ONLY LOVERS LEFT ALIVE Is a Vampire Movie You Can Sink Your Teeth Into

ONLY LOVERS LEFT ALIVE Review:

- A Jim Jarmusch-directed vampire movie? Not something I ever expected to see ... which is exactly what makes this one such a unique and fascinating film. It is about vampires, yes, but it's still unmistakably Jarmusch. That means long, lingering shots, a methodical and hypnotic pace, and a slice-of-life perspective that's less about plot, and more about simply immersing us in the world of these characters. A slice-of-life vampire flick - have we ever seen *that* before? ONLY LOVERS LEFT ALIVE is like Before Sunrise, if the title was taken to mean something only slightly different. This is a film centered around conversation, observation, and little moments that add up to something that is, ultimately, pretty mesmerizing. It probably shouldn't work ... but with some self-aware humor, an absolutely fantastic cast, and a dark rock n' roll vibe that sucks you in and never loses its groove, this feels like a definitive take on vampires - taking its place in the cannon of all-time-great bloodsucker movies.

I'm guessing a lot of people will be curious about this one due to its leading-man turn from perpetual Marvel movie badguy Tom Hiddleston. I'm a fan of Hiddleston's great work as Loki in Thor and The Avengers, but his work here cemented him, to me, as a 100% real-deal movie star. He pretty much just owns every frame that he appears in, turning in a transfixing, commanding, morbidly funny performance as reclusive vampire rock-star Adam. Again, what makes the character work so well is that even though Adam is dark and brooding, Hiddleston plays him with a slight wink, allowing the film to sort of have fun with Adam's relentless gloominess. I will also add to the chorus of people who, after seeing this film, came away convinced that Hiddleston might just need to play the lead in the eventual Sandman movie, as his character here seems like a definite riff on Neil Gaiman's Morpheus (and in fact, there's a very heavy Sandman vibe to the entire film). Much like The Sandman, Adam has been around for centuries - often in the company of great artists and inventors, from Byron to Tesla. Adam laments the state of the modern world - living in Detroit, content to be an undead creature in a dying city. He spends his nights working on music, which he records and releases anonymously. His isolated house is filled with old books, old instruments, old machinery - that he jury-rigs to power his home, allowing him to stay off the grid. He has an arrangement with a doctor at a local hospital, whom he pays in exchange for regular vials of blood, without which he'd starve.

Adam is married to Eve (clearly, no subtlety in Jarmusch's character names), played in similarly gripping fashion by Tilda Swindon. Eve is much older than Adam, but still seems to find wonder in the world, whereas he tends to wallow in misery. When the movie starts, Eve is spending time in Tangier, hanging out with her friend and fellow vamp Marlowe (John Hurt). However, when Eve decides to go to Detroit to be with her husband again, she has to contend with an Adam who seems all but defeated by the burden of his immortality. What's interesting is how Eve again inspires Adam to look at the world with fresh eyes, and how the bond between the two continues to flourish even as time marches on.

The heart of the film lies in the small scenes between Adam and Eve. As the two visit old haunts, discuss politics, music, and art, and just generally hang out, there's a great back-and-forth rhythm to their dialogue. This isn't rapid-fire banter, but instead a sort of stark, hypnotic shorthand between two (very) old friends. As the film goes on, there's no explosive plot development that suddenly changes everything, but instead, a series of seemingly small events that all seem to portend a shift in the long lives of these two characters. The first major disruption is the arrival of Eve's wild-child sister, Ava (Mia Wasikowska), whose erratic behavior quickly screws up Adam's carefully-constructed life. Things continue to spiral from there, and soon Adam is forced to make some major decisions about his future.

The movie doesn't have a large cast, but aside from Hiddleston and Swindon (like I said, both phenomenal), the film is filled out by top-notch supporting players. Wasikowska is playing very against-type as Ava, but she absolutely nails the sort of walking-embodiment-of-chaos that the character represents. John Hurt is excellent as the aged vampire Marlowe - who, we learn, was in fact the brains behind Shakespeare's works, but who, like Adam, had to toil in anonymity so as not to reveal his true nature. Anton Yelchin is unrecognizable - but quite good and very amusing - as Ian, a stoned-out rocker who makes a living as Adam's assistant, paid to keep mum about his boss' secret life. Finally, Jeffrey Wright makes the most of his few scenes as Adam's blood-providing associate, a nervous doctor who can only sort of shake his head in bemusement at the insane situation he's found himself in.

The movie's visuals are constantly striking. Jarmusch's camera moves deliberately through the dark ruins of Detroit, as well as through the narrow, ancient corridors of Tangier. Both cities reflect on our main characters: Detroit lies in apocalyptic ruin, a dead city, like our dead vampires. Tangier is old and timeless - it too, reflects an aspect of Adam and Eve. Jarmusch's visuals, matched with the film's droning goth-rock score, often create a sort of hypnosis. In a way, ONLY LOVERS LEFT ALIVE is just one big drug movie - except here, the drug isn't booze, or heroin, or cocaine ... but blood. Much of the movie is about the need to feed - and Jarmusch takes us down the proverbial rabbit hole as Adam, Eve, and Ava fight and indulge their compulsive urges. Stylistically, the movie is almost a throwback in some ways. I suppose its whole gothy aesthetic comes off as very 90's - certainly a flashback of sorts to the decade of The Sandman, The Crow, Kurt Cobain, Nine Inch Nails, and Marilyn Manson. But hey, if that particular aesthetic floats your boat, you'll be in goth heaven. The movie is replete with pale-faced, English-accented rock n' roll vampires hanging out in dank clubs and brooding to the sounds of industrial guitar chords. It's like Jarmusch is on one big nostalgia kick for the pre-Twilight days when vampires were portrayed as punk-rock misfits as opposed to sparkly teen idols. Again, it would all be sort of funny, except the movie fully acknowledges the inherent absurdity of all of this.

For all of its sly nods and self-aware winks, however, I came away struck by just how oddly profound the movie ultimately is. This is a film that is relatively small in scale, but that has a ton to say about the human condition and the world we live in. While the film might seem ambling at times, it really comes together in the end in a way that brings everything full-circle. This is a movie about finding art and beauty and love in an often bleak and dark world, and about recognizing and embracing the rays of light that shine through in the darkness. The vampires in ONLY LOVERS LEFT ALIVE have seen a lot of bad stuff go down through the years, and their very blood-sucking existence is one of violence and addiction. And yet, they are sort of like the world's oldest cultural critics - appearing in the various corners of the world and seeking out the great thinkers, the great musicians, and the great innovators of various ages. Guess immortality has its perks.

And so, the film becomes an unlikely source of inspiration - an ode to art and music and literature and appreciating all of the things that humans are capable of. The vampires in the film condescendingly refer to humans as "zombies," (they are, after all, the walking dead ...), but they also can't help but be drawn to the exceptional people and things in the world - past and present. Jarmusch's film is knowingly over-the-top at times, slyly funny, clever, and darkly hypnotic. It's a thought-provoking, captivating walk on the wild side.

My Grade: A-

THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE Is Bigger, Better, But Still Lacking Some Spark

THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE Review:

- There's a lot to like about THE HUNGER GAMES. Unlike some of its teen-lit inspired peers, this is a franchise that has a beating heart beneath its attractive leads and soap opera love triangles. This is a franchise that actually has an interesting sci-fi narrative, and that isn't afraid to mix in some legitimate social commentary between all the teen drama. On top of that, this is a franchise that has perhaps the single best young actress working today as its lead, and it can't be understated just how much star Jennifer Lawrence brings to these films, and how she shapes Katniss into a true female-empowerment icon, a direct middle finger to all those who say a female action hero can't carry a major Hollywood franchise. Lawrence, with her top-notch action chops, carries the weight of Catching Fire on her shoulders, although here the burden is slightly less than in the first film. Now, she's helped by great new cast additions like Philip Seymour Hoffman, Jeffrey Wright, and Jena Malone.

Still, as much as I want to get fully onboard the Hunger Games bandwagon, I just can't fully commit. Why? Because the movies have yet to be great. Lawrence alone gets them halfway there, and Catching Fire director Francis Lawrence (I Am Legend) brings some visual wow-factor to the table that wasn't present previously. A beefed-up supporting cast also helps this sequel feel like a notch above the first film. But a couple of problems prevent Catching Fire from being, in and of itself, an A-level movie.

One major issue: adaptation-itis. Yep, you heard me. This is yet another book-to-screen translation that feels jumpy, incomplete, and hyper-compressed. The hyper-compression factor is lessened by the fact that actors like Malone and Wright are able to do so much with such relatively miniscule screentime - making their characters feel fully realized by sheer presence and force of will. But what suffers is that, even as the movie seems to want to go big, to show us the larger effect that the Games are having on this world ... it still feels like a very narrowly-focused story, to the detriment of the narrative. THE HUNGER GAMES is all about Katniss' experience in the games - about a teen girl thrust into this kill-or-be-killed gladiatorial scenario. But CATCHING FIRE is about the aftermath - the seeds of revolution being planted. It's about, in theory, Katniss no longer being just a reactive contestant, but a proactive revolutionary. Cool? Yeah, very cool. But between the poorly thought-out plans of President Snow (Donald Sutherland) - whose schemes to make Katniss a symbol of the government's might seem doomed from the start - and the lack of visibility we get into the reactions of the average person-on-the-street in Pan Em, it feels like we're missing something here.

I'll first touch on the scheming that takes place between Snow and his new gamesmaster, Plutarch Heavensbee (Seymour Hoffman). They plan to create a sort of all-star version of The Hunger Games that would see still-alive past winners of the games compete in yet another every-man-for-himself (and every-woman-for-herself) deathmatch. This is the catalyst that forces Katniss and Peeta back into the fray, cutting short their extended good-will tour after the previous year's Games. While touring the various Districts, the two had to pose as a couple to match the expectations of Snow, and of the adoring populace - who sees them as symbols of a coming revolution. Even though Katniss and Peeta play their roles well, and don't do or say anything too incendiary, they still manage to show glimmers of rebellion, and also don't necessarily do anything to discourage the growing cult of personality developing around them. But here's where things get a little nonsensical ... basically, the movie makes Snow seem like a total moron. First, he keeps Katniss and Peeta in the public eye despite being revolutionary symbols. Then he and Plutarch plan to distract from the politics around the two by making them into tabloid celebrities, using their mouthpiece, talk show host Ceaser Flickerman (Stanley Tucci), to distract the populace. But then, Snow agrees to cut his own plan short in order to go ahead with the all-star Hunger Games, essentially condemning the world's two most popular celebrities to death, in addition to dozens of other past winners who were nearly as beloved. And the point of this is ... what, exactly? Yes, Snow wants to squash the hope of the people and show his strength ... but throwing Katniss and Peeta into another battle royale feels pretty half-baked. And you have to wonder - why doesn't every character follow the example of punk-rock Games entrant Johanna Mason and use the forum of Ceaser's talk show to give a hearty "f-you!" to Snow and his government?

And that leads me the second point, which is that it feels like we're watching all of this in a vacuum. The first part of the film does a nice job of showing us the rank-and-file residents of Pan Em, and their hopeful reactions towards the touring Katniss and Peeta. But once the Games start, we go dark. To be honest, I wasn't even sure if citizens were watching / were able to watch or follow the Games via Ceaser's show. The movie never really tells us. So all the build-up that's in the first half of the film - about the peoples' march towards revolution, is completely left by the wayside in the second hour.

As for the Games themselves, they are much more visually exciting this go-round, thanks to Francis Lawrence's more dynamic direction. But the fundamental problem is the same as in Part 1 - the way the Games play out lack the kind of tension and moral ambiguity that a battle-to-the-death should have. The whole point of these Games is to force the combatants to shed humanity and morality and kill in order to survive. But Katniss, and Peeta, and every other "good" character in the film never really does anything objectionable. In Part 1, okay, love conquers all. But the way the Games play out here, it might as well just be Team Good vs. Team Evil. I feel like the real truth at the heart of these Games - that ultimately, in theory at least, someone is going to have to murder many innocent people in order to win - is always sort of avoided. It's like the movie is hiding its own premise in the name of being a blockbuster-movie-for-the-masses.

All that being said, CATCHING FIRE is still a very entertaining yarn that hits the big, dramatic beats with much more aplomb than its predecessor. Katniss gets to be the badass action hero here thanks to some applause-worthy scenes, where Frances Lawrence really depicts her as a fully-formed action hero. A training sequence that shows off her archery skills against an onslaught of virtual opponents is one of the movie's best scenes. Later, Jennifer Lawrence gets a big hero moment, as she brings the Games to a climactic finish with a desperate arrow-to-the-sky moment that left my theater clapping hysterically. Basically, Lawrence makes this film feel much more effortlessly big and epic than the first. The Districts feel more populated, the sets feel bigger and better, and the stakes, also, feel much more elevated. Even though I complained about the movie often feeling like its story plays out in a vacuum, there's still a pervading sense of bigness to it all (or maybe it's partially just the knowledge that events here will segue directly into a presumably even *more* epic Part 3).

Again, Jennifer Lawrence is the anchor. The movie isn't Oscar caliber, but her acting is. She sells every moment to perfection, brilliantly depicting the horror and the agony of being forced back into these Games - and she transitions seamlessly from drama to action to romance to levity. Speaking of romance, this is where the movie does fall into some of the same traps as Part 1. Peeta is a little more tolerable here than before, and Josh Hutcherson does a decent job of making him seem a little more worthy of Katniss' affections. But he's still sort of a boring/bland character. Worse is Liam Hemsworth's Gale - devoid of much in the way of personality, he's a forgettable character seemingly only in the picture to give the story its requisite love-triangle.

But like I said, CATCHING FIRE is pretty stacked with talent, new and old. Jena Malone, as mentioned, is a huge highlight. Her character lends the movie a much-needed dosage of attitude, and the character's gritty, semi-nihilistic nature is a welcome change of pace (and seemingly, much more fitting to the story's violent premise) than the other more cartoonish goofballs who populate Pan Em. Jeffrey Wright is another guy who's always fantastic, and I liked the idea of his character, Beetee (for the love of god, is there any franchise out there with *worse* character names?!), lame name and all, as a man of science who thrives in the games via elaborately-constructed traps. Finally, Phillip Seymour Hoffman is a guy whose mere presence lends gravitas to a film, and he makes Plutarch into probably a way better character than he's got any right to be. The movie doesn't give us much to go on in terms of what makes Plutarch tick, but it's okay, because Hoffman is good enough to fill in the gaps with his acting. Sam Claflin also makes a strong impression as a Games entrant who has more to him than meets the eye. Claflin is an MVP of many of the film's big set-piece action scenes, and is another welcome addition.

On the action scenes, Francis Lawrence directs some pretty intense sequences - a few in the Districts before the Games begin, and several that are part of the Games themselves. Highlights include killer mist and rabid killer monkeys (that's right) - each a suitably scary threat, and each useful as a way to distinguish these Games from the previous film's. 

CATCHING FIRE, on its own, is entertaining and action-packed. And the talent behind and in front of the camera is (mostly) good enough to elevate the material. But these movies are still just a bit frustrating, because they feel like they approach greatness, but don't quite knock it out of the park. The Hunger Games has a great, iconic hero in Katniss, and a strong central premise. But the details don't feel properly filled-in or thought out, and there's still too much that feels sandwiched into the story so as to properly conform to teen-lit convention (what, really, does Gale add to the story, for example?). CATCHING FIRE touches on some really cool big-ideas, the stuff of great speculative and science-fiction, the kind of stuff that comments and satirizes our own society. And there are glimpses of that social satire here that are actually pretty great (at the giant pre-Games feast in the Capitol, the elite down a drink that causes one to expunge the food in their system, thus allowing them to indulge in even more food - even as people just outside are starving). Perhaps what I'm getting at is that all of the movie's really cool, challenging, or even subversive impulses seem to get drowned out by the need to be a billion-dollar PG blockbuster. There's a dark heart at the core of THE HUNGER GAMES, but these movies seem unwilling or afraid to really go to that place, to go all the way. Maybe some of that is just lost in translation from the books, maybe some is just inevitable in the world of big-budget movies. But there's also a certain irony here. After all, isn't it the film's sinister President Snow who tries to distract the populace from the real issues via soap-opera romance and celebrity tabloid gossip? By this same token, CATCHING FIRE at times seems too distracted to fully explore the real-deal issues at its core.

My Grade: B