Albert Nobbs *½

Director: Rodrigo García

Cast: Glenn Close, Mia Wasikowska, Aaron Johnson

Janet McTeer, Pauline Collins, Brenda Fricker, Jonathan Rhys Meyers

Brendan Gleeson, Maria Doyle Kennedy

Scene after scene, Albert Nobbs plays out like a Masterpiece Theatre production of Mr. Dullfire (in honor of that other, actually quite funny, drag event Mrs. Doubtfire).

It makes perfect sense to bring up Robin Williams' performance in that film, because Glenn Close in drag actually looks like him. In both cases we were fully aware that we were watching major film stars playing cross-dressers, the difference is that absolutely nothing in Albert Nobbs makes us care to see what lies underneath the facade.

Set in 19th century Dublin, the film opens with images of a hotel's staff preparing for work. Like most period films, this one too wants us to understand the time setting and become familiarized with the characters we will meet; therefore we are initially wowed by meticulous production design and the golden cinematography we've come to expect. 

Among these workers we spot butler Albert Nobbs, who puts extra effort into his work and smiles like a satisfied fool while pleasing others around him. We also meet hotel owner Mrs. Baker (Collins), slutty maid Helen (Wasikowska) and the charismatic Dr. Holloran (Gleeson) who is somehow presented to us with a tinge of menace. 

Soon we learn that Albert's quiet demeanor is because he harbors a secret: he is actually a woman and has pretended to be one for three decades in order to have a job. Once this is revealed, the film instantly falls down because neither the screenplay nor the director can make a point of where they want to take it next.

Is the secret the film's biggest twist or are we supposed to care about whether other characters will discover it or not. Considering how the screenplay makes the characters either completely under/over-written, it's a shame that Close tries to invest so much into a character that's merely a hollow vessel for the director, actress and writer to show off.

Where Close tries to infuse him with a private inner life by shutting everyone else out - including the audience - (and perhaps to cover for how badly written Albert is) the director practically ignores him and turns him into a part of the decoration. Instead García focuses his attention on truly preposterous characters and situations, like Helen (who Wasikowska tries and fails to turn into a character Angela Lansbury might've played in the 1940s) and her affair with do-no-gooder Joe (Johnson). 

Time and time again it seems that nobody in the movie wants to deal with Albert...Even the spark in Close's eye when she plays him, seems to be more about the fact that she finally got to play him than about the character itself. This project has been notorious for being Close's pet cause for at least twenty-five years and by finally getting to do it, she might've become too reverential and cautious (Close is listed as a co-writer), completely forgetting to let Albert have a life of his own.

Things in the plot get more complicated with the appearance of Mr. Hubert Page (McTeer) a strange painter who not only discovers Albert's secret but reveals one of his own: he is also a woman!

We never truly understand why the film is about Albert and not about Mr. Page, considering how McTeer plays him as the only believable character in the movie. It doesn't help that it's obvious from the start that he's also a she, it forces one to wonder whether the character would've been more successful if played by an unknown actress or to just be thankful for McTeer's humanistic work.

The worst thing in the film might be how time and time again it misleads us by trying to turn Albert into a mystery based on ludicrous twists and events. For example when Hubert suggests that Albert should open up a shop, Albert imagines himself married to Helen and being a successful businessman.

However at no point are we to understand that Albert is gay and has any sexual desire for Helen, or even that he is so complexly damaged that he has come to believe that he can only attain success as a man. We are teased in a similar way when we see Albert longingly looking at a picture of a young woman. When we discover who she is, we realize that even within its faux-class attire, García is merely using Albert as a morbid circus attraction. The fact that Albert remains in character even when he delivers ridiculous monologues in his room, make it obvious that nobody in the production team had any real conscience of who Albert would be.

By thinking we're often wondering "is he or isn't he", the director loses all purpose and turns the movie into a claustrophobic tabloid-esque story. All of his characters become either too hermetic or too stereotypical for us to take any interest in and he makes no comment whatsoever on either sexual identity, Victorian repression or anything that might've interested an intelligent adult. By the time the film is over (after an overblown, melodramatic succession of events) we realize that Albert might've had a knob but the artistic team behind him lacked the balls.

Sheet-y Saturday.

Where we take a look at posters for upcoming features.

Oh the French, while silly Americans worry about the notion of sex onscreen and Michael Fassbender's cock, the French not only dare to put a male figure on the suggestive poster, but the moving hand implies it's heading to somewhere a bit more risqué. Despite the weird proportions of the body (the too smooth sides make it look like a woman in serious need of Nair) applause to the European distributor for reminding us that we all want to see this movie for the same kinky reasons.

More and more, this movie reminds me of a reverse Mrs. Doubtfire. Also, the drastic change from the original, perfect teaser, to this more common one-sheet makes it seem like the studio is worried it'll only attract nerdy arthousers (which it will...). With that said, Aaron Johnson should be in much more movies. Still wonder what they see in Wasikowska though...

What's your own take on all the knobs in this week's posters?

Nowhere Boy **½

Director: Sam Taylor-Wood
Cast: Aaron Johnson, Thomas Brodie Sangster
Kristin Scott Thomas, Anne-Marie Duff, David Morrissey, Sam Bell

Every biopic begins with one question: will people, who have no interest in the famous character, want to see this? In the case of Nowhere Boy, assuming there are people out there who have no idea who John Lennon was, what will draw them to a film about his teenage years?
Why make a movie about someone before they were famous instead of concentrating on the dirt and juiciness that fame brought them?
This film concentrates on Lennon's (Johnson) relationship with two women: his estranged mother Julia (Duff) and his strict Aunt Mimi (Thomas). Most of the film has the rebellious John trying to understand why his mom abandoned him and then succumbing to her charm as he begins to resent Mimi's parenting skills.
We might not come to understand much about Lennon by examining this strange love triangle but we are rewarded with a strong, if sometimes too facile, melodrama in which the actors get to shine.
Johnson is a delight as the wide eyed John. We can assume that he's playing Lennon as a combination of Elvis, James Dean and the actual John Lennon which is why his performance is full of mannerisms that somehow feel authentic (he's a performer building his future image). Even when the film takes him towards typical genre twists, he does his best to keep John completely unaware of who he'll become.
This is what gives the movie its best quality. Out of the things it gets wrong, it gets something quite right and it's the way in which it approaches the biopic and filters it through the use of the domestic drama genre.
Therefore what we see is not a movie specifically about how Lennon became one of the most iconic figures in music history but an intriguing family portrait.
Duff is full of energy as Julia and she gives her character a strange eroticism that sometimes makes her seem incestuous. The way she devours John when she's with him gives us glimpses of guilt and some serious Oedipal issues that the director doesn't commit to exploring thoroughly.
Then there's the astonishing Kristin Scott Thomas who practically owns the film as Aunt Mimi. Those who are extremely familiar with the Lennon back story know that it was Mimi who raised him and became his only parent.
It's a delight to see what Thomas does with the role; she can go from cold and slightly sadistic to incredibly warm with a few gestures and gives Mimi a depth no other actor achieves in the movie.
Nowhere Boy suffers mostly from its episodic nature and the way in which its whole sense of lacking selfawareness makes it feel wandering and aimless from time to time.
Fans of The Beatles and John Lennon will enjoy the inner references (watching John draw a walrus puts a smile on your face instantly) but those with less affection towards the music icons will probably be confused by the film's inconsistencies.

Kick-Ass **

Director: Matthew Vaughn
Cast: Aaron Johnson, Nicolas Cage, Chloë Moretz, Mark Strong
Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Yancy Butler, Lyndsy Fonseca
Clark Duke, Evan Peters, Michael Rispoli

Based on energy alone, Kick-Ass could very well ride a wave that would cloud the fact that it's a very inconsistent, almost incoherent, movie.
Its concept is quite a simple one, as it wonders why don't superheroes exist when practically anyone can become whatever they want.
The idea is executed by average teenager Dave Lizewski (Johnson) who buys himself a wetsuit, a couple of clubs and goes out to the streets looking for people to help using the name Kick-Ass.
"I always wondered why no one did it before me" he asks after he accidentally becomes an internet phenomenon and the threat of paranoid mob king Frank D'Amico (Strong, who's become the new go-to-guy for over the top villains) whose plans have been botched by a masked vigilante.
D'Amico ignores the fact that there are more heroes than Kick-Ass (giving the plot one of its first inconsistencies along with the constant disappearance of Dave's eyeglasses...) and one of them has a personal vendetta against him.
It's none other than Big Daddy (Cage) a once honored cop who fell victim to the mobster's allies and is now plotting a huge revenge against him, with his twelve year old daughter who calls herself Hit-Girl (Moretz).
Soon the heroes' storylines will cross as they face the evil D'Amico and the movie tries to be all of the following: a quirky indie like superhero movie, a Tarantino ripoff, an accurate social commentary on adolescents and the media, an old fashioned revenge story, a coming of age drama, a genre satire and a comedy of manners.
With all the different stylistic currents going through the movie, the real heroic feat is how director Vaughn manages to make something out of it and especially for that something to be vastly entertaining.
Much is owed to the superb cast who make the most out of the poor character development they're given.
Cage is at his idiosyncratic best (how he can be so good and then so terrible is a mystery) while Strong fills his role with morbid delight.
Yet the movie belongs to the young; Johnson, who technically has to carry the entire movie on his shoulders creates a charming hybrid of a Michael Cera performance with Daniel Radcliffe's unwilling blooming sexuality.
And the stunning Moretz, who also becomes the film's most controversial character, takes over the screen in such a way that you won't believe how young she actually is.
Her ability to be a complete bad-ass, yet preserve sweet, innocent traits is a remarkable work.
Too bad that it's especially with Hit-Girl that Vaughn reveals that he didn't really know how to handle the material.
For all the Tarantino-esque hyper-violence of the movie, there's also its pervading need to be as real as possible.
So in this tonal oxymoron, the film hits a contradiction that makes it impossible to take "serious" as a fantasy or as a fantastical take on reality.
Kick-Ass should've taken a cue from one of the basic paradigms of comic superheroes that make us wonder where will the villains who want to destroy the world move to.
This idea in comic books isn't usually taken seriously because we all know the hero will arrive in time to save the day, making the ultimate evil plan a complete implausibility.
But what can we make of a movie that constantly reminds us of the hero's ordinariness? If Dave's Kick-Ass isn't an actual superhero, what makes it alright to watch a little girl shooting gangsters?
The film tries to inhabit parallel universes: one where the comic book fantasy rules and even the youngest kids can be what they want and another completely different place where these very kids might want to be villains instead and pack guns in their lunchboxes to shoot their classmates.
Sometimes it's our world, sometimes it's superhero land...isn't this impossibility to differentiate between fantasy and reality what actually triggered several school massacres during the last decade?
Kick-Ass might be enjoyable but it gets wrong what a great superhero movie got very right: it has no consciousness of the responsibilities that come with power.