Monsieur Lazhar

Monsieur Lazhar opens with a shocking, incomprehensible tragedy: an elementary school teacher hangs herself in her classroom. The rest of the movie takes us on a journey through healing after loss steals our sense of reason and reality. It does this in a quiet, pensive, delicate way, as the characters place blame on themselves and one another, and try to forgive themselves, their friends and colleagues, and especially, the suicide victim herself.

After the suicide, the students need a new teacher, but the school principal has trouble finding someone to come under these circumstances. Enter: Bachir Lazhar (Fellag), an Algerian refugee who we come to discover has lost his entire family to political terrorism in his home country. In desperation, the principal hires him. Bachir’s methods are old-fashioned, both in the classroom and with his colleagues, but his heart is well-intentioned. The school has called in a psychologist to talk with the class and help them come to terms with the loss of their teacher. The administration and other teachers are made so uncomfortable about the woman’s suicide that they insist on keeping quiet about it, not speaking of her death, especially not with her students.

Monsieur Lazhar, however, has other ideas about how best to help the children heal. He sees them coping in their own, immature ways with their senses of blame and guilt, their horror at having discovered the hanging body, their desire to move on and their guilt around that. One student explains that they, the children, aren’t the ones who are upset: it’s the adults who are so distressed by the suicide. Of course, this isn’t exactly true, and perhaps because Bachir also grieving the loss of his family, he is more comfortable than the other teachers and principal with talking about death and grief. He sees the value in expressions of grief, and gives the children space to do that. The parallel stories of the students’ grief and Bachir’s grief intertwine beautifully.

Monsieur Lazhar is a beautifully acted movie, full of tender and sometimes aching performances, primarily from the children. One boy is ostracized after the teacher’s suicide, because he had complained to the principal about her not long before she died, for inappropriate student-teacher contact. In one heartbreaking scene, the boy insists that he was right to complain because he hated it when she had hugged him. He was the first to discover her body, and he imagines that the teacher was punishing him because she knew he would be the first one in the classroom that morning. He both blames himself, and does not want his classmates to blame him.

In all, Monsieur Lazhar is a lovely little study of grief and loss that both breaks and warms your heart, and leaves you with a vague sense of hope: that it is possible to come out of the confusion of tragedy and back into the light of day once more. A

Directed by Phillippe Falardeau. Starring Fellag, Sophie Nélisse, Danielle Proulx, Émilien Néron, Jules Philip. 94 minutes. PG-13

By: Jennifer Simpson

Films I love: Breakfast at Tiffany's, Fargo, Being John Malkovich, Melancholia, Volver, Juno

We Need to Talk About Kevin

Directed by Lynne Ramsay. Starring Tilda Swinton, John C. Reilly, Ezra Miller, Jasper Newell. 112 minutes. R

We need to talk about We Need to Talk About Kevin.

First of all, Tilda Swinton is a genius. Her emotional range is phenomenal, her intellect shines through every moment she is on screen, and her incredible talent is simply breathtaking. She should have been nominated for an Academy Award for this performance. If she had, I might have chosen her over Meryl to win this year. She is a force of nature.

Secondly, this movie turns the nature vs. nurture debate on its head, following a somewhat reluctant mother (Swinton) whose child is a psychopath. From the moment he is born, Kevin (Ezra Miller) seems to despise his mother, Eva. He screams all day, until his father (John C. Reilly) comes home, and then coos and giggles like an angel. Kevin’s will to torment Eva continues throughout his entire childhood: he refuses to speak until about four, he stays in diapers until six or seven, and he tries to drive Eva crazy while simultaneously making himself into a model child. His father works outside the home, and has no idea what Eva goes through. He continually undermines Eva’s intuition/feelings around raising this little hellion, telling her that “He’s just a sweet little boy” and that she’s paranoid, making everything Kevin does into a personal vendetta. He never once thinks that Kevin’s behaviour might actually be just that.

We also see Eva doing things that no child should experience. In a moment of frustration/provocation, she physically assaults Kevin. At one point she tells him, “Mommy was happy before Kevin came along.” She suffers from post-partum depression, sleep deprivation, and nervous exhaustion after Kevin is born, and cannot quite bring herself to love him. At one point, Kevin says, “Just because you’re used to something doesn’t mean you like it. You’re used to me…” Eva also lets Kevin get away with behaviour that likely contributes to his psychopathic development, seemingly because reprimanding him would require too much effort.

The questions Kevin raises about nature vs. nurture are complex--I’m not sure we can point to one or the other for answers. However, I am deeply bothered by the implication that if a mother doesn’t cuddle her kid enough, he might turn out to be a psychopath. That is a hell of a lot of responsibility to lay on mothers. Sometimes, kids are just horrible, and do horrible things.

The movie takes place in two intertwining time periods. In one, Eva lives alone and is heavily medicated, reviled by her community, and completely falling apart. In the other, Eva is raising her family. Something has clearly happened, but it isn’t until the very end that we discover what that was. The movie is full of moments that are confusing, tense, dark, and shocking. Its emotional pitch is always high, but is an undercurrent, leaving us guessing and uncomfortable. Kevin is one of the most disturbing, eerie movies I’ve seen in a long time. A

By: Jennifer Simpson

Films I love: Breakfast at Tiffany's, Fargo, Being John Malkovich, Melancholia, Volver, Juno

Weekend

Directed by Andrew Haigh. Starring Tom Cullen and Chris New. 96 minutes

We meet Russell and Glen. Both late 20s gay men living in England and trying to work out what they want in life. They meet Friday night and sleep together. Instead of ending it there they decide to see each other again later that day and realize they are really enjoying their time together, until Glen reveals he’s leaving for art school on Sunday. This is a sad reality for everyone of their (and my!) generation: expiry dates. There is always somewhere to go and something to do. It isn’t an issue for the two guys at first as they just spend time together and get to know each other. They’ve made an unlikely and real connection, even though they are very different and about to be separated.

I had heard that this movie was “the best gay movie ever” and it turned out to be one of the most accurate and genuine movies about my generation I've seen as well as a real step forward for queer cinema. I’m going to ignore the “Queer Cinema” aspect of this film for a second. The movie is about two young people doing what two different trendy young people do. One hangs out with old friends, works a steady job, bikes to work, dresses comfortably, quiet and reserved, lives alone with Value Village type kitchen wear. The other is a career-driven, art school student, outspoken and restless, lives with a trendy roommate, has a trendy job that’s “just for now,” and is constantly waiting/planning to leave. These two characters are everyone my age, in one sense or another. There’s a general sense of dissatisfaction and restlessness, and on the other hand, there is a back to basics, down to earth need.

This movie still falls under the category of “Queer Cinema” and when looking at niche film markets there will always be some really bad films. Whether they are ground breaking or very significant to the genre, they’re just bad. This film on the other hand is everything “queer cinema” has been needing. A lot of queer cinema over the years has been overly campy, overly sexual, lacking in plot, lacking in complex characters and too preachy. It’s so nice to see a film that is clearly about young gay men and about modern gay culture in England, but also about a real relationship and realistic characters. There are for sure some political issues being addressed during their time together (for example, the pair argue about gay marriage and showing affection in public) and there are sex scenes but they are all just backdrop to the connection these two men are feeling. The real thing that makes this film unique from other queer films is the details. The details are true to the characters and the story, not to the niche market.

What really makes this movie are the two players and the director, that sounds obvious but I really mean it! Andrew Haigh is a fairly new director (this the first film I've seen by him) and its obvious he knows what he wants to say. This whole film looks like iPhone photos taken in a friends apartment. The (very limited) soundtrack is carefully chosen and the lighting is almost all natural. The scenes look natural and comfortable. If he's trying it doesn't look it. The two actors (Tom Cullen and Chris New) are like comfortable old slippers; all their dialogue feel improvised, they are easy to watch, they have completely absorbed their characters. This movie is just an honest love story with all the inevitable bummers of a present day setting. I'm obviously thoroughly impressed by this film but I also just really liked it. A

By Isa Montagnese

Dream cast: Gene Wilder. That's it.

The Woman in Black

Directed by James Watkins. Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Ciarán Hinds and Janet McTeer. 120 minutes. 14A

I don't read horror movie reviews and I don't believe horror movie hype. Good or bad, they make me sceptical. Unless it's coming from a horror buff, I don't feel horror is taken seriously enough. The capabilities of the genre, the storytelling, the styling, the characterisation... It's all often ignored when it's got the "horror" label on it.

This movie's been generating hype since it was announced, though largely thanks to Potterheads-turned-Radcliffe-fans, but also because the general public was interested to see if he had acting chops beyond the 8-part epic series. And although I avoid the reviews, once the film was out, it was tough to shield myself from hearing that it was being received pretty decently (for horror), so I was, as usual, sceptical. Compounded by the fact that this was the horror movie I'd most been looking forward to all year, heading the theatres was a nervous venture. But it ended up being more than I expected.

Set at the turn of the 20th century (as much good horror lit is), the story follows widower and lawyer Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) as he works on the case of Alice Drablow's estate, Eel Marsh, a creepy mansion on a hill surrounded entirely by water when the tides rise. He travels ahead while his son and nanny plan to meet him in a few days. However, when he arrives in in the new town to begin his work, he's greeted by folklore, that a woman in black haunts Eel Marsh and has plagued the entire town with a curse.

In a one-word review, this movie is creepy. It's possibly the creepiest movie I've ever seen. And if you think the trailer is any indication of the creepiness in this movie, think again, because it gets even creepier. Much of this creepiness owes to the time and setting: old musical toys, a creaky and withered house, frail hand-written letters, tattered black and white photos. But it's also the genuine horror of it all: quick glimpses of darkened faces, silently nearing of shadows, shattering screeches. It's all gorgeously styled to give you goosebumps.

The cast is small and nothing without Radcliffe, who proves to be much more than a boy wizard. Although it is tough to picture him as a father, and the distant relationship doesn't help, a reminder of movie's era lets it pass (a time when parenting itself seemed distanced).

With a great, chilling back story from the legend's incarnation to the havok wreaked on the townspeople for years, combined with its creepiness and beautiful styling, The Woman in Black makes for what I'm sure will be on the best horrors of the year. A

Café de Flore

Directed by Jean-Marc Valleé. Starring Vanessa Paradis, Kevin Parent, Hélène Florent, and Evelyne Brochu. 120 minutes. 14A

I almost don’t want to tell you anything about this movie.

In a perfect world, you, dear reader, would simply trust me, and go and see this film based purely on me telling you to go and see this film. But, you don’t know me, at least not yet, and so I don’t blame you for the lack of trust between us, the doubt you might have at being told simply, this film is excellent, and you should see it.

So, if it helps at all, in case you have more trust in him than you do in me, which would make sense because you probably know him and you probably don’t know me, George Stroumboulopoulos named this film as one of his top 5 of 2011. Since George is my boyfriend, as he has been telling me each weeknight for several years now, I know him, and I trust him as an arbiter of taste (which I think is George’s greatest talent), and based purely on this film’s appearance on George’s top 5 list, I decided to go and check it out. I knew practically nothing about it going in, except that it is a Canadian French-language film, and that it stars Vanessa Paradis, partner to hunky pirate impersonator Johnny Depp.

And, dear reader, that is the kind of experience I want for you to have with this film. I want for you to discover it in the same way I did, not having expectations that can either be met or not met. It was such a beautiful experience to encounter this film in the way I encountered it, that I wish the same kind of experience for you.

So, if you feel adventurous, stop reading here, and go buy your tickets.

For the skeptics among us, here’s a bit more information. Beware, however: I’m still going to tell you as little about it as possible for a film critic to tell you in a review.

The Lion King 3D

Starring Matthew Broderick, Jeremy Irons, James Earl Jones, Nathan Lane and Rowan Atkinson. Directed by Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff. 89 minutes. G

Ever since this whole 3D craze exploded, I’ve hated it. I gave it a chance and the extra $3 per ticket has never been worth it. (Not even for Avatar.) On top of that, I’m not too crazy about The Lion King either. But I ended up seeing The Lion King 3D. And it was good. Really good.

Now, you probably know the story of the award-winning film (and if you don’t, our Guest Fille wrote about it last month), so that’s not what I’m going to talk about. I’m going to talk about it being in 3D.

3D has a rep for being a sleazy money-making ploy—because a lot of the time it is and we all know it—which is exactly what this film sounded like from the start. Disney decided to re-release the highest grossing 2D animated film in history in 3D for a two-week theatrical run, the month before it’s also to be re-released on Blu-ray and DVD. Combined with the fact that this film was, like I said, 2D, I imagined the 3D version to be like looking at layers of paper, like a cheap stage design on the set of the high school play. After reading much praise from the blogosphere of Beauty and the Beast 3D, I was a little more hopeful, though not completely convinced. I went into this film nearly dreading the hour and a half ahead. But I came out, shockingly, praising it.

As a review of Beauty and the Beast 3D highlighted, Beauty and the Beast worked so well in 3D thanks to the Computer Animation Production System (CAPS), which in short means that the film was already animated in layers. The Lion King was done the same way. With shrubbery in the foreground, the setting sun in the background and Simba in the centre, several scenes were so naturally suited to 3D. This is also where I take issue with a lot of the criticism of this film’s 3D version that say that 3D in no way improved the original Lion King. 3D actually enhances the original animation, not only in its overall look but also in recognition of the amazing work that Disney put into this film from the start.

As cliché as it sounds, sometimes I felt as I was actually sitting at the edge of that stream, or that I could reach out and touch a bird soaring above the savannah. Isn’t that exactly what 3D is supposed to do? Yet I’ve never felt that with a 3D film until now.

I’ve seen this film countless times but 3D brings a freshness to this 17-year-old film that re-releasing it in 2D alone could not. And like others who have praised, it’s also reaching a new audience, modernizing a classic and bringing nostalgia to those that grew up with it.

Anyway, I’m up late on a night before an early class after an already exhausting day because this film is only in theatres for one more week. And you really need to see it. A

Crazy, Stupid, Love

 

 Photo: Warner Bros. Pictures

Starring Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, Julianne Moore and Emma Stone. Directed by Glenn Ficarra and John Requa. 118 minutes. PG

"That is such a cliche." So says Steve Carell's character as a rain storm suddenly pours down after his lowest moment in Crazy Stupid Love.

If you've only seen the trailer (with that overly swelling Muse soundtrack), you might be tempted to say the same about the romantic dramedy, which documents in a semi-Love, Actually style, the various types and stages of L-O-V-E. And indeed, there are plenty of expected and not-totally-fresh feel good moments throughout the film. However, like a solid long-term relationship, there are just enough surprises to keep you not only interested but genuinely excited. Some are crazy (Josh Groban--yes, that Josh Groban--playing a lawyer!?). Some are stupid (Marisa Tomei jumping Steve Carell's bones with crazy eyed aplomb). But most of it is just, to quote Eliza Doolittle, loverly. Really, really, really loverly.

The main story (as I said, there are several) is an all-too-familiar one, both in real and reel life. Cal and Emily, (Steve Carell and Julianne Moore), a middle-aged couple and former high school sweethearts, are forced to separate after one of them (Moore) becomes restless with their non-heated sex life and has a reckless affair with a coworker (Kevin Bacon). He moves into a second-rate bachelor pad. She stays in their gorgeous suburban house with the kids. No one is truly happy.

One night, as Cal drowns his sorrows in a vodka cran at a local singles watering hole, he's befriend by Jacob (a tanned and tenacious Ryan Gosling), a perfectly coiffed womanizer with a secretly perfect heart. Jake gives him a haircut, a new, properly fitted wardrobe and very specific instructions on how to approach a lady suitor. Seeing as Cal was previously a one-woman-man, he struggles a bit with the transition. But as soon as he scores his first one-night-stand, he's a whole new, confident dude. But does he really love the single life, or is he still just pining away for his wife?

As Cal attempts to cope with losing what he thought was the love of his life, Jacob falls in love for the first time. The extremely lucky (Jake's stomach situation looks like it's been, to quote one character, "Photoshopped") lady? Whip smart, but slightly gutless twentysomething lawyer, Hannah (the ever-gorgeous, ever-hilarious Emma Stone of Easy A). The problem is, Hannah is already attached to a douchebag (the previously mentioned Groban) and Jake, well, he doesn't quite know how to woo a traditional, non-easy-going (if you know what I mean) gal.

There are a few other storylines, including one involving Cal and Emily's son (Jonah Bobo, Zathura) and his overwhelming attraction to his older babysitter (If Demi and Ashton can do it, why can't they!?) and another involving said babysitter's (Analeigh Tipton, TV's Hung) overwhelming attraction to Cal. But they border on cutesy and inappropriate at the best of times. It's easy to overlook them though, especially once Jacob and Hannah's story really starts up.

Carell and Moore are stunning as Cal and Emily (Carell, especially, showing the nuanced emotional range he gave, but no one really saw in Dan in Real Life) but Gosling and Stone are what make the film a true head-turner. Directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa should have spent more time with the white hot duo. Not only are they fantastic individual actors (Gosling lets superbly loose, showing us why he started his career in comedy--Breaker High, bay-bee!--and why he will eventually win an Oscar), their chemistry is positively sparkling. Whether they're trying out a massage chair or reenacting a famous romantic movie scene, you can't keep your eyes off them.

Gosling and Stone would be nothing, however, without the sincerely charming script, courtesy of Dan Fogelman. Think of this film as the near-perfect summer rom-dram you wanted The Kids Are All Right to be. Sure, it doesn't break any new ground in terms of diversity like that film, but it's messages are, and I believe were meant to be, universal. 

Fogelman may be more familiar with fantasy (he wrote the animated flicks, Cars and Tangled), but Crazy, Stupid, Love is lighter than you'd expect bloated fairytale tropes and too-hopeless romanticism to be, and fairly heavy on relatable realities: feelings and situations that everyone has or has seen someone else experience (unrequited crushes, failed pick-up lines, lust) in the pursuit of the L word. The emotions can be, as the title evokes, big and a little messy at times, but hey, isn't that amore? A

Project Nim

Photo: TheFilmStage.com

Starring Stephanie LaFarge, Herb Terrace and Bob Ingersoll. Directed by James Marsh. 93 minutes. PG

Raising a baby chimpanzee as a human child in the hopes that it will grow up to learn sign language and communicate with humans. No, it’s not Rise of the Planet of the Apes, but it might as well be science fiction. Unfortunately, this experiment was very much real, and as James Marsh’s heartrending documentary Project Nim details, revealed far more about human nature than its primate subject.

Marsh, whose previous documentary Man on Wire won the 2009 Academy Award for best documentary, has said that getting certain people to discuss the project was a challenge. This really isn’t surprising considering what his film reveals about a team from Columbia University that decided, in 1973, to conduct an extensive study on animal language acquisition. Scientist Herb Terrace–who led the group–set out to prove that if an ape could be raised as a human child and taught sign language, it would be able to communicate with humans (ideally through sentences), and offer various insights into the animal psyche.

The unsuspecting participant in Terrace’s study was Nim, a chimpanzee born in November 1973 and, at just two weeks old, taken from his mother, and placed in the care of wealthy New Yorker Stephanie LaFarge. Raised as one of her bohemian brood in an uptown Brownstone, Nim soon grew from curious, playful baby into a rambunctious “preteen” that had complete control of his guardian’s home. Attempting to instill more discipline and structure to the project, Terrace transferred Nim to a secluded university-owned estate where he was put under the care of various teachers.

Marsh’s style of narrative documentary, which has drawn comparisons to Werner Herzog's, is highly stylized. The filmmaker tells Nim’s story chronologically, introducing the figures in his life with large, artistic titles and quickly moving between these characters. Because all aspects of Project Nim were so well documented by the team, Marsh’s film provides ample photographs and video footage from Nim’s life, while also recreating various scenarios using actors.

But once the documentary begins to explore Nim’s life at the estate, its tone grows darker, aligning with increasingly grim realities. Two years into the project, Nim had successfully grasped sign language and was communicating effectively, even garnering the attention of the media (a young David Suzuki is one of the journalists featured in the documentary), but he had also grown physically and didn't know his own strength. The dangers of receiving a bite from Nim–which could easily hit a nerve or artery–are discussed at length by the teachers, all of whom point out various scars.

As Project Nim unravels, questioning both the ethics of raising an ape among humans, and the motivations of the people involved in the project, it becomes clear that this isn’t a neutral retelling of a science experiment gone horribly wrong, but rather a provocative commentary on humans and the outcomes of a misguided quest for greater scientific knowledge. Marsh's approach to Nim’s story is unapologetic in its depictions of those who surrounded him, as well as Nim himself, who is portrayed, at times, as a very real danger to his guardians. Ultimately, it's this unrelenting honesty, combined with engaging visuals and narrative style, that draws audiences into a story that's stranger than fiction, and compels us to question our own humanity. A

The First Grader

Photo: Sixth Sense Productions

BY: Ava Baccari

Starring Oliver Litundo, Naomie Harris, Vusi Kunene, and Tony Kgoroge. Directed by Justin Chadwick. 103 minutes. PG-13

The opening scenes of The First Grader evoke the balmy, Lion King-esque Africa as gleaned from the pages of a National Geographic magazine. Makes sense: the film, set in contemporary Kenya, is distributed by National Geographic Entertainment, an offshoot of the international bible of globetrotting publications itself. The intricate artistry of the magazine’s countless Pulitzer-prize winning travel snapshots spills into lush cinematography of brooding blue skies set against the dusty roads of a rural Kenyan village.

It’s these images that map the tone of the film, based on the true story of Kimani Nganga Maruge, who in 2004 earned the Guinness World Record for being the oldest person to begin primary school. At 84, Maruge (Oliver Litundo) seeks the “freedom” of a proper education after fighting to relinquish his land from the grip of British colonial rule in the ‘50s. The First Grader traces the journey of a country’s struggle for self-determination, revealed through the lifetime of battles and prejudices endured by the war veteran, whose desire to be liberated from an external regime burns fiercely into his eighties as a yearning to be literate.

It’s 2002 and the Kenyan government has just announced it will provide free primary schooling. Maruge flocks to the local school where swarms of parents are battling to enroll their young children in the few coveted spots available. He’s up against an over-capacitated, under-funded school system reluctant to waste educating “an old man with one foot in the grave.” But Maruge persists, persuading the school’s head teacher Jane Obinchu (Naomie Harris) that “we are nothing if can’t read” and his right for the access to an education is equally relevant.

Director Justin Chadwick (The Other Boleyn Girl) weaves haunting flashbacks of Maruge’s past — the brutal murder of his wife and baby by British soldiers, haunting images of his own torture while captured in detention camps — into his present, as he attempts to assert himself in a society who only too quickly forgot his struggle for its freedom. (The oath he took up as a young Mau Mau soldier, to win back their land, cost him his hearing one ear, all ten toes and the inability to settle for the basic survival of his people. Many years later, he craves betterment, intellect, a future for them all.)

Chadwick’s hand selection of actual Kenyan locals — the school children Maruge soon finds himself struggling to learn the alphabet with and Litundo himself, who worked as a newscaster in Kenya in the ‘70s — as well as the film’s set, lends authentication to this heartening and heartbreaking tale.  Tender and charming in its rendering, the film gracefully moves between moments of LOL interactions, as Maruge is embraced by his younger classmates, to harrowing reminders of the corruption and misogyny rampant in the impoverished nation.

The real Maruge, who died in Nairobi in 2009, before filming began, arrived in New York in 2005 to address the United Nations about the need for education in Africa. Wonder what the man who never stopped dreaming and  believed education enabled freedom, must have thought when one of his own — a certain American president with Kenyan roots — was installed in the White House just four years after his first day of school. A

Midnight in Paris

Photo: Sony Pictures Classics



BY: Manori Ravindran

Starring Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams and Marion Cotillard. Directed by Woody Allen. 100 minutes. PG

I can't express how often I wish I was born in another era. For me, it's the sixties in the U.S., with the dreamy allure of Bob Dylan, the Civil Rights movement and the Merry Pranksters. In Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris, struggling novelist Gil similarly yearns for another time: in his case, Paris in the 1920s. In this sweet and astute film about the trouble of wanting to be somewhere you're not, Allen channels observations about a restless society into one of his best films to date.

Owen Wilson is Gil, a successful Hollywood screenwriter who's trying his hand at writing novels. Visiting Paris with his fiancée Inez (Rachel McAdam) and her family, it becomes clear that his betrothed doesn't share his interest in the city's mystique. When Inez reunites with old friends, including hilarious one-upper Paul (Michael Sheen), Gil has a lot of time on his hands and takes to wandering the streets at night.

One evening, after getting into a car with beckoning strangers at the stroke of midnight, Gil finds he's been taken back in time to the 1920s. Suddenly, he's rubbing elbows with his literary heroes and falling for Picasso's mistress Adriana (Marion Cotillard). Much to the bewilderment of Inez, who is increasingly distant, Gil continues to wander off each evening, choosing fantasy over the reality of an ill-suited relationship. But as he goes further back in time, he soon realizes that even the most idyllic past can be someone else's dreary present.

For those unfamiliar with Allen's body of work, the director has almost annually churned out a feature film, television short or play since 1959. Perhaps it's not surprising, then, that Midnight in Paris warrants comparison to 1985's The Purple Rose of Cairo, another film where wistful characters are drawn into their fantasies, which provide only fleeting respite from reality.

Midnight works on many levels. Unlike many of his more recent films, there's no bumbling, neurotic male lead. Sure, Gil's intelligent, but he's no intellectual, and the particular casting of the laid-back Wilson makes for a character that's likeable from the very start. A strong supporting cast of McAdams, whose mean streak re-emerges in a turn as the petulant Inez, and Sheen, as her tedious charmer, is terrific. Allen also challenges the audience to a battle of wits, introducing a bevy of literary and artistic icons to keep us guessing. As usual, the director doesn't underestimate his audience, and expects us to keep pace with the many arcane references that constitute the average Woody Allen film.

Ultimately, what's most appealing about Midnight in Paris is that it draws upon the nostalgia most of us feel for the past, whether it's our own or a different time period entirely. Allen allows us to live out our fantasies through Gil, who gets a real shot at his. Best of all, the director balances each dose of make believe and real life without getting ensconced in either. The past and present of Midnight in Paris aren't separate entities; instead, they affect one another drastically.

For Woody Allen fans who've been sleepwalking through the director's last few films, Midnight in Paris is a brilliant reminder of why it is we blindly subscribe to his genius. And for newcomers who just want to see a romantic comedy on a Tuesday night, it may be the start of a beautiful relationship. A

Incendies

BY: Manori Ravindran (Guest contributer/Fellow fille!)

Photo: Tribute

Starring Lubna Azabal, Maxim Gaudette, Mélissa Désormeaux-Poulin and Rémy Girard. 130 minutes. R

Denis Villeneuve takes risks. His last film, Polytechnique, told the story of 1989’s Montreal Massacre, one of the darkest events in Canadian history. His latest feature, which recently received an Academy Award nomination for best foreign-language film, is no different. Incendies is a haunting Greek tragedy that will stay in your system long after the Oscars are over.

When Nawal Marwan (Lubna Azabal) passes away, she leaves an unusual request. Her will contains two letters for her twins, Simon (Maxim Gaudette) and Jeanne (Mélissa Désormeaux-Poulin), to deliver: One is for their father; the other is for their brother. Both are family members the twins didn’t know they had. To fulfil their mother’s last wishes, the pair journeys to the Middle East to find their family, eventually uncovering Nawal’s dark past and revealing their own.

At the heart of Incendies is a story about family. The film goes back and forth between Nawal’s life in Fuad – a fictional Middle Eastern nation believed to be Civil War-era Lebanon – and her children’s present-day trip to the country.

Nawal’s scenes, played by Belgian-born Azabal, are searing. She is a character so mistreated by life that it’s difficult to watch her portions of the film. What’s even worse, however, is witnessing Jeanne unearth her mother’s history in Fuad. Villeneuve’s parallel narrative cuts to the bone, making sense of the word Incendies’ rough translation: “Scorched.”

Unfortunately, the Greek element of the film may be what audiences remember. The staggering twist is blinding, and it’s not what anyone signs up for. Of course, the film’s roots in Wajdi Mouawad’s play, from which it is adapted, may have something to do with the dramatic conclusion.

To say that Incendies is powerful hardly does it justice. Villeneuve’s commentary on the intricacies of family, war and promises is unparalleled. The Quebec filmmaker provides a striking look into a woman’s dark past, expertly revealing a present that may be darker for her children. It’s no wonder that Incendies is up for an Oscar. Even the Academy would have a hard time recovering from Villeneuve’s tragedy. A

DVD: Nowhere Boy

Photo: amazon.ca

Starring Aaron Johnson, Kristin Scott Thomas and Anne-Marie Duff. Directed by Sam Taylor-Wood. 98 minutes. 14A

Maybe you've been told this film is not about The Beatles. But it is. It's insane to say it's not. Yes, it's a biopic about Lennon's younger years, but can you honestly say that a film about one-half of possibly the greatest song-writing duo ever, who wrote the majority of The Beatles' songs, making them an international phenomenon, is not a film about the Beatles?

Nowhere Boy meets Lennon in his teenage years. The film follows him through banjo lessons with his estranged mother, getting his first guitar, turning his poetry into music and eventually, beginning the Lennon-McCartney song-writing partnership, all the while exploring his tangled family life.

For Beatles fans: We find out more about one of the women intertwined in the Julia lyrics, the sprouts of the Lennon-McCartney song-writing partnership, and the boy behind the man who would become the man behind crazy lyrics like: "Semolina pilchard, climbing up the Eiffel Tower. Elementary penguin singing Hari Krishna. Man, you should have seen them kicking Edgar Allan Poe."

For non-Beatles fans: This film shows that there's more promise to Aaron Johnson's rising name, that biopics don't have to focus entirely on leading up to fame, and that the drama behind a rock star's life doesn't have to be a story about drugs and sex (though that doesn't mean there isn't any) but can focus on more universal themes like acceptance and imperfect families.

Although I was drawn to this film as a Beatles fan, others shouldn't be repelled for the same reason. This film ends up being a surprisingly even mix of elements enough to reel in the long-time fan but still captivate the rest. A

DVD EXTRAS: Behind-the-scenes featurettes and deleted scenes.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I

Photo: Allmoviephoto.com
(When Harry Met...Harrys?)

Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson. Directed by David Yates. 146 minutes. PG.

I've read too many pessimistic Harry Potter reviews. And all of them seem to have one main punny punchline - that the series that need not be named to inspire 20-something nostalgia has lost it's "magic." These movie critics must be muggles because, from what I saw, that statement couldn't be further from the truth.

While many Potterheads will tell you it's just a the lead-up to what is sure to be one hell of a finale (well, if the last 200 pages of J.K. Rowling's last ode to the boy who lived tell us anything), I'm here to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I is much more than some sort of pandering preamble. It's like a fresh bag of Bernie Botts Every Flavoured Beans. There is so much awesome going on, you just don't even know where to start.

The film picks up where The Half-Blood Prince left off. Dumbledore, Harry's mentor and former Hogwarts headmaster, is (SPOILER ALERT!) dead and gone. Voldemort and the Death Eaters are plotting their biggest attack on Harry and the muggle world, ever. And Harry and his meant-to-be BFFs, Ron and Hermoine are searching for the remaining pieces of Voldy's soul which have been transferred into various, seemingly random objects (also called Horcruxes). But stuff starts to get really serious this time around. Important lives are lost. Friendships are broken (albeit, momentarily). Families are ripped apart. This ain't the Yule Ball. Or any old year-end party at Hufflepuff. This is real life. With a few new wizardy gadgets and some sexy cinematography (hello, gorgeous abandoned beach background!) thrown in.

This darker tone of the Deathly Hallows (even the name sounds scary!) may turn off many parents and their young children, but if you've been following the series through the last three films, you should be anticipating it. What you may not be anticipating is the numerous over-the-top sexy scenes between Harry and Hermoine. You'll want to throw your invisiblity cloak in their faces and run. Far away. Well, before you recover from busting a gut and a half.

Although the film can be way serious (or should I say, Sirius? RIP Mr. Black...), you'll be happy to hear the wicked wit that has made the other films so, er, enchanting, is not lost. In the slightest. Sometimes it's obviously not intentional (see: Harry and Hermoine's random dance party, Harry's crushed velvet wedding vest) but usually it's in the vein of Fred and George's best tricks - perfectly planned out (see: Harry, Hermoine and Ron's transformative trip to the Ministry of Magic, the always poignant wand jokes).

Speaking of perfect, get ready for a new and improved Ronald Weasley. If you weren't already in love with red-headed hottie and his positively sexy portrayer, Rupert Grint, prepare to have your hand-me-down socks charmed right off. Grint has obviously been working his Brit bum off - both on the set and in the gym. DanRad's starting to look like the winsome sidekick. Even when there's a dozen of him (SEE ABOVE).

But I digress - and fangirl out far too much. For those of us who grew up waiting for our Owl from Hogwarts, The Deathly Hallows is the month before the last month of high school. Or what I imagine a warm pint of Butterbeer might taste like. Bittersweet as all hell.

Although we're pumped to see how the it all ends - who ends up with who, who comes out on top, who gets lost in the shuffle - we're also totally afraid of it. We know that once it's over, we can never go back. But thankfully, we've still got some time to prepare (Part II comes out in July). Mainly, stock up on themed tissues. Cause unlike most high schools, this graduation ceremony is gearing up to be pretty damn, yeah I'm gonna say it, magical. A

The Social Network

Photo: allmoviephoto.com

(Facebook 'em.)

Starring Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Armie Hammer and Justin Timberlake. Directed by David Fincher.

Rumour has it after Mark Zuckerberg read a leaked version of Aaron Sorkin's script for The Social Network, he immediately removed Sorkin's classic TV series, The West Wing, from his Facebook favourites, saying that it was a overly fabricated, melodramatic version of his now-famous life. And if you look into the real story behind the reel story, you might be inclined to agree. But if take the movie at face value, you will find that there's really not much not to, uh, 'like.'

Although its subject matter is almost painfully current (the action starts back in 2003), The Social Network feels like an old, IRL friend. With extremely quick-witted dialogue, a slow-burning pace and brilliantly under-toned cinematography, the film seems straight out of the 1970s indie cinema can. But then you see the laptops and Gap product placements and you realize that can't possibly be true. And then you're more impressed.

Whether we just remember that weird blue silhouetted dude who once lurked the top of our homepages, or read The Accidental Billionaires cover to cover, we all know a little bit about Facebook founder and now, CEO, Mark Zuckerberg (played in the film by the awesome Jesse Eisenberg of the Lands – Zombie and Adventure – the lost awesomeness). And any cinephile could have told you David Fincher has a knack for garnering scene-stealing cinematography and award-deserving performances (he did Fight Club, Se7en and Zodiac). But who could have predicted the two would be destined for each other?

Sorkin may be Zuckerberg’s new Eduardo Saverin - the social media site’s co-founder, played by Andrew Garfield, who Zuckerberg ditched once Napster founder, Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake, with a No Strings Attached era do) wooed him away with appletinis and continents- but Fincher will always be The Social Network’s Zuckerberg. Like the curly-haired schemer of a Harvard hacker, Fincher took a pretty lame idea (“A Facebook movie?!”) and turned it into a virtual goldmine.

The superbly controversial Sorkin script aside, the true magic of The Social Network is the casting. Fincher could have gotten DOA Disney stars to fill Zuckerberg, Saverin and Parker’s Converse (although look out for London Tipton, getting tipsy – and randomly pyro! – as Saverin’s crazy gf), but he specifically chose lesser-known (or in Timberlake's case, underappreciated) actors for the parts. And the risk paid off even more than a certain underage coder in a high-profile pinch.

Timberlake, while obviously a pro musician and SNL guest, has never really had a breakthrough movie role (unless you count, Model Behaviour, which most DCOM girls totally do). Garfield is only known for being chosen to play the new Spiderman. And Eisenberg has been waiting his whole short-lived on-screen life to shake off that “Jewish Michael Cera” title. But they seem like old pros in this, biting into their Lorelai Gilmore dialogue like its candy and making the damn-most of their puppy-dog eyes. Especially Garfield and Eisenberg. To paraphrase Parker, this is their time.

Also great is newcomer Armie Hammer (yes, that’s his actual name), who plays Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, the twin Harvard rowers (and future Olympians) who argue that they gave Zuckerberg the seed that would blossom into a billion-dollar idea. Hammer, who looks like he belongs on an Abercrombie cologne bottle, is sure to garner more than a few mid-movie pokes between girlfriends. But he’s more than just a pretty face (and bod...and man-voice). Just not as damn-good as Eisenberg.

Maybe I’m just an overly keen member of Team Jesse, but the dude does what Mr. Cera should have done four movies ago with this role. He steps out of his cute-nerd comfort zone, showing us that Duckie Dales still exist, or rather that being awkward and in love can still be code for asshole. A

DVD: Ajami

Photo: amazon.ca

Starring Fouad Habash, Nisrine Rihan and Elias Saba. Directed by Scandar Copti and Yaron Shani. 120 minutes. 14A

This film is meant to break hearts and honestly, it does. To think that some of the stories in this film are similar to the lives that some people have to live is just sad, which goes to show how well Ajami portrays realism.

Ajami is set in a neighbourhood in Israel of the same name, following a few intertwined narratives that revolve around poverty and violence. Omar (Shahir Kabaha) was the target of a drive-by shooting but escapes when gangsters mistake his neighbour for him instead. A little while back, Omar's uncle impulsively killed a man, who, turns out, has connections with men went after Omar's uncle intending to kill him. When they failed to do so, the men went after his family instead, putting Omar, his siblings and mother in danger. However, through negotiation, the gangsters agree to let them go for a heavy sum that is impossible for Omar's impoverished family to pay off, so Omar seeks alternatives to earning the cash. Meanwhile, Omar's co-worker 16-year-old Malek is also in need of money to help pay for his sick mother's surgery. The two come up with a plan to draw some cash but instead end up in a terrible mess.

This film seems so real that it's almost like a very well-polished documentary. Stories are so detailed, connected and believable that this could very well be the re-telling of a true story, and it's clear that realism is exactly what directors Scandar Copti and Yaron Shani were trying to achieve. Of course aside from beautiful--yet horrifying--storytelling, the setting and array of unknown faces help to bring the film to life. When you aren't yet familiar with an actor, it's as if he may actually be that poor, little boy living in Ajami.

Ajami also has great pacing. A lot of the times, stories based on true conflict or history-in-the-making seem very lethargic. They often seem to heavily drag through their runtime, dwelling on over-scripted dialogue and scenes. Ajami feels neither sluggish nor rushed. Each scene, each line seems deliberately timed just enough to keep the film rolling at a steady pace, pulling the viewer through the rich narrative.

And clearly, narrative is the strongest point in this film. Although little is actually poorly done, it's the narrative that drives the entire film. Since this film didn't take the win for Best Foreign Language film at the Academy Awards last year, then the film that won must have seriously been a hell-of-a-hurricane blow away. A

EXTRAS: Featurette interviewing the actors, deleted scenes, stills gallery and theatrical trailer

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

Photo: Allmoviephoto.com
(Great Scott!)

Starring Michael Cera, Mary Stuart Winstead and Kieran Culkin. Directed by Edgar Wright. 112 minutes. PG

I don't think I have ever seen a movie that was more tailor-made for me than Edgar Wright's (Hot Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead) mega-fun, meta-hipster action-comedy, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Sure, I'm not a nerdy boy bassist. And I don't have to fight a bunch of evil ex-girlfriends for the love of my current-life using light sabers and alterna-pop. But I am Torontonian twenty-something. And this movie is pretty much a Lite Bright love letter to partying pre-quarterlife crisis style in the GTA.

Like the six-part cult comic series it's based on, Scott Pilgrim vs. the. World, takes place on the smog-covered streets of T.O. But unlike most movies shot here, it doesn't try to hide our landmarks with fake signs or subtle blurs. When they walk by Honest Ed's, we see the obnoxious lights and punny advertisements in their full, embarrassingly comforting glory. When they hit up Pizza Pizza, we can tell which intersection it's at. When they take the public transit, we know they're on the TTC. And when they go to Casa Loma, everyone tells you it's Casa Loma. The Hogtown love can be bit too much sometimes (see: the blatant CN Tower cameo), but most of the time it's just flattering. And trippy. Especially when you walk out of the theatre and see these places manifest themselves right in front of you.

But you don't have to be from Canada to get a kick out of Scott Pilgrim. Although, you might have to fit a certain age bracket. Wright has crafted a near-perfect early '90s throwback, a nostalgia piece perfect for the pre-ADD generation, who remember the days when video games weren't as high-tech and cool as we wanted them to be and that was more than okay. Like the opening, when the Universal logo gets pixelated to look like it's straight out of an old-school Nintendo game. It's surprising and awesome, but also hard to appreciate if you didn't grow up with a ghetto gaming system for a best friend.

Then again, there is so much going on in Scott Pilgrim, it's hard to focus on any particular joke, visual or plot point long enough to think that hard about it. The story is straight-forward - Scott (Michael Cera) falls hard for a bright-haired alterna-girl named Ramona (Mary Stuart Winstead) and finds out that in order to get to her heart, he has to physically defeat every one of her seven exes, including Superman (er, Brandon Routh with a bad dye job), Chris Evans, Jason Schwartzman and her (I mean, Egg. I mean, Ann!) - and constantly engaging, save for the last fight scene, in which Scott takes on the film's Big Bad Boss.And the cast features some of the most talented young actors out there today - Oscar-nominee Anna Kendrick, Rory Culkin of Igby Goes Down, Alison Pill (Milk), Aubrey Plaza (Parks and Recreation) - all of which are charming in that slacker, Ethan-Hawke-in-Reality-Bites kind of way.

Although the writing and acting are solid (and superbly self-deprecating), the most impressive part of Scott Pilgrim is undoubtedly the visuals. Looks wise, this film is a dorky mutt, the result of a hot night in with the most manic manga you can find and the shittiest Street Fighter machine in the arcade. It could have easily been done in 3D, but Wright, being the geek god that he is, is too cool for that. He goes for the standard dual-dimension treatment and manages to brings us the most insanely interactive flick in years.

Using graphic novel staples like panel-crossing onomatopoeias, random thought bubbles and bubblegum-toned graphics, Wright playfully shoves Scott Pilgrim's precious little post-adolescent life in our faces, creating what can only be referred to as a pop cultural equivalent of Pop Rocks, exploding with tastefully artificial energy and startling deliciousness. And I don't know about you, but I love me some Pop Rocks. A

Mr. Nobody

Photo: mrnobody-lefilm.com

(Nobody, really.)

Starring Jared Leto, Diane Kruger and Sarah Polley. Directed by Jaco Van Dormael. 138 minutes. 14A

Imagine a life where you never had to make choices. What do you want for breakfast? What film will you watch this evening? Or who will you marry five years from now? Instead, you could have it all at once. It also sounds too excessive to be fulfilling. Would you ever really savour anything? Would you ever even want anything anymore? But it at least sounds like a life a lot less worrying. It's the life Mr. Nobody lives. Or doesn't live. If he even exists at all.

In Mr. Nobody, Nemo Nobody (Jared Leto) is a 117-year-old man living in 2092, when he will be the last man to die of natural causes. It's an odd world. Many objects float, no one has sex anymore and people take vacations to Mars. Nemo stars in a reality show, seemingly unknowingly, where the world watches the last days of his life while doctors and scientists and journalists try to figure out who this old man once was. Meanwhile, Nemo has flashbacks of his youthful life.

Leto doesn't say much as a young Nemo, instead his wide-eyes and heavy breathing carry scenes. However, as an old man, he shouts in passionate anger and revels in memories. His voice is withered and wispy. He blinks solemnly. It's almost as if Leto is an old man and his younger scenes are the ones under heavy makeup. Hey, who knows. It seems anything is possible in this film.

Mr. Nobody is a film for the thinker, but not in the Matrix-y way where the story is told and it's up to you to understand it. Instead, Mr. Nobody melds life and death; reality and fiction; past, present and future; and alternate plot lines. It's not about trying to figure out what's actually going on, but rather gets you to think about the what ifs, both in the film and your own life.

Aside from beautiful ideas, the cinematography is also interesting. It's very artsy and simple. It almost feels like stepping into a modern art gallery. It perfectly compliments the quirky, thoughtful narrative.

It's a great film to get lost in, whether you're tracing story lines or entranced by composition or tangled somewhere else in your own thoughts. A

Inception

Photo: Allmoviephoto.com

(They're the dream warriors!)

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Ken Watanabe, Marion Coittard and Tom Hardy. Directed by Christopher Nolan. 148 minutes. 14A

Two summers ago, even the more pretentious popcorn people of the world were blown away by Christopher Nolan's gothy Gotham opus, The Dark Knight. This summer, they better be ready to explode. Inception, Nolan's latest mind-fucking drama, makes Batman look like a geek in bondage gear.

The film follows a team of high-profile dream thieves, or rather, well-paid criminals that steal ideas directly from your mid-sleep subconscious state. The leader of the said pack is a Cobb (DiCaprio), a brilliant, but obviously bruised, man. Cobb hasn't seen his children in ages, for reasons that I am going to purposely keep under wraps, and he's dying to find a way home. So when businessman, Saito (Ken Watanabe), offers him a one-way ticket back to his babies, he, and his long-time partner in mind-altering, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), jump on it. The catch is, Saito doesn't want them to do the standard thought-plucking procedure. He wants them to perform "inception," planting idea in a rival business leader's head (Cillian Murphy). Cobb says he's only done this once before, and seems weary of his abilities, so the team adds some new members: a cocky master of dream disguise named Eames (Tom Hardy) and a whip-smart young architect named Ariadne (Ellen Page). The rest of the story is too original, and genuinely surprising, to dare spoil.

What I will say is the special effects that frame Inception's constantly changing dream sequences are worth the ticket price alone. They're overwhelmingly spectacular, fake enough to seem surreal, and real enough to seem tangible. One scene in particular (look for Gordon-Levitt levitating around an abandoned hotel corridor) will have you questioning your sense of gravity. Hell, every scene will have you rethinking your surroundings. Don't be surprised if you leave the theatre wondering if the fellow movie-goers are really there, or if it's all in your head.

One thing you won't have to get all introspective and philosophical about is DiCaprio's performance. There's no question he's been following his break-out character's advice and making it count, again. He has picked another great film, and great director, to showcase his natural intensity, and don't be surprised if he gets buzz for it (although, perhaps not Oscar-related). He's well-groomed pawn in Nolan's cinematic chess board, clearly aware that the film is even bigger than his obvious talent. His take on Cobb is eccentric yet endearing, a toned-down version of his character in the middle of Shutter Island or, if you want to get more critically-acclaimed, a more thoughtful (and less hopelessly Bostonian) cousin of Billy Costigan.

And DiCaprio's not the only piece of the puzzling picture that fits nearly perfectly. The whole cast is in on the trippy tale, leaving their previous personas behind and fully immersing themselves in the elaborate set-up. Marion Cottilard is both heart-breaking and terrifying as Cobb's long-lost love, Mal. Gordon-Levitt is also strong, both physically and emotionally, demonstrating that he's galaxies away from the awkward kid he was on 3rd Rock. Page and Watanabe also deserve kudos (they're both necessary parts of Cobb's development). But the real standout here is Tom Hardy. He's oozing with leading man potential: rugged, handsome and deadpan funny. His playfully hateful chemistry with Gordon-Levitt provides quirky comic relief when the dream drama gets a little too real.

Inception may well be the best drama of the year so far, depending on your summer movie-going personality. If you're looking for a large Coke and a mind-numbing escapist pic, keep your mind closed to Cobb and his gang of cranial criminals. They will most likely put you to sleep (or perhaps give you way-too-thought-out nightmares). But if you're sick the standard summer fluff, Inception will be, well, dreamy. A

DVD: Chloe

Photo: amazon.ca

(Seyfried captivates as Chloe)

Starring Julianne Moore, Liam Neeson and Amanda Seyfried. Directed by Atom Egoyan. 99 minutes. 18A

Who would have thought that of all the Mean Girls, it would be the actress behind the wide-eyed, dopey chick to star alongside Oscar nominees Julianne Moore and Liam Neeson, and against such forces, still steal the attention. Amanda Seyfried is the pulse throughout Chloe.

In Chloe, Catherine (Moore) begins to suspect her husband, David (Neeson), is cheating on her when he misses his flight back home on his birthday, and she later finds a photo on his phone hugging a student of his. Bumping into a pretty, young prostitute (Seyfried) one day in a restaurant washroom, a comforting exchange turns awkward and Catherine leaves. Seemingly by coincidence, they meet again at a bar. The young woman introduces herself as Chloe. Confused and heartbroken by the suspicion of her husband, Catherine hires Chloe to test her husband, to flirt with him to see how he responds, to find out if he is really cheating on her. Chloe accepts and as the days go on, Chloe reports explicit details back. Catherine becomes vulnerable and meetings start to become more than business transactions.

It's always tough to know what to expect when a film gets such mixed reviews. When A. O. Scott says it "lacks any real dramatic vitality or emotional charge" yet Ebert gives it three and a half stars out of four, what are you supposed to think, other than that it seems like a really daring movie that either went horribly wrong or brilliantly beautiful. Dare give it a shot? Yes, because it turns out to be the latter.

Chloe is a spider. She weaves together a strangely sticky, embroidered web between relationships, imagination and suspicions, inviting unsuspecting prey to step foot in her domain, but along the way, gets caught herself. Seyfried is chilling as the closely-shadowing weaver. She's convincing and expressive as Chloe, who we see as old beyond her years but not hardened. She's fragile but brazen. Seyfried's doe-eyes are perfectly suited to her character, whether lost off in the distance, fixed on something she aches for far away, or welled up with heartbreak. Her pouty lips also childishly smile at unexpected moments, making you wonder what she's thought of but won't tell you.

Neeson too brings charge to his scenes, whether falling victim to Chloe in Allan Gardens or overbrimming with angry when accused by his wife in the kitchen. Meanwhile, Moore also brings an expected emotional performance. Her hasty distrustfulness seems real when she first checks her husband's phone, as does her supposed revenge, but we've come to expect this from Moore.

What's unexpected though is how sexy Atom Egoyan makes Toronto look. Do our streets really look so picturesque? Are our cafes so charming? Do our bars look that trendy? Even in rain and slush, our city looks gorgeous. It also seems a bit dark and mysterious, much like the title character. The two seem a perfect synonym, Chloe in her flowing blonde locks and underhanded ways, Toronto in it's beautiful shadows.

Strangely entrancing, Chloe won't let you turn away. A

Extras: Featurettes