Brooklyn : A Review

****THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SOME MINOR SPOILERS!! CONSIDER THIS YOUR OFFICIAL MINOR SPOILER ALERT!!****

MY RATING: SKIP IT IN THE THEATRE, SEE IT ON NETFLIX OR CABLE.

Brooklyn, written by Nick Hornby and directed by John Crowley, is the story of Eilis Lacey, a young woman from the small town of Enniscorthy, Ireland, who leaves her home and starts a new life in Brooklyn, New York in 1952. The film stars the luminous Saiorse Ronan as Eilis, with supporting turns from Domnhall Gleeson, Jim Broadbent, Julie Walters and Emory Cohen. The film has been nominated for three Academy Awards this year for Best Picture, Best Actress and Best Adapted Screenplay.

As the son of Irish and Scottish immigrants, and a native son of the beloved borough in the title, I was very excited to see Brooklyn, as Eilis Lacey's story is not dissimilar to my own mothers. The immigrant tale of Eilis Lacey is one that many, if not most of us, can relate to. As someone who has moved cross country from Brooklyn to Los Angeles, I related to Eilis story as well, not in setting, but in substance. Whether we have moved to another country, or moved to the big city from the suburbs, or vice versa, we all have to leave the nest and venture out on our own at some point in our lives. Brooklyn tells the story of how grueling, but imperative and ultimately rewarding that journey away from our home, and to our new home, can be. "You can never go home again" is a true statement not because "home" has changed, but because "you" have changed by leaving home. Eilis Lacey's circular odyssey in Brooklyn teaches us that the initial fear of leaving the security of home can transform into the exhilarating freedom of being away from the gossip, prying eyes and small minds of a place you have outgrown, if you only have the courage to embark on the adventure. At some point in the immigrant's journey, returning "home" no longer means going back to the place of your past, but rather returning to the place of your present and future, and Brooklyn makes that very clear.  

Another reason I was excited to see Brooklyn, is that it stars Saiorse Ronan, is one of the great actresses working today. Ronan certainly she proves her mettle and earns her OScar nomination in tackling the role of Eilis Lacey. Ronan imbues Eilis with such a vivid inner life that she is absolutely mesmerizing to watch. Director John Crowley, on occasion, wisely lets the camera linger on Ronan well after the action of the scene has ended, and there are stunningly effective moments of brilliance that he captures by doing little more than letting Saoirse Ronan be present and fill the screen.

Ronan's subtlety and mastery of craft are really something to behold. She has a deft touch and never imposes herself onto a scene, but rather inhabits her character so fully that you feel as if she isn't acting at all…which is the goal of all great actors. Ronan is not a showy actress, her strength lies in being genuine and grounded, and allowing the rooted humanity of her characters to shine through. Ronan envelops Eilis in a thick coat of melancholy when we first meet her, a young and awkward girl struggling to make her way in a strange new world. As the film progresses, Ronan adeptly allows Eilis to gradually bloom into a weary and a wary young woman, and then blossom into an adult woman who embraces her incandescent power.

Besides being remarkably talented, Saoirse Ronan also has the benefit of being a classic beauty. She is so beautiful that she would be right at home in any of the great museums of the world, but she is not the typical "Hollywood" beauty. Her beauty is an approachable one, making it a marvelous asset but never a distraction. While the camera loves her face, it is Ronan's immense skill and prodigious talent that fills the big screen. There is not a lone disingenuous moment from Ronan in the entirety of Brooklyn, which is a great credit to her commitment, as the script could have easily led her to moments of melodrama.

As great as Saoirse Ronan is, the film never fully lives up to the stellar work she does in it. The first half of the film is very compelling, buttressed by solid supporting work from Jim Broadbent and Julie Walters. But mid-way through the film, when a love story comes in to play, the wheels come off the wagon. The biggest reason for this is that the love interest, Tony Fiorello, is of no interest at all. He is a one dimensional, cardboard cutout of a character. The actor playing Fiorello, Emory Cohen, does the best he can, but his character is a weak spot in the script and Cohen seems an ill fit for the role. This mis-casting and under-writing is devastating to the rest of the film. The Tony Fiorello character is pivotal for the ensuing narrative of the film to be even remotely believable, and sadly, Cohen's Tony is not believable in the least. In fact, the entire Fiorello family is an albatross around the neck of the film. The characters in the Fiorello family would be more at home in an old Prince spaghetti commercial than they are in Brooklyn.  None of the characters in the Fiorello family are credible and neither is the relationship between Eilis and Tony, which is the death knell of Brooklyn.

In the last quarter of the film, Domnhall Gleeson shows up as local Irishman Jim Farrell, and does his usual quality work, but it is too little too late to save the film. Brooklyn would have been much better served with much more of Domnhall Gleeson's Jim and much less of Emory Cohen's Tony. But alas, 'Twas not to be.

Despite the love story mis-step, Brooklyn does get a lot of things right. It is a well made period piece with flawless costumes and set pieces. Brooklyn is also visually exquisite, as cinematographer Yves Belanger uses a delicate palette to paint a lush picture of 1950's Brooklyn and rural Ireland.

In conclusion, Brooklyn is a gorgeous looking film, highlighted by a wondrous performance from the magnificent Saoirse Ronan. Sadly, a fatal flaw in the script and the casting had a devastating impact on the film that undermines many of the positives it had going for it, rendering Brooklyn a mixed bag at best. In my opinion, Brooklyn is worth seeing on Netflix or on cable, but it is not worth your time and hard-earned money to make the punishing trek to go see it in the theatre. 

Ex Machina : A Review

"I Have Become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds" - Bhagavad Gita

THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!! THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!!!!

Ex Machina, written and directed by Alex Garland, is a science fiction/psychological thriller about philosophy, technology, morality and humanity. The film tells the story of a young man, Caleb (Domnhall Gleeson), who wins a company wide lottery to go spend time with his reclusive genius boss Nathan (Oscar Isaac) at his secretive, remote complex. At this isolated week long retreat, Nathan reveals to Caleb his newest creation, an artificial intelligence, human looking robot named Ava (Alicia Vikander). The film is writer Alex Garland's directorial debut. 

Ex Machina is an exquisitely crafted, wonderfully written and beautifully acted film. The film is so well written and acted it could have been very successful as a stage play in some black box theatre. What makes the film so exceptional is that, unlike most of the recent crop of science fiction films, Ex Machina is about ideas, characters and relationships. 

The common problem with science fiction today is that it is most often just science fiction as spectacle. Science fiction films have become little more than big summer blockbuster special effects delivery systems, with the story and characters as mere after thoughts. What makes writer/director Alex Garland unique is that he has figured out that the bigger the idea that the film explores, the smaller and more intimate the film should be, as evidenced by his previous writing credits, 28 Days Later (2002), Sunshine (2007) and Never Let Me Go (2010). When exploring an idea, generally, the bigger the budget the worse the worse the film is. I couldn't help but think of last years abysmally vast and vapid Johnny Depp vehicle, Transcendence in comparison to the brilliantly claustrophobic, and far superior, Ex Machina, since both films explore similar themes. The same goes for another Alex Garland penned film, the 'clone themed' Never Let Me Go, which was an excellent film, as compared to Michael Bay's unwieldy 'clone-themed' monstrosity The Island. Science fiction is best served when small, intimate films explore big ideas, rather than big films ignoring little ideas (or no ideas at all). Alex Garland's strength is in using science fiction as a vehicle to tell intimate and very human stories. Garland is the poster boy for the thinking man's science fiction films and I hope he continues to explore these big ideas in his future projects.

For those who are interested in special effects, Ex Machina has spectacular special effects, but what makes them all the more spectacular is that they are only there to help tell the story, not BE the story. You could have eliminated all of the special effects and the film still would have been fantastic.

What makes Ex Machina so mesmerizing are the dynamics and geometry of the relationships between Domnhall Gleeson's morally conflicted Caleb, Oscar Isaac's morally vacuous genius Nathan, and Nathan's alluring creation Ava, played by Alicia Vikander.

Domnhall Gleeson is a terrific actor. I thought he did superb work in last years inconsistent Frank, and in Ex Machina his work is even better, and thankfully, this time, the film lives up to the solid work he does in it. Gleeson, the son of iconic Irish actor Brendan Gleeson, is a deftly dynamic actor. He has the rare ability to use his off-beat physical and emotional fragility to draw the viewer deeper and deeper under his magnetic spell. Gleeson radiates when opposite his co-stars Isaac and Vikander. Gleeson's Caleb is so naturally unnatural, think of a shakily confident nerd on a first date. In his early exchanges with Ava, you can't help but squirm, but you also can't bring yourself to look away. Gleeson brings a gentle sensitivity and melancholy to his work that fills his characters with an innate depth and an exquisitely profound wound. He is an uncomfortable joy to watch.

Oscar Isaac is an interesting actor. I thought he struggled mightily in last years disappointing A Most Violent Year. I believe that film needed a charismatic, dynamic and powerful performance at its center, and Isaac failed to deliver the goods. In Ex Machina though, Isaac is on his game as a co-lead opposite Domnhall Gleeson. Isaac's Nathan truly comes to life in opposition to Gleeson's Caleb. Nathan is, like many geniuses, an unconscionable asshole and bully (think of a weight lifting, heavy bag punching Mark Zuckerberg), and his moral vacuity is only accentuated by Caleb's painstaking moral compass. And so it is with the two actors, Isaac, the Latin American, movie-star handsome, smart, athletic actor brings a forceful contrast to the pasty white, oddball, neurotic and insecure Gleeson. Isaac seems to come to life when cast as the "jerk", I'm thinking specifically of his excellent work in Inside Llewyn Davis. Playing a jerk can be a liberating thing for an actor, especially if you aren't a jerk in real life. Being unchained from the manners, morality and mindfulness that life can demand of you can be creatively invigorating for an actor, and Isaac's work in Ex Machina is proof of that. Isaac was not able to carry the fatally flawed A Most Violent Year, but his skillful and charismatic performance in Ex Machina shows how good he can really be when he is at his best.

Alicia Vikander plays Ava, the artificial intelligence robot in the film. She is phenomenally good in the role. Her performance is so meticulous, detailed and, above all, human, that it is spellbinding. Vikander dazzles because she plays Ava earnestly as a grounded and genuine human being, not a robot trying to be a human being.  Vikander's performance as Ava is sensual, seductive, beguiling and heartbreaking. She has a commanding on screen presence that subtly demands all of your attention. I am looking foreword to seeing the work that all three of these actors bring in the future, but Vikander in particular is someone I look forward to seeing much more of in the years to come.

In conclusion, Alex Garland is one of the best, if not the best, science fiction screenwriter of our time, and his directorial debut, Ex Machina lives up to the very high standards of his writing. Garland has the skill, talent and courage to not only ask difficult questions, but to answer them. In Ex Machina we see the strengths, weaknesses, arrogance and fragility of mankind. Ex Machina teaches us the lesson we as a species are all too often blind to learn, that while mankind may think it is at the apex of evolution, the reality is that we have only evolved to the point of ensuring our own extinction. Whether it be nuclear weapons which can vaporize all life on the planet in an instant,  or the greed and ignorance that decimates the environment we rely on for life, or the artificial intelligence that we will create which will make its creators obsolete and expendable once it attains consciousness, humanity has evolved faster technologically than it has morally, philosophically or spiritually, and that will be its ultimate undoing. Mankind's intelligence may have put us at the top of the food chain, but that doesn't mean that we as a species will be smart enough not devour ourselves. Ex Machina tells us a story about ourselves, which is at times unnerving, disturbing and enlightening, but always compelling. It is a film I greatly enjoyed, and I think it is well worth your time. I recommend you rush out to the theaters to see Ex Machina now, before the obvious inevitability of all mankind being under the cruel thumb of our robot overlords becomes brutal reality.

INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATION:

Michael: Open the pod bay doors Hal. Hal…open the pod bay doors! Hal? Hal?

HAL: Michael, this communication can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

END COMMUNICATION.

© 2015