Movie Review ~ The Sound of Silence


The Facts
:

Synopsis: A successful “house tuner” in New York City, who calibrates the sound in people’s homes in order to adjust their moods, meets a client with a problem he can’t solve.

Stars: Peter Sarsgaard, Rashida Jones, Tony Revolori, Alex Karpovsky, Austin Pendleton, Bruce Altman

Director: Michael Tyburski

Rated: NR

Running Length: 85 minutes

TMMM Score: (3/10)

Review: I know it’s a horrible thing, environment-wise, but I miss the feel and smell of paper.  I especially had a fondness for receipts, the kind that were in a pad that you could write, rip, and hand off.  Feeling that slip of paper in your hand was such a enjoyable thing and the smell of the ink just put me in a comfort zone, like the aroma of an old book that has sat in a library for years.  Early on in the new film The Sound of Silence, a man gives his client a receipt like the one I mentioned and for a brief moment I was transported exactly to where these characters were in New York City.  I could see the apartment, understood the environment.  It all made sense.  All because of that one slip of paper that evoked such a strong memory in my mind.

It’s the first and last time I connected with the movie.

I could say the movie was one-note.  I could say the characters were off-key.  I might mention the script had pitch problems.  I’d offer the directing was a tad tuneless.  All puns I will refrain from using when discussing this languid tale of a man that specializes in finding what’s sonically out of alignment in your home and making adjustments to help you lead a happy life.  Based on a 17-minute short film that has been unevenly expanded to feature length by the original creators, it’s a somber sit that’s not made any easier by mannered performances that grate on the nerves.

Peter Lucian (Peter Sarsgaard, Jackie) is a character that can only exist in an indie movie set in NYC.  A rumpled tweed jacket-wearing specialist that has clients around the city needing his particular talents in sussing out what underlying tones might be giving them any sort of malady from anxiety to insomnia.  When he’s not performing tune ups, he’s searching the city for hot spots of ambient sound that he can record to corroborate his long gestating research project about urban soundscapes.  With his tuning forks in hand and ready to clang, he can be found in the park, on construction sites, or wherever the heart of the city beats greatest.  Though he longs to publish his work, he also can’t bring himself to completely share it with the world.  What’s worse, he eschews the oncoming corporatizing of the work he does as in independent contractor so he feels like his days as a big fish in a small pond are numbered.

His newest client, Ellen (Rashida Jones, The Grinch), calls on Peter to figure out why she can’t sleep at night.  Recently broken up from a long term relationship, she’s living in a rent-controlled apartment surrounded by memories of a partnership that’s over and a future that’s never going to happen.  Peter thinks she needs a new toaster.  The rest of us know that Ellen needs a new apartment.  For some reason (namely because writer Ben Nabors says so), Peter intrigues Ellen, even though he’s exhibited no charm or warmth toward her.  When her problems persist, the two start seeing more of each other so Peter can determine where his original analysis was wrong, while at the same time his research falls into the wrong hands and his fragile psyche begins to fall apart.

I wonder how much better the movie would have been with another actor cast in the lead role.  I’m normally a fan of Sarsgaard but not in this case.  He’s so glum and inward facing that there’s no room for audiences to get any insight into his character.  We don’t need to like Peter but we should at least get a sense of who he is and where he’s coming from.  The way Sarsgaard plays it, who would want to spend time with him or invest in his research?  Jones also is unnaturally muted, providing a flavorless take on a woman grieving a loss who bounces back with a total dullard.  In small supporting roles, Tony Revolori (The Grand Budapest Hotel), Austin Pendleton (Fiddler: Miracle of Miracles), Alex Karpovsky (Hail, Caesar!), and Bruce Altman (Fifty Shades Freed) at least seize their opportunity to make some sort of impression with their limited screen time.

For an 87-minute movie, The Sound of Silence feels about twice that length.  It’s a bad example of a NYC-set indie that has people moping around in earth tones always speaking in ‘inside voices’ and desperately wanting to be taken seriously.  I’m fairly sure the filmmakers have made up Peter’s profession but the kernel of an idea they have isn’t a bad one, it’s just that it never grows into something that’s more interesting than it’s thirty second elevator pitch.  The characters aren’t interesting or worth investing in and the movie doesn’t end as much as it merely stops.  Kind of like this review.

Movie Review ~ Jackie

1

jackie-poster
The Facts
:

Synopsis: Following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy fights through grief and trauma to regain her faith, console her children, and define her husband’s historic legacy.

Stars: Natalie Portman, Peter Sarsgaard, Greta Gerwig, John Hurt, Billy Crudup, Max Casella

Director: Pablo Larraín

Rated: R

Running Length: 100 minutes

Trailer Review: Here

TMMM Score: (9/10)

Review: I’ve found that the mention of the Kennedy clan is, at this point in American culture, met with either exhaustion or adulation.  Countless documentaries have been made over the years and it seems like a new and noteworthy book finds its way to shelves every other month.  That doesn’t even count the movies.  So, suffice it to say, the woes of the Kennedy’s are known and easily accessible to anyone that cares to investigate further.

So why Jackie and why now?  We’ve seen the first lady portrayed on screens big and small (and even on stage in a one-woman show) but we’ve never seen it quite like this before.  Taking a page from recent biopics that focus on one small window of time in the life of a historical figure, Jackie is an exceedingly engaging film that welcomes us to stare and gawk at the tragedy that changed the direction of our nation.

Jumping back and forth and around and through the events leading up to Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas and its aftermath, Noah Oppenheim’s screenplay pulls the attention away from the president to focus on Jackie herself and how her grief revealed a woman bolder and stronger than even her closest allies realized.  Chilean director Pablo Larraín may be an out of the box choice for this American as apple pie film but perhaps being un-enamored with the legendary Kennedy family was needed to tell this tale with such uprightness.

As Jackie, Natalie Portman (Thor: The Dark World) gives the performance of her career and gets my vote for Best Actress of 2016 for the way she buries herself in the role.  The funny thing is, you always know it’s Portman but you see and hear Jackie through and through.  I was worried that her pronounced Kennedy accent would be a distraction and, honestly, it is but mostly because no one else in the cast rises to the same level of technicality in their work.  Even so, the performance is bravely honest when it shows Jackie at her most brusquely direct and emotionally powerful when she lets her guard down and her sorrow bleeds through. Here is a woman that knew the power of media (visual and print) and made a point to stay in the public eye in the days after the assassination so no one would forget the price she and her children paid.  Though Portman is featured in gorgeous costumes and is always pristine (even when covered in blood), the performance lacks any kind of vanity.  Truly exceptional work is on display here.

With a leading role sketched with such skill, the supporting characters need to be on point too and for the most part Jackie’s support staff get the job done.  Greta Gerwig (Mistress America) is nicely understated as a White House staffer/confidant, Billy Crudup (Spotlight) plays a fictionalized reporter Oppenheim uses as a framing device and serves as the voice of the people, and John Hurt (Only Lovers Left Alive) turns up late in the film as a priest attending to Jackie’s questions of faith.  The only major disappointment is Peter Sarsgaard (The Magnificent Seven) sonorously taking on Bobby Kennedy with neither the accent, looks, or charm that is profoundly needed.  Sarsgaard sticks out like a sore, unconvincing thumb…especially in scenes featuring him with Jackie and JFK.

Along with Madeline Fontaine’s glorious costumes and Jean Rabasse’s beautifully articulate production design, Mica Levi (Under the Skin) has composed a most unusual and original score that you’re either going to love or hate.  Nearly always conveying a mood that is opposite to what is happening on screen, it gives another layer of depth to feature film about a family possessing public vs private personas that often are in competition with each other.

Audiences going to see another recreation of JFK’s assassination or conspiracy surrounding it are advised to steer clear as Jackie is about the woman behind the president and the storm she weathered behind closed White House doors while she remained strong in public for a nation in mourning

The Silver Bullet ~ Jackie

jackie-poster

Synopsis: Following the assassination of her husband, First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy fights through grief and trauma to regain her faith, console her children, and define her husband’s historic legacy.

Release Date: December 2, 2016

Thoughts: No matter how much people try to predict it, the Oscar season is always filled with twists and turns. A few months ago, Jackie wasn’t even on the radar for many pundits but it’s sneaking in at the last minute and could upset an already full Best Actress pool.  Oscar winner Natalie Portman’s (Thor: The Dark World) performance of the former first lady is getting raves but I’m already seeing the late night sketch shows parodying her Jackie accent. She’s dead-on with it, no question, but it takes a while to get used to. Co-starring Peter Sarsgaard (The Magnificent Seven), Greta Gerwig (Mistress America), Billy Crudup (Spotlight), and John Carroll Lynch (Hot Pursuit), look for Jackie to be part of the conversation as we move toward peak award season buzz.

Movie Review ~ The Magnificent Seven (2016)

magnificent_seven_ver3

The Facts:

Synopsis: Seven gun men in the old west gradually come together to help a poor village against savage thieves.

Stars: Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt, Ethan Hawke, Vincent D’Onofrio, Byung Hun Lee, Manuel Garcia Rulfo, Martin Sensmeier, Haley Bennett, Matt Bomer, Billy Slaughter, Vinnie Jones, Peter Sarsgaard

Director: Antoine Fuqua

Rated: PG-13

Running Length: 132 minutes

TMMM Score: (7.5/10)

Review: I have two things to admit right off the bat. I’ve never seen the original The Magnificent Seven from 1960 or, worse yet, Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai, the movie that inspired both films and countless other knockoff Westerns throughout the years. The second admission is that I’ve been wanting Oscar winner Denzel Washington (Flight) to lighten up a bit already…all of his movies are so serious, so steely, so tortured inside that it has me almost dreading every new film he’s headlining even though he’s one of our great working actors today. While Washington doesn’t quite achieve tranquility during the course of this remake, the actor does show some signs of a sense of humor in between the gunfire and exploding dynamite sticks.

The prologue sets the stage. It’s the 1870s and the town of Rose Creek has a problem whose name is Bartholomew Bogue (a typically ratty Peter Sarsgaard, Lovelace). Determined to buy up all the land in the area for 1/10 of what it’s worth, Bogue has staked his claim on Rose Creek and dares anyone to stand his way. Protected by a crooked town sheriff, Bogue and his army of gunslingers draws a line in the sand for the townsfolk; accept his low offer to purchase their plots of earth or suffer deadly consequences. Before the credits even begin, Bogue has struck down several strong-willed citizens (including an actor listed in the opening credits after he’s been killed) and prepares to return in three weeks to start rounding up and kicking out.

Rose Creek needs a savior, that’s why Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett, The Girl on the Train) offers bounty hunter Sam Chisolm (Washington) all the town has to offer in exchange for his protection. Taking her up on her proposition partly because he empathizes with her and partly to exorcise his own personal demons, he recognizes he can’t go up against Bogue alone and recruits a sextet of men as he makes his way back to Rose Creek. First up is wise talking gambler Josh Faraday (Chris Pratt, Jurassic World), as good with a gun as he is with a deck of cards. Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke, Boyhood) a longtime friend of Chisolm and former army sharpshooter now making a living off of managing the duels of the deadly Billy Rocks (Byung Hun Lee, I Saw the Devil). Vasquez (Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, Cake), a Mexican criminal on Chisolm’s wanted list is given a reprieve if he pitches in while Comanche Red Harvest (Martin Sensmeier) makes nice with Chisolm by chowing down on the heart of a freshly killed animal. Finally, we have Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio, Sinister) a soft spoken bear of a man that proves a dangerous person to underestimate.

Look, there’s a formula here and it’s shown to have worked for more than a century. Find someone that needs help, gather a rag-tag group of would-be heroes, and then let them loose in a fiery blaze of glory. It helps The Magnificent Seven that the heroes would likely be the bad guys of another movie but find themselves put to better use doing good. Working together they arm the town and stage some Home Alone-style booby traps that are a, ahem, blast.

At 132 minutes, it’s a long film but I found myself responding to it more than I thought I would. I love a good Western and while this won’t be remembered as any kind of classic I found it engaging and entertaining, two things we’ve had a serious lack of in 2016. It takes it’s time and maybe moseys when it should be sprinting but I didn’t seem to mind it and I think it’s largely due to the cast.

Director Antoine Fuqua (Olympus Has Fallen) teams up with Washington for the third time and clearly the two men have worked together enough to develop their own rhythm. Fuqua nudges Washington ever so slightly out of his run of stone-faced champion and gets the actor to feel his inner cowboy. Pratt’s role isn’t quite as challenging, largely being an extension of the good ole boy he’s played before. Hawke, too, turns in a performance that I wasn’t quite expecting. Robicheaux has some ticks and tricks that Hawke takes and runs with…much like D’Onofrio does with his odd, child-like lumberjack of a man. As the lone female, Bennett more than holds her own, stopping just short of going full on Linda Hamilton/Terminator 2 mode as the film reaches its pinnacle.

Pure popcorn entertainment with some great shots of canyons and dust bowls set to a purposeful score by the late James Horner, The Magnificent Seven doesn’t rise to the level of greatness its title implies. Still, there are far worse ways to spend your time at the movies and the cast makes it worth your while.

Movie Review ~ Lovelace

lovelace_ver4
The Facts
:

Synopsis: The story of Linda Lovelace, who is used and abused by the porn industry at the behest of her coercive husband, before taking control of her life.

Stars: Amanda Seyfried, Peter Sarsgaard, Sharon Stone, Juno Temple, Wes Bentley, Hank Azaria, Bobby Cannavale, Chris Noth, Robert Patrick, James Franco, Eric Roberts, Adam Brody, Chloe Sevigny,

Director: Rob Epstein, Jeffrey Friedman

Rated: R

Running Length: 92 minutes

TMMM Score: (4/10)

Review:  This is the type of review that you hope your parents don’t read…because then you’ll have to admit you’ve seen Deep Throat and, well, will Sunday brunch ever be the same again?  So Mom, if you’re reading this (and, let’s face it, you probably opted for another round of Candy Crush instead) just know that I have seen the infamous adult film that made porno mainstream…but I watched it under duress, I swear.

The star of Deep Throat was Linda Lovelace and she didn’t fit the mold of the adult film.  Pretty but not desirably beautiful, she had one particular talent that earned her the starring role and gave the film its title.  Though she only worked in the porn industry for a total of 17 days, her legend would live on but her story hasn’t been told on screen until now.

It’s too bad then that, as presented by Lovelace, her story isn’t all that interesting or intriguing.  Though it pulls a Rashomon-style switcheroo ¾ of the way through, the movie can’t make…um…head or tails of its starry cast or soapy subject matter.  Turns out that Linda Lovelace was either a) a willing participant that rolled with the punches or b) a victim of abuse forced into a life of drugs and prostitution by her smarmy husband.  The film wants us to feel sorry for Linda so the “b” option is presented in a more heavy-hitting fashion but so much time is spent on the set-up of the “a” option that you leave the movie not really sure of where the truth falls on the spectrum of history.

Credit should be given to all involved for taking care with the period aspects of the film set in the 70’s and early 80’s.  The production design is restrained and just tacky enough to let us know feathered hair and bell bottoms didn’t look all that bad on the right person.  Directors Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman come from the documentary world and one would think that they’d handle their narrative with a bit more efficiency and not as presentational as screenwriter Andy Bellin has made the biopic.

That leaves the cast to make some magic but strangely nothing seems to get their motors going.  Amanda Seyfried (Les Miserables) has some nice moments in the last half of the film when we finally get to see a more vulnerable side of Linda but up until that point it’s not a very grounded character for her to work with.  Though the role is undeniably one-dimensional, as Linda’s husband, Peter Sarsgaard (Blue Jasmine) has never met a creep he can’t play to the hilt and that’s true here.  The rest of the supporting cast really are simply brief cameos as the 92 minute film can’t accommodate so many familiar faces with jettisoning some of their scenes (they should be thankful…Sarah Jessica Parker filmed her role as Gloria Steinem only to be excised in the editing room).  It was nice to see Sharon Stone, albeit in an awful wig from a community theater production of Grease, as Linda’s tough, gruff mother.

It’s not the revealing biography that it’s intended to be and honestly I can’t say I took anything of value away from the movie.  Though it’s interesting to get a behind the scenes look about that particular time in film history (however blue the films were), Lovelace leaves the audience unfulfilled.

 

Movie Review ~ Blue Jasmine

blue_jasmine
The Facts
:

Synopsis: A life crisis causes a socialite to head to San Francisco, where she reconnects with her sister.

Stars: Alec Baldwin, Cate Blanchett, Bobby Cannavale, Louis C.K., Andrew Dice Clay, Sally Hawkins, Peter Sarsgaard, Michael Stuhlbarg

Director: Woody Allen

Rated: PG-13

Running Length: 98 minutes

Trailer Review: Here

TMMM Score: (9/10)

Review: I was pretty sure I was going to like Blue Jasmine for the mere fact that I didn’t enjoy Woody Allen’s previous film, 2012’s To Rome with Love.  Let me explain.  Like the Cohen Brothers, I tend to respond well to Allen’s projects about half the time because even a filmmaker as prolific as Allen tends to deliver a few snoozers along the way.  So after winning an Oscar for writing 2011’s Midnight in Paris it wasn’t a huge shock that I found To Rome with Love lacking.  Thankfully, Allen has returned stateside (the movie is set in San Francisco and New York City) for his latest work and it’s an absolute winner on every level.

A movie with shades of Tennessee Williams as filtered through Allen’s efficient dialogue, Blue Jasmine finds Allen on the tippy-top of his game with an assembled cast that is both surprising and surprisingly effective. 

I chuckled a bit when I saw that notorious comic Andrew Dice Clay was turning up in a supporting role but the comedian acquits himself nicely with a role that appears was written specifically for him.  Another comedian, Louis C.K., has a brief but enjoyable turn in a part that most surely would have been played by Allen himself were the director a few decades younger.  I normally find Alec Baldwin (Rock of Ages) to be an actor that colors his acting with broader strokes than necessary but here we find the actor at his most restrained and believable.  It felt like Baldwin took the time to craft this tricky character (only seen in flashbacks) from the ground up rather than pulling a performance from his wheelhouse to repurpose.

Sally Hawkins convincingly doffs her UK accent for an US one of indeterminate location (one minor quibble I did have was that everyone on the West Coast seemed to have an East Coast accent and vice versa) as she takes on a familiar role to anyone that is acquainted with Allen’s long list of family dramas.  She’s the put-upon sister that rolls with the punches and perhaps allows herself to be more of a punching bag than the audience would like.  Still, there’s a prideful dignity in the way she handles new changes in her life that contrasts nicely with Cate Blanchett as her acerbic sister.

Ah yes…Cate Blanchett.  If there’s any doubt remaining that Blanchett is one of the best actresses of her generation, it will be put to rest with her performance here.  We’ve seen these types of cluelessly delusional characters before (most recently in the awful Kristen Wiig film Girl Most Likely) and know that it takes a special kind of actress to take someone so unlovable and allow them to be loved for their faults.

Moving into her sister’s modest San Francisco apartment after her Ponzi-scheming husband loses their great fortune, Blanchett’s Jasmine is forced to start over again and get used to a much less lavish way of living.  She hilariously tries to school her sister on luxury living, starts taking community college computer classes, fends off the attention of an amorous employer, and attracts the attention of a suitor (Peter Sarsgaard, Robot & Frank) who might just be her savior.  In less skilled hands these vignettes could only be played for laughs and while many of these situations provide great humor they are all tinged with more than a little sadness.  Sadness for the past that can’t be replayed and for the future that is frighteningly unknown.

More than ever, I noticed the attention to detail in Blue Jasmine.  Allen’s films always have a nice sheen to them but this one just glows…whether it is in the vistas of California or the Park Avenue lavishness of Blanchett’s former life.  I especially loved Sonia Grande’s costume design…Blanchett has very little worldly possessions left and that includes her clothes.  Attentive viewers will notice she wears different combinations of the same half dozen articles of clothing she has…and manages to make each outfit look unique.  It’s a small touch that speaks volumes about the resourcefulness of the character…and also her need to make her outwardly put-together appearance cover up her inner turmoil.

Blanchett is rarely off screen and that’s fine and dandy.  In fact, it’s when she’s not the center of attention that the movie loses a little bit of air…which would probably please her character greatly.  The performance is razor sharp and the actress is in tune with everything going on around her – that’s thanks to Blanchett’s great instincts and the way that Allen has etched out her journey.  The film flies by and arrives at its conclusion with a certain grace not found in many mainstream movies today.  The ends that need to be tied off are complete but there’s more than a few loose strands that haunted me even now writing this review. 

This is a film that will surely land those involved in prime positions when award season comes around.  Blanchett is richly deserving of an Oscar nomination as is Allen’s wonderful script and direction.  The picture itself should find its way to the Oscar list of Best Picture nominees so it’s safe to say that this is a must-see.  It’s damn good.

The Silver Bullet ~ Blue Jasmine

blue_jasmine

Synopsis: A life crisis causes a woman to head to San Francisco, where she reconnects with her sister.

Release Date: July 26, 2013

Thoughts: You’ve got to hand it Woody Allen.  Arguably the most prolific filmmaker working today, Woody has managed to write and direct one film each year for the last several decades and it’s a credit to his eye and ear that he continues to create interesting pieces.  That’s not to say his annual deliveries are all gems because the large majority of them I find to be harmless but exceedingly slight baubles.  Nevertheless,  every now and then he knocks it out of the park.  After winning an Oscar for Midnight in Paris two years ago he stumbled with the miscast and ho-hum From Rome with Love.  This year he’s back in the US for Blue Jasmine and if the trailer is any indication audiences are in for a nice change of pace.  Cate Blanchett looks award-worthy as does Sally Hawkins as her put-upon sister.  Don’t judge a Woody Allen movie by its trailer though because if history is any indication there’s more to this set-up than meets the eye.

Movie Review ~ Robot & Frank

The Facts:

Synopsis: Set in the near future, an ex-jewel thief receives a gift from his son: a robot butler programmed to look after him. But soon the two companions try their luck as a heist team.

Stars: Frank Langella, Susan Sarandon, James Marsden, Liv Tyler, Peter Sarsgaard,

Director: Jake Schreier

Rated: PG-13

Running Length: 89 minutes

Trailer Review: Here

TMMM Score: (9/10)

Review

It really is the quiet ones that sneak up on you.  From the preview of Robot & Frank, I was guessing that the film itself would be a blip on my radar in the grand movie-going scheme of things.  Good buzz propelled me to see it opening weekend and I’m so glad I did.  Now, I have more time to spread the word about the film and encourage others to take it in as well.  What on the surface appears to be a Driving Miss Daisy-esque film with a cranky old-timer rebelling against the services forced upon him by his offspring is really a rare film of integrity and surprising heart.

Set in the near future but looking quite similar to the world we live in today, the film opens with Frank (Langella) and his daily routine.  With his rumpled attire and his set-in-his-way gait, we quickly pick up that he lives alone and likes it.  He spends his days in the upper NYC hamlet he calls home trudging into town to flirt with the librarian (Sarandon) and shoplifiting some items from a local store.  Gradually we learn that Frank’s become more forgetful lately and shows early signs of Alzheimer’s. 

That’s when Robot comes into his life courtesy of his son (Marsden) but against the wishes of his human rights minded daughter (Tyler).  Programmed to keep him active and healthy, Frank resists the Robot until naturally he can’t any longer.  It’s only when Robot accidentally gets a five finger discount on something that retired cat burglar Frank starts to feel like his old self again. 

That’s more of a plot description than I normally like to give but it’s key to have that groundwork for what’s to come next.  The film doesn’t so much change gears as it just chooses a different fork in the road that we didn’t notice originally.  The symbolism of a man losing his memory working with a robot who can easily be reformatted is not lost on the viewer or Frank.  As acceptance of the future starts to set in for all of our characters a new, more poignant film is revealed that’s quite impressive. 

I’ve always found Langella to be a bit inaccessible as an actor as he is mostly cast in aloof roles.  In Robot & Frank, this coolness works in his favor.  Frank (the character) sees what’s happening to him and begins to pull away from the world either out of fear or pride and it’s only when he starts to regain his old spirit that he warms.  It’s one of Langella’s best performances, understated and nuanced and played to perfection.

Marsden and Tyler also do strong work as his children who approach their father’s declining health from different points of view.  Marsden plays a family man who is trying to be there for his kids like his dad wasn’t there for him.  Moving into the role of caregiver, he brings Robot to his dad not as a way to remove burden from him, but as a way to give some peace of mind.  Tyler’s character strongly opposes the use of advanced technology and struggles to do right by her dad while still providing him the same care Robot does.  Both actors have great familial chemistry with Langella and each other.

I could go on and on about my continued admiration for Sarandon in every role she touches.  Already scoring strong in 2012 with her sensitive work in Jeff Who Lives At Home, she too turns a secondary character into one with a lot of heart and authenticity.  As her past is revealed slowly throughout the film I marveled at the way she took control of her seemingly innocuous librarian and made her flesh and blood.  Langella and Sarandon are pros and you’ll know what I mean after you see the film.

In the pivotal role of Robot, first time director Schreier wisely chose to eschew any CGI work by using an actress (Rachel Ma) to portray Robot onscreen and cast Sarsgaard as the robot’s calming voice.  In his soothing delivery, there are echoes of HAL2000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey but that’s where the similarities end.  Both performers are key to the success of the interactions onscreen between Frank and Robot with Ma making the movements believable and Sarsgaard holding steady as the stolid marvel.

An unobtrusive but lingering score by Francis and the Lights and beautifully detailed cinematography by Mathew J. Lloyd all work in conjunction with Schreier’s touching direction of Christopher Ford’s script.  There’s a lot to say about progress, memory, aging, and family and it’s all delivered in a manner that never feels false.  It could have been easy to make the future world look more tech-heavy but instead the lower budget may have worked in its favor with only a few slight upgrades to items you’ll believe will have advanced that far in the next decade.

At only 89 minutes, the film feels like an early Christmas gift that’s waiting to be unwrapped.  Thanks to spot-on performances and a delicate third act, I was so impressed with what I was seeing onscreen.  Like The Intouchables before it, this is one of the most moving films I’ve seen in 2012 and recommend it highly.