If you could change your identity and start over as someone else, would you? That’s the main proposition in director Joshua Marston’s (Maria Full of Grace) third feature film, Complete Unknown. The film begins as a mystery, following a woman pretending to be someone that she’s not, with Marston taking a big gamble and revealing this information early on. After that, the film suddenly shifts from cryptic thriller to slow conversation piece, a change that might frustrate viewers if it were Complete Unknown’s only issue. It’s one thing to stop asking compelling questions, but it’s another to stop providing compelling answers. After the reveal, Complete Unknown is supposed to be about why she changes her identity, and I’m not sure if the film gives a convincing answer.

Rachel Weisz plays Alice, the mysterious woman who attends a birthday party for Tom (Michael Shannon) on a date for a newly befriended colleague. She’s the life of the party, fascinating everyone with her tales of traveling to Tanzania for 18 months where people started calling her by a different name. The only person not fascinated is Tom, who seems to recognize her as someone named Jenny from years ago.

Once he confronts her about this privately, Complete Unknown transitions into a lengthy heart-to-heart discussion that many are comparing to Richard Linklater’s Before trilogy. But the conversation that follows between them never gets close to as introspective as the comparison suggests.

Rating:
6/10

Paolo Sorrentino’s Youth has the rare power to force recollections of the past as well as anticipations of the future, all the while keeping its viewer completely grounded in the present, grounded in its stunning and symphonic display of human emotion. Indeed, Sorrentino pulls the rug out from under his audience on several occasions throughout the duration of the film’s runtime, dragging them down into the depths of dejection only to raise them back up, just as quickly, into the heights of pure laughter and joy. Watching this film is like being trapped in a game of pinball, only Sorrentino is the game player and his audience is the ball that he’s whacking in every which direction without the slightest bit of hesitation. It’s clear, however, that he’s doing this out of love; if anything, Youth is undoubtedly the director’s most tender and heartfelt film yet. And also his most accessible to date.

Part of this accessibility can be attributed to Sorrentino’s decision, as primarily an Italian-language director, to direct the film in English (a feat which he attempted once prior with his overlooked 2011 output, This Must Be the Place). This immediately increases the number of people that will be interested in seeing it worldwide. Nonetheless, the chief reason why mainstream audiences will be drawn to this film is because of the big-name stars attached to the cast, including Michael Caine, Harvey Keitel, Rachel Weisz, Paul Dano and Jane Fonda in an unforgettable cameo performance.

Much like a few of the other films in competition at this year’s Cannes Film Festival, Youth is relatively light on plot and focuses more on conversations between characters, uprooted emotions and recounted memories than a concrete narrative. With that being said, the general storyline follows our protagonist, retired composer Fred Ballinger (Michael Caine), during his stay at a spa resort in the Alps with his daughter, Lena (Rachel Weisz), as well as his longtime best friend, illustrious film director Mick Boyle (Harvey Keitel).

While the cast does a wonderful job realizing their characters, the true star of the film is cinematographer Luca Bigazzi, who has worked on several of Sorrentino’s previous projects including the Academy Award winning, The Great Beauty. As he did with his previous work, Bigazzi seems to channel an aesthetic similar to that of Emmanuel Lubezki’s collaborations with the legendary director, Terrence Malick. Both Bigazzi and Lubezki place great emphasis on the visual composition of each scene, capturing an immense degree of detail through the movement of their ever-gliding cameras.

One particularly memorable example of Bigazzi’s skill can be found early in the film. During a dream sequence, Ballinger walks down a platform surrounded by a rising body of water as it slowly begins to engulf him. There are very few cinematographers that can place us smack-dab in the center of the world they’re shooting like Bigazzi and Lubezki, which is why I continue to enjoy their masterful work.

If there’s one area in which Youth falters a bit, it’s making the 118-minute runtime feel long. Youth would’ve benefited from removing a few unnecessary scenes from its later acts. Instead, the audience may find themselves completely enthralled by its beauty one minute, and then checking their wristwatches the next. Nevertheless, some excessive minutes doesn’t take away from the fact Youth is an enjoyable film with a varied soundtrack, gorgeous locations, spectacular visuals and a deeply philosophical screenplay.

Originally published on June 3rd, 2015 as part of our Cannes Film Festival coverage.

How does one even begin to describe the enigma that is Yorgos Lanthimos’ The Lobster? Since reading a brief description of its bizarre narrative months ago, it has been one of my most anticipated films of the year (and made our list for most anticipated films of 2015), and those familiar with Lanthimos’ previous work (most notably his 2009 Academy Award nominated film Dogtooth) are probably aware of how strange his work can be—but never without justification. The Lobster tells the story of David (Colin Farrell), a man who has recently been left by his partner and decides to check into The Hotel, where he has a month and a half to meet a new, suitable partner, otherwise he will be transformed into an animal of his choice.

The Lobster functions as part absurdist comedy, part dark romance and part social satire. The comedy is sharp and the romantic elements provide it with a sense of lightness which would have otherwise been absent; the execution of its societal commentary, however, is what sends it into uncharted territory, and the main reason why it comes across as such a deeply original work. Lanthimos pokes fun at certain commonalities of the modern romantic relationship, such as the notion that “birds of a feather flock together,” by utilizing the element of exaggeration. For instance, each character in the film has their singular unique characteristic. David is nearsighted, and thus is only interested in finding a woman who is nearsighted as well. The Limping Man (Ben Whishaw) pursues a woman who suffers from frequent nosebleeds, so in order to capture her attention and fool her into thinking that they are a match, he begins inflicting trauma on his nose, causing it to bleed when in her presence.

When I first saw Dogtooth, I praised it for its technical mastery: its carefully framed static shots, sharp editing and claustrophobic production design. Still, something held me back from fully embracing it, and looking back on the viewing experience now, I’m certain it was that I had a difficult time trying to figure out what it was saying about civilization. Its surreal and otherworldly, for sure, but what sort of comment is it trying to make about the human condition? It is indeed a tough egg to crack. The Lobster, on the other hand, is much more coherent (and dare I say accessible) in its satire. I don’t want to get ahead of myself, as I never thought I would be describing a Lanthimos film as accessible, but I definitely think people will have an easier time figuring out the meaning behind all of the madness here.

The technical elements of The Lobster are just as sound as those of Dogtooth, and aesthetically similar. The camera is almost perpetually static, and much attention is paid to the framing of certain shots, which is interesting because it allows the director to isolate aural elements such as off-screen noises that, though they cannot be seen, having a significant bearing on specific scenes. The musical score is jarring, but not in a negative way; I imagine it will be one of the first technical aspects that viewers take notice of, as its a loud and powerful score which makes itself known within the first few minutes. There isn’t much that I would change about The Lobster; if I was to suggest anything to the editors, it would be to pick out and remove certain scenes which might not seem as pertinent as others, for the film does exhaust a bit in its third act. Aside from that, it is a hilarious and biting critique of interpersonal relationships that is sure to appeal to a wider audience than Lanthimos’ previous works, and may bring him back into the limelight when award season rolls around.

Paolo Sorrentino, the director of last year’s Best Foreign Language Film Oscar, The Great Beauty, has revealed the cast and plot of his next film, The Early Years. According to the Hollywood Reporter, the film will star Michael Caine as a retired orchestra conductor who comes out of retirement at the request of the Queen.

Those who saw The Great Beauty know that Sorrentino has very good insights on wealthy artists aging, so this basic plot tease has a lot of potential. Though not much else is known about the film at this time, we can certainly expect a good mix of humor and drama, as well as a beautiful film, as it is being shot in the Alps of Switzerland. Sorrentino is also no stranger to English-language films, as he previously released This Must Be the Place, known as the film where Sean Penn looked a lot like Robert Smith and hunted down a Nazi.

The Early Years will co-star Rachel Weisz, Willem Dafoe, Jane Fonda, Harvey Keitel and Paul Dano — a fine ensemble cast filled with veterans of three different acting generations. The film is expected to be released in 2015.

From the highly praised director Fernando Meirelles (City of God) comes 360, a film that shows how decisions in life connect a group of strangers to each other. The film is about forks in the road and how your decision changes not only your path but others as well. In the end the film comes full circle, which is how the film gets its title 360.

360 is set in just about as many places as the amount of characters it contains. The common theme amongst the characters is romantic dilemmas that through one way or another connect the characters together. The first example of this is when a young Slovakian woman begins her work as a prostitute meets her first client Michael (Jude Law) who is cheating on his wife Rose (Rachel Weisz).

However, the best showing of the intersecting storyline is at the Denver airport. We see Laura (Maria Flor) who just broke up with her boyfriend who was cheating on her with Rose sit next to John (Anthony Hopkins) on the airplane. The two get to know each other and plan to meet for some drinks at restaurant in the airport once they find out that all flights have been cancelled due to weather. Waiting for John to get the hotel vouchers, Laura ends up meeting a man named Tyler (Ben Foster).

Tyler is a sex offender who recently had been released from six years in prison. He does not feel he is fit to be on the outside but his counselor believes he has rehabilitated enough to make it. Tyler legitimately wants to do the right thing. He makes a call to his counselor once he gets off the plane saying that he is still worried that his urges may be triggered. But that was before he met Laura, who ends up getting him to drink.

After Tyler’s counselor makes a call to the airport security to inform them of the public danger he imposes, an announcement is made over the airport speakers asking Tyler to report to the front desk. This announcement is heard right as John makes it back to the restaurant where he planned to meet Laura. But because he ended up taking too long Laura already met someone. Laura just wants attention after getting cheated on by her boyfriend but little does she know, the man she decides to flirt with is a sex offender.

I say the airport is the best example of the patchwork storyline because it shows these characters intersect in a small quarters of the airport. Not only that but it also has the most interesting set of characters. The reason why they may be the most interesting set is because we are given backgrounds on each of the three characters, which is something the film did not seem to always do.

From a technical stand point, the film is wonderfully done. The camera work is undeniably great. Shots that can fail if not done properly such as split screen shots or reflections of characters in mirrors were done wonderfully here. Sometimes Fernando Meirelles even combined split screen and mirror shots together.

In fact, there were many scenes where we see the character only from a mirror. Perhaps the meaning behind showing so many mirror shots was to show the duality of the character. The reflections physically show that there are two sides of each character. Much like a fork in the road, there are two separate choices.

In addition to the great composition of camera shots was superb film editing and acting. The editing work was often evident from the liberal use of blending transitions from scene to scene. And the ensemble cast was in top form thanks in part to; Jude Law, Ben Foster, Rachel Weisz, and Anthony Hopkins.

Even though the structure of the story has been done before (and done better such as in Magnolia), slowly revealing how strangers connect to one another, 360 was still enjoyable. The biggest problem with the film is that it goes into too much detail about the characters we do not care about and not enough in the characters we do. Which means at times you may find yourself looking at your watch and other times wishing the film showed more. 360 could not find the right balance between too much detail and not enough detail.