships despite their personalities being much more aligned with each other than the ones that they are actually dating. In both cases, their significant others are much more grounded and would prefer to settle down. Luke has been dating Jill (Anna Kendrick) for long enough that the marriage conversation has already been brought up, though nothing has been finalized. Kate has only been seeing Chris (Ron Livingston) a short while and their relationship seems more sexually based than anything.

Blink and you will miss the conversation where the two couples agree to a weekend retreat at a lakeside cabin. Almost immediately after they arrive, the cabin acts like a pressure cooker for each of the relationships, creating drama when they divide after Kate and Luke opt to play drinking games together while their significant others both prefer to hike through the woods. So in case you did not catch the subtle hints in the beginning, the time at the cabin makes it completely obvious that the two couples seem much more comfortable with the opposite significant other. For the first time the couples are realizing the gravity of the situation as well. Sexual tensions begin to boil, yielding the perfect recipe for a relationship explosion.

The best part about Drinking Buddies is how well the unspoken tension and jealously of circumstances are articulated without directly announcing them. This means through body language and situational awareness you get a sense of what the characters are thinking without them having to verbally say it. For example, it is evident that Luke gets jealous after he gets injured while helping Kate move into her new place when she is forced to have another guy come help with the move. His first reaction is to call her out on it, but you can tell his head is spinning as he realizes there is no justification for him to do so because of his relationship with Jill.

One major element that Swanberg re-uses from his early Mumblecore films is working with a vague outline versus a detailed script. He puts a lot of trust in his cast to improvise much of the dialog in any given scene to provide a natural feeling environment. The gamble pays off in spades when the loose script works as well as it does in Drinking Buddies. The performances for some (Wilde in particular) end up being some of the best to date. Chemistry between Johnson and Wilde appears effortless, as if they have been close friends for years. Kendrick and Livingston provide the right about of counterbalance to make the equation work.

A common mistake for a film to make that is based on improvised dialog is allowing scenes to drag on and get off topic. Thankfully, this is not the case in Drinking Buddies, which is comprised of a light and breezy pace due to the magnificently concise editing. What was most gratifying about Drinking Buddies was the portrayal of emotion and inclination without coming right out and talking about them. Some people feared that a more accessible film would diminish the passion and genuine feel that often are associated with Swanberg’s work, but rest assured that the only thing he changes is how many people will see the film.

Drinking Buddies trailer

The majority of Joe Swanberg’s directorial career has been making micro-budget indie films such as Kissing on the Mouth, LOL, and Hannah Takes the Stairs, which many consider to be early pioneers of the mumblecore (yes, I said it) movement. It was just last year when Swanberg got a taste of more commercial work when he directed a segment in the horror anthology V/H/S. His latest film Drinking Buddies contains a cast of Anna Kendrick, Olivia Wilde, Jack Johnson and Ron Livinston, all of whom are much more well-known than what he has ever worked with in the past. With Swanberg at the helm and the film earning some solid buzz from it’s SXSW premiere, we should be in store for something more than just your average light romantic comedy.

Watch the official trailer for Drinking Buddies:

The name of the film comes from when Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) finds out his odds of survival are 50/50 after finding out he has spinal cancer. The film was written by Will Reiser, who was actually diagnosed with spinal cancer in real life, which is what undoubtedly helped it feel so genuine. The focus of the film is to show how cancer can affect more than just the person with it but also the people around them. It does that surprisingly well.

Adam is not risk taker, when the crosswalk blinks do not walk, he stays put, even when no vehicles are to be seen. The 27 year old does not drive because it is the 5th leading cause of death. So it is ironic when after going to the doctor for some minor back symptoms, Adam is diagnosed with a rare form of spinal cancer, rendering his chances of death 50/50.

Adam gets along with his girlfriend well enough but at the same time you can tell that something is missing from that relationship. He does not realize it at first. It is brought to his attention when two fellow treatment patients question the fact she will not even step inside the hospital. However, it becomes even more evident when she does not answer her phone and shows up an hour late for picking him up.

If it were up to his best friend Kyle (Seth Rogen), Adam would be using his cancer to his advantage for picking up new girls. In fact, Kyle picks up someone at a bookstore by telling her that he is taking care of his dying friend. On their date, Kyle sees Adam’s girlfriend kissing another guy and even snapped a picture on his phone for proof. At the end of the date, Kyle rushes to Adam’s to show him the picture. Needless to say, their relationship came to an end.

Even though Kyle’s repeated attempts to set Adam up with girls have failed, he ends up meeting someone on his own. Turns out it is his 24 year old student therapist that is helping him through treatment. Since he recently broke up with his girlfriend, she offers him a ride home and will not take no for an answer. The first thing he notices about her car is that it is very messy which she insists on him not to judge her for it. The slightly odd scene turns cute when he demands her to pull over so that he can throw away her trash in the car that he could not stand any longer.

Just as things are starting to look up for Adam, one of the patients he got close to passed away. That served as a harsh reminder to him that he may die at any moment. Adam takes his frustrations out on everyone around him; his therapist, Kyle and even his Mom. Up until now he has taken the cancer news fairly lightly so it was only a matter of time until the frustrations settled in.

Not many actors today can make me laugh out loud as much as Seth Rogen does. In most of his films I find myself laughing even when I am watching it by myself (which is the ultimate test), this film was no exception. He did a great job at not dominating the film too much as the supporting actor. Granted, he did play his usual role in the film.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s performance felt effortless and brilliant. The awkward romantic scenes between Anna Kendrick and him were outstanding. Most of the film he plays it cool but he shows his range of emotions by the end, particularly well in one “freak out” scene. His career is really starting to take off after recently doing, (500) Days of Summer, Inception and now currently working on Christopher Nolan’s long awaited The Dark Knight Rises.

After watching the trailer for 50/50 when it first came out, I jokingly said it had a 50/50 shot at being good. That depended on which way director Jonathan Levine approached the film. Luckily, he balanced the right amount of comedy and drama together in a very realistic manner without all the pitfalls of a stereotypical dramedy. The situations that Adam gets into seem to all be completely natural, it did not suffer from a cheesy movie-like moment. I was kind of hoping “Banana Pancakes” by Jack Johnson played for the final scene instead of Pearl Jam’s “Yellow Ledbetter”, if you saw the film you know why.

Up In The Air has an all-star cast which received three Oscar nominations of the six total for the film, including Best Picture. Often times humorous and other times emotional, it features quick and witty dialogue with a unique storyline. That being said, it also does have its flaws.

Ryan Bingham’s (George Clooney) life is air travel and because of it, it is very orderly and systematic. Ryan’s job is to fly around the country to inform people that they are fired. He is very much alright with flying 270 days a year, in fact, he enjoys traveling in airports and different cities more than being at home.

Ryan meets Alex (Vera Farmiga) in an airport bar and the two first meet by quickly exchanging the differences between car rental companies as an attempt to impress one another. Then the two compare credit card reward cards before admitting they are two people that get turned on by elite status. They agree to meet each other in a couple weeks when they will be traveling closer to each other in another state.

Ryan returns home from his trip and does not forget to remind you that he does not particularly like being home. He is informed the next day at work that the company has decided to no longer fly workers around the country to fire people. Instead, he will be doing his job via video chat, thus grounding him at home and in his mind grounding his life. Not to mention shutting him down from the date he had just lined up.

So to no one’s surprise Ryan speaks out again this to his boss. It quickly involves the person who came up with the new plan, Natalie (Anna Kendrick). Natalie is a newly hired hard worker efficiency expert. She is very set on her way and lives life on deadlines both on and off work hours. She is a go getter and a planner and she blatantly says she does not mind being married to her career. She is not ashamed of it but does not want to settle in life.

Ryan convinces his boss into showing Natalie what he does on the road and tries to make his case that it cannot be done over the internet. She then travels with him to see what he does in person. He is trying to save what he believes his life is while at the same time she is trying to save the company’s efficiency.

Up In The Air finally reaches its most important part of the film when he is at his sister’s wedding. The groom gets cold feet and he is sent to deal with it. He talks people out of commitment and now has the task of talking the groom into commitment. Which is something he knows little about and you could say he is being a hypocrite because he has not subscribed to that way of thinking.

It was right about then he realizes that commitment is not as daunting and he thought. He has such a way with words; he more or less talks himself into it. Ryan realizes that perhaps he is ready to settle down with Alex after all. The only question left is has Alex turned over a new leaf as well?

Interestingly, the majority of the people we see getting fired at the beginning of Up In The Air are not actors (but obviously Zach Galifianakis is) but actual people who were recently laid off. The filmmakers put ads out and instructed people to treat the camera as if were like the person who fired them. I think that is a nice and creative touch to make it seem more believable.

After watching the film, I began to wonder if Natalie’s storyline even mattered. I believe they could have without her part. Although Anna Kendrick does a good job with this role, I don’t think it ultimately played any role of importance in the film.

The main idea behind the film is loyalty. The word was frequently in the background on airline advertisements. The airline, credit card and car rental places all have membership clubs that reward loyal customers. Both Ryan and Natalie are loyal to their jobs both have different views on what it means to be loyal in a relationship.

Up In The Air has an unique premise and good dialogue with acting that is beyond average but ultimately the storyline is a little bumpy. I am not sure if it is some ironic play on Ryan’s philosophy of empty backpacks and pointlessness but nearly every other character in the film besides himself is pointless. It was a well done film that should have been tied in together a little more.