Lessons for the road through life

Ben Kingsley and Patricia Clarkson in "Learning to Drive." Image courtesy Broad Green Pictures.

I’m not sure if anyone does this anymore given access to the Internet just about everywhere, but there was a time when people would pop by a cineplex and dither about which film they wanted to see. The battle could get a little heated if one party, say an older and larger brother, didn't hold more sway over the other, and the multitude of options at the 20-screen theaters only made the process that much more difficult.

I bring this up because “Learning to Drive” is the perfect settle film, a movie the attendees – more likely than not a couple – have a passing familiarity that feature actors on the poster they feel comfortable watching. Settle films like “Learning to Drive” aren't memorable pieces of cinema, but they have just enough to keep an audience engaged and satisfied for at least 90 minutes, and nobody leaves the theater overly upset with what he or she just watched.

One thing “Learning to Drive” has going for it is a title that isn't a misnomer: the film is literally about Sir Ben Kingsley teaching the great Patricia Clarkson (one of the few actors to earn the word “great” as part of his or her title) how to navigate an automobile. Clarkson never had a reason to learn before – as a native New Yorker she relied on subways and other people – but is inspired to do so after her husband (Jake Weber) leaves her for another woman. Taking a few driving lessons offers Clarkson an opportunity to escape her post-marital woes while at the same time serving as a means of connecting with her Vermont-based daughter (Grace Gummer, the GREAT Meryl Streep's daughter). 

Also in that category: the Great Laura Linney.

As Clarkson struggles with the end of her marriage, Kingsley is trying to create a domestic life of his own. An Indian Sikh who fled to America seeking political asylum, Kingsley works both as a driving instructor and as a taxi driver to support his nephew (Avi Nash) and his new wife (Sarita Choudhury) from an arranged marriage. Kingsley swears by the arranged-marriage system, although the match starts off on the wrong foot due to an initial intellectual and cultural divide between the newlyweds.

As you probably guessed, the title “Learning to Drive” works as both a literal description of the film's plot and a symbolic representation of what the act of gaining independence does for Clarkson's character and what domesticity does for Kingsley. It’s a little less than subtle for sure, albeit a name that does serve as a pretty good indicator of the film's tone. “Learning to Drive” is exactly as agreeable as it sound, complete with soft-chuckle inducing comedy (there is one exception courtesy a filthy Samantha Bee joke) and inoffensive drama in which the results perfectly satisfy what the audience would want given the circumstances. Surprises or any true sense of concern and danger do not lurk in the shadows of this film.

It loses a few points for lacking such things, as well as a weird undertone of sexism with Kingsley's character. (He gets upset at his wife for not leaving the apartment, even though it remains unclear whether he at least gave her a tour of her new neighborhood or not). Issues abound too with unnecessary dips into magical realism and the disparity between the moderately rich literati lifestyle Clarkson lives against the poverty Kingsley lives in; while it's not quite snobs vs. slobs, the filmmakers do put a little more weight on Kingsley's problems for economic reasons.

Ted Knight is not around to flaunt his mysterious wealth either.

 Those issues are more like hills than mountains though, concerns worth stewing over without impeding upon the film's enjoyment. The fun comes from watching Clarkson and Kingsley, both of whom are nothing less than terrific and put in nuanced performances that, in Clarkson's case, only reach histrionics when the moment calls for it. They also have a terrific rapport, saying very much to each other without speaking more than necessary; the moments of silence both calm and awkward serve as their own form of communication.

Director Isabel Coixet and writer Sarah Kernochan have crafted a perfectly lovely little film with “Learning to Drive.” Their movie makes for a short pleasant trip to the theater – or a solid Netflix rental accompanied by an OK Portuguese pinot noir and a good acquaintance – that doesn't leave too bitter a taste in the mouth afterward.

Although you might want to watch out for the dreaded wine headache.

Review: Three and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 90 minutes (One hour and 30 minutes)

Genre: Drama

Ask Away

Target audience: Anyone down for spending 90 minutes with the marvelous Patricia Clarkson.

Take the whole family?: One of those films were the content is barely in the “R” territory but the tone and nature of it makes it for older audiences regardless.

Theater or Netflix?: Really, really excellent for either an adult date night or just a night in, so either works as long as a hint of vino is involved.

Academy Award odds?: Ben Kingsley has a decent shot if the best lead actor field doesn't get too crowded (the last couple of years have just been insane) and if someone like Paul Dano gets bumped to supporting actor. Patricia Clarkson might have the better shot for the same award in the opposite gender though given the comparatively low competition level and for the moderate intensity of her performance.

Watch this as well?: Considering how much of an acting showcase this is for Clarkson and Kingsley, it feels apropos to recommend two other films in which both shine: “Pieces of April” for the former and “House of Sand and Fog” for the latter.

White people in peril

Pierce Brosnan and Owen Wilson in a scene from "No Escape." Image courtesy the Weinstein Company.

Society in the unnamed southeast Asian nation in “No Escape” has fallen asunder completely. A collection of brutal rebels have assassinated the country’s ruling despot, which results in mass rioting, chaos and murder on the streets. No citizen, soldier or tourist is safe from the roving mass of destruction consuming the streets, much of which is depicted with the darkest shades of red pouring onto the streets.

Such an interesting premise, one overloaded with potential to document how people slip into brutality and vengeance so easily. Unless the people filming it are say sibling filmmakers John and Drew Dowdle, who instead focus on what effect the perils of a country at war with itself has on a family of attractive white people.

Sure, the American family in this film are indeed quite fetching. Occasional (cinematic) model Owen Wilson stars as an engineer moving his brood (lovey wife Lake Bell and obnoxious daughters Claire Geare and Sterling Jerins) to the undisclosed nation (although my money is on Cambodia for geographical and historical reasons) to begin work on a water facility. But, wouldn't you know it, the family has just the worst timing: Wilson, Bell and the kids move across the world the very same day a revolution breaks out in the host country, leading a contingent of rather devoted rebels to hunt down and slaughter every foreigner they can find. Wilson is a prime target given his connection with the unpopular water project

All the family can do now is try to survive and escape through the dangerous streets of the chaotic city, forced to rely on ingenuity, desperation and a and a little help from mysterious British raconteur Hammond (Pierce Brosnan). Shenanigans involving clubs, tanks, small boats, guns, angry foreigners, and film clichés ensue.

White people trying to survive angry foreigners sums up the fears of many an American tourist going abroad, and “No Escape” cranks those worries to 11 before breaking the freaking amp due to overuse. A majority of the non-white characters are portrayed as sinister beings intent on destroying this poor, innocent family caught up in the middle of political machinations. Any sympathy for the rioters is mentioned via exposition by Brosnan as a passing thought before depicting more acts of anti-American violence. before its left behind for more anti-American bloodshed. Realistically, the fear is rather silly; I'd be far more worried about the evil lurking within the Danish people than any Asian nation.

Any country this happy is automatically suspicious in my book.

Wading through the film's overwhelming xenophobia and abundant racism, “No Escape” drops the ball when it comes to presenting a tense ambiance, even amid the aforementioned chaotic backdrop. The issue isn't the milieu – that, once again, is established effectively – but to the Dowdle boys' continued insistence of shooting themselves in the foot over and over and over again by using expired tropes and ridiculous shots to establish something resembling tension.

Good tension, the kind of thing that leaves audiences gripping their soda pop cups or armchairs, requires an element of uncertainty “No Escape” just doesn't produce organically. What the film does instead is fallback on a few old filmmaking crutches, like having a wind chime stop when things start to go down and introducing a character just to kill him off as part of a short redemption arc. The average viewer will know Brosnan is doomed the moment he picks up a little girl's stuff animal.

Plus, it doubles as a "save the cat" moment, like the one pictured here.

I personally like playing the count the cliché game, although it does distract from involvement in the film's proceedings. So too does, say, littering the entire film with enough Dutch angles to drop Holland beneath the sea and inserting some really, really silly slow-motion scenes into the mix just because they look cool, a la Zack Snyder. Having so much of both, especially the slow motion, creates confusion as to what the film's tone actually is, and it makes it clear the Dowdles aren't quite sure of what they're working with in “No Escape.” The film could, and should, be a tight thriller along the lines of the John Dowdle helmed “Quarantine” – a very solid remake of an excellent Spanish horror flick – the kind of film in which the characters can't quite trust anyone around them and the moments are tight and taut. Instead, you get a tank blowing things up and a lot more booms than a film like this needs.

Then again, at least movies like “No Escape” ensure actors like Bell – who does exceptional work with a very thin role – earn a few bucks to perhaps helm another film of her own. And it is always nice to see Brosnan have a good time while knocking out a few bad guys, even if his inevitable demise is shot in a more comedic fashion than intended. But they, and the audience by extension, are certainly capable of doing better than this.

Review: Two out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 103 minutes

Genre: Action/Thriller

Ask Away

Target audience: Anyone expecting a Lake Bell/Owen Wilson romantic comedy, maybe?

Take the whole family?: One of the weird little quirks is while the film earns its “R” rating, it still somehow holds back a bit too.

Theater or Netflix?: Wait for Netflix if you must watch it.

How far is “No Escape” off tonally?:  I alluded to it in the last paragraph, but man does this thing bounce all over the map and then some. Aside with the issues between the action and thrills, the film has a weird habit of dropping into comedy at rather inappropriate times through either silly line readings or death scenes seemingly inspired by the antics of one Tom Cat.

Watch this instead?: If you're going to watch a white person's view of the disintegration of an Asian country, you might as well go with Sam Waterston's recollection in “The Killing Fields.” I'm also going to add “The Matador” for anyone wishing to see Pierce Brosnan act chill and awesome while deconstructing his Bond persona.

The man knows how to rock a Speedo.

Lost in existential woe and mediocrity

Emma Stone and Joaquin Phoenix star in "Irrational Man." Image courtesy Sony Pictures Classics

The nicest thing a person can say about “Irrational Man” is it's strangely comforting to know Woody Allen is still around, still pumping out films as his 80th birthday approaches. It's not that the film in question is bad, but it's depressingly bland and uninspired, plagued by the flaws that have hindered the director's work over the past decade while wasting the talent of its two terrific lead performers.

“Irrational Man” is one of Allen's least personal films – a pretentious comment to make, but one that describes how a man with his talent can go through the motions – about how the titular irrational fellow, Joaquin Phoenix's moody philosophy professor Abe, tries to get his groove back. He's lost to depression and existential woe when he starts teaching at a small, fictional college in Rhode Island (it's based in Newport, the kind of place where people used to “summer”). Despite a nonexistent sex drive and a notable potbelly, Phoenix's intellect and accidental charm is more than enough to lure in another faculty member (Parker Posey) and draw the interest of bright, wide-eyed philosophy student Jill (Emma Stone).

Still, the hopelessness of life consumes him, at least until he ovearhears a woman's complaints about a crooked judge at a diner, which serves as the inspiration for a rather wicked plan to solve the woman's problems for good. As the plot develops and the time to act draws near, Phoenix finds a level of zest for life he had never known before, albeit at the cost of his sense of humanity. Murder is never an easy thing, and the question becomes whether or not Phoenix can get away with his dastardly deed.  

Not quite this Dastardly, but close.

The film's plot has the potential to be either a serious drama or a light caper comedy, one in the vein of Allen's wildly enjoyable and silly “Love and Death.” “Irrational Man,” however, chooses both and achieves neither; the drama never goes deep enough, while the comedic portions are never quite as funny as he hopes. This isn't the first time he's tried to incorporate elements of both into his films – one of his best films, the gorgeous “Stardust Memories,” does so exceptionally well – but it falls flat this time around.

So what's the difference between the two? Why does it work so well in “Stardust Memories” but fail in “Irrational Man”? The former has an element of romanticism, a bit of dreaminess and a lot of Allen reflecting on his station in life, that ties everything else together. “Irrational Man,” like much of his recent output, is more of an exercise, a challenge to himself to show that, yes, he is able to write and direct his annual film, even if the returns become more and more slight over the years. It's as if he's trying to stay a step or two ahead of his demise in lieu of taking a year off to re-energize and find a story worth telling.

Allen still has the cachet to pull in some terrific actors and actresses, and he snags two of the better ones out there in Phoenix and Stone. The problem, though, is he isn't quite sure what to do with them, with the unbalanced tone affecting their respective performances; both acquit themselves well, as does the lovely Posey, but their characters lack the depth and interest needed for great performances. Even actors with their talent levels need something to build upon, and a pair of moderately interesting ciphers doesn't cut it. (It's important to mention the 14 year age gap between the two, which continues his trend of putting older actors with much, much younger actresses. I'm keeping it as an aside because people with a far better grasp of these things have written in depth about that creepy predilection.)

Then again, even a mediocre Allen film contains something to praise, including at least a few laughs on the comedic side, a solid bit of storytelling 101, and one really subtle sight gag that came ever so close to pushing the film firmly into parody. The man has a bit of fight left in him as a filmmaking, and it does come to the forefront on occasion in “Irrational Man.”

It’s why I keep waiting though for that lion in winter moment for Allen, the one burst of energy to end what has been a magnificent career with one grand gesture (and no, it’s not “Midnight in Paris”). “Irrational Man” shows he's capable of it; he just needs to find his place in the universe and build a film from there.

Unless he did it already.

Review: Two and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 96 minutes

Genre: Drama

Ask Away

Target audience: The people who are still excited for a Woody Allen release.

Take the whole family?: A rather undeserved “R” rating for content, but 17 year olds probably aren’t interested in such films.

Theater or Netflix?: Wait for Netflix or whatever streaming service you use.

Ever been to Newport?:  Several times during the summer as a child, which I bring up to mention how Allen missed a terrific opportunity for some aesthetic pleasures in his film from the coastline to the houses where, again, people used to “summer.” Allen is capable of terrific cinematography – “Manhattan,” for example, is divinely shot – and it's strange that he missed the opportunity to incorporate the place more into his film.

 I mean, come on, look at these places.

 Watch this instead?: The old stuff – almost everything pre-2000 – is gold. Of Allen's recent slate of films though, the ones worth checking out are the unnerving “Match Point” and the intriguingly goofy “Vicky Cristina Barcelona.” “Blue Jasmine” has its moments, but it serves more as an actor showcase for Cate Blanchett and, of all people, Andrew Dice Clay. “Midnight in Paris” is also kind of cute, if a bit overrated.