Controversial documentarian Michael Moore has taken on some important news topics over the past two decades but perhaps none has affected every American more than the financial meltdown of Wall Street in 2008 as depicted in Capitalism: A Love Story. Done in his customary style of news clips, interviews, and enactments, he has fashioned a convincing indictment of greedy bank executives while being engaging and at times enlightening.
He points out a startling fact: We used to be one income family, Wall Street and corporate profits were guided by sound principles, and our country had no business competition. It’s a kind of history lesson courtesy of Moore as he also notes parallels between the demise of Wall Street and that of the Roman Empire, a comparison not without merit.
His thesis is that since President Ronald Reagan came into office, the influence of Wall Street has increased to the point that, while Congress and the U.S. Treasury have promoted financial deregulation, many of them have direct links to financial giants such as Goldman Sachs. It would seem on surface to be a major conflict of interest, and that is the point. A handful of CEO’s have benefited from running the country as a corporation and costing millions of jobs and livelihoods.
Moore ties news stories to an increasing pattern of corporate greed. There is a juvenile facility in Pennsylvania financed by taxpayer money and corrupt public officials. There are college students beholden to banks with student loans, and we witness news reports of a recent plane crash in Buffalo, New York, for what appears to be the lack of funds for safety issues. Then there is the surprising practice of businesses like Wal-Mart that take out life insurance policies on its employees and collecting on the benefits. By contrast, he does show examples of companies owned by workers that operate efficiently and at a profit. His point is there can be win-win situations.
As Wall Street sold ‘derivatives’, a risky form of corporate gambling, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan suggested that Americans tap the equity in their homes, and thus came the refinance boom for banks and a new found wealth for the masses-or was it? Using a home like a bank was a formula for financial disaster as the housing industry collapsed with foreclosures and the banking industry fell too. Moore makes his point with footage of actual foreclosures as sheriffs evict homeowners, and the cruelty is not only losing a home but in the cottage industry that has taken advantage of this agonizing process. Added to this is the preferential treatment that CEO’s gave to each other and many lawmakers regarding mortgage approvals. The question that keeps being asked by Moore and others is ‘where were the regulators’ in all this?
As Congress debated on how to repair the economy with a bailout of as much as $700 billion of taxpayer money, Wall Street used media abetted fear to manipulate lawmakers. It was a politics of fear. But not everyone was buying into the fear. Some members of Congress were brave enough to tell a sobering tale of a lack of oversight versus corporate bonuses being fed by the bailout.
Moore shows that some people are fighting back. A new President (Obama) ushers in the potential for change. People are fighting foreclosures and forcing banks to prove chain of title. The laid off workers at Republic Doors refused to exit the factory, and with media coverage and a supportive President, Bank of America caves in and agrees to pay the workers what is owed to them. This event is not without precedent as Moore points out in 1936, workers at a GM Flint, Michigan plant also fought back. In an ironic, fascinating piece of history of what might have been, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed but never lived to see a second Bill of Rights which would address virtually every important concern for Americans including health care, education, and financial security.
Then Moore makes this observation based on a private corporate memo that says 1% of the population in this country has 95% of the wealth but that the other 99% have an equal vote and the power to make changes (yet still hope to be part of the rich). It is this equal vote that scares the corporate powers. His conclusion is that the only hope for this country is for democracy to work.
Some things don’t come off well in the film; Moore appears to be grandstanding when he rents an armored car to make a citizen’s arrest of the CEOs of Wall Street and get back the public’s money. He even takes crime scene tape to cordon off bank doors. Also, an interview with actor Wallace Shawn seems a bit out of place. Wouldn’t an interview with an industry insider have worked better? You may not agree with everything Moore espouses, but some of the information should cause anyone to research the facts and draw their own conclusions. If you are a fan of his previous films Sicko or Fahrenheit 9/11, then you will appreciate Capitalism: A Love Story.
*** of **** stars
Vertigo
Vertigo
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The Ten Greatest War Films of All Time
As Veterans Day approaches, here is a list of some memorable war themed films. You could assemble another list of ten quite easily. I left out biographies - Patton, Schindler’s List, and Sergeant York, and comedic takes like M*A*S*H, and straight wartime dramas - Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo, The Best Years of Our Lives, Twelve O’Clock High, and Coming Home, or silent masterpieces - The Big Parade, Wings, and the controversial Birth of a Nation, or foreign entrees - Grand Illusion and Das Boot, fictitious gems - The Guns of Navarone or The Dirty Dozen, and the frontline soldiers of Battleground, The Story of G.I. Joe, They Were Expendable, The Big Red One, and Platoon.
In chronological order-
All Quiet on the Western Front-Unflinching look at front line soldiers who must face the enemy as directed by the maestro war director of all time, Lewis Milestone (A Walk in the Sun, Pork Chop Hill).
From Here to Eternity-The first adult oriented depiction of the personal lives of the men and women whose fates are forever altered by Pearl Harbor.
Paths of Glory-The supreme, anti-war film based on fact and featuring knockout acting by Kirk Douglas and the directorial machinations of a young Stanley Kubrick who would match this effort with Full Metal Jacket.
The Bridge on the River Kwai-The madness of war and how its participants lose sight of what really matters is the core of a cinematic triumph featuring Alec Guinness’ Oscar laden performance and an exciting climax second to none.
The Longest Day-Epic recreation of D-Day which changed the world. Remarkable in its scope and clarity and a star studded roster of cameos.
The Great Escape-The true story of allied escape from a German Stalag has a marvelous cast, superbly edited, and a star turn by motorcycle riding Steve McQueen.
The Deer Hunter-The lives of a Pennsylvania steel town are depicted in loving detail and thrown into allegorical horror of the Vietnam War.
Apocalypse Now- Into the heart of darkness as a military officer is sent to find the mysterious Colonel Kurtz who has descended into war’s hell. The Ride of the Valkyries helicopter charge is stunning.
Glory-The real life exploits of a regiment of soldiers composed of former slaves during the Civil War culminates in the greatest, emotional charge in war filmdom.
Saving Private Ryan-Spielberg stages the most realistic battle scene of all time as D-Day is reenacted in all its horrifying detail. Not until Black Hawk Down did a film come close to matching its verisimilitude of orchestrated mayhem.
In chronological order-
All Quiet on the Western Front-Unflinching look at front line soldiers who must face the enemy as directed by the maestro war director of all time, Lewis Milestone (A Walk in the Sun, Pork Chop Hill).
From Here to Eternity-The first adult oriented depiction of the personal lives of the men and women whose fates are forever altered by Pearl Harbor.
Paths of Glory-The supreme, anti-war film based on fact and featuring knockout acting by Kirk Douglas and the directorial machinations of a young Stanley Kubrick who would match this effort with Full Metal Jacket.
The Bridge on the River Kwai-The madness of war and how its participants lose sight of what really matters is the core of a cinematic triumph featuring Alec Guinness’ Oscar laden performance and an exciting climax second to none.
The Longest Day-Epic recreation of D-Day which changed the world. Remarkable in its scope and clarity and a star studded roster of cameos.
The Great Escape-The true story of allied escape from a German Stalag has a marvelous cast, superbly edited, and a star turn by motorcycle riding Steve McQueen.
The Deer Hunter-The lives of a Pennsylvania steel town are depicted in loving detail and thrown into allegorical horror of the Vietnam War.
Apocalypse Now- Into the heart of darkness as a military officer is sent to find the mysterious Colonel Kurtz who has descended into war’s hell. The Ride of the Valkyries helicopter charge is stunning.
Glory-The real life exploits of a regiment of soldiers composed of former slaves during the Civil War culminates in the greatest, emotional charge in war filmdom.
Saving Private Ryan-Spielberg stages the most realistic battle scene of all time as D-Day is reenacted in all its horrifying detail. Not until Black Hawk Down did a film come close to matching its verisimilitude of orchestrated mayhem.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
The Ten Greatest Horror Films of All Time
Ok, I could have included any number of films like the classics, King Kong, The Wolfman, the Val Lewton classics (Cat People), and Island of Lost Souls, or some cool monsters in The Thing (1951) or Creature from the Black Lagoon, or some mind benders like The Innocents and Peeping Tom, while noting some slashers like Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Friday the 13th, and some well deserved sequels like Dawn of the Dead (1978) or thrillers like Silence of the Lambs or Carrie, and some recent gems like The Ring , Nightmare on Elm Street, and Evil Dead. This is only one person’s opinion but the goal was to focus on those films that have stood the test of time and have been the focal point of influence on not just one but many films. Indeed, these ten films vary from inexpensive cheapies to major studio A budgets and cover a wide period of filmmaking. Ultimately the criteria was if the film was unequivocally scary and stayed with you. These ten meet the test. Enjoy.
The Exorcist-the granddaddy of good vs. evil complete with gross moments, great acting, and told with complete conviction by William Friedkin at the height of his powers.
Halloween –John Carpenter set the standard for current slasher films but no one has done a better job at modulating events until its suspenseful climax which ushered in a multitude of sequels.
Psycho-Hitchcock influenced a generation with this innovative film that broke all the rules and foreshadowed Halloween and Carrie.
Night of the Living Dead- low budget indie that has stood the test of time and has inspired dozens of good zombie films (Resident Evil, 28 Days Later) and was a big influence on that Grand Guignol, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Bride of Frankenstein-horror with pathos and over the top imagination as this sequel to Frankenstein surpasses it and establishes itself as an all time movie great among movies.
Nosferatu-a silent masterpiece courtesy of German visionary F.W. Murnau is the best Dracula film without being called Dracula (for legal reasons) and with the most horrifying shot of all time as Max Schreck’s vampire levitates out of his coffin and stalks the last survivor of a ship!
Invasion of the Body Snatchers-the notion of losing yourself to an unemotional, static form is that inhuman terror that infected The Stepford Wives but never as good as this original that puts all other remakes to shame.
Repulsion-the ultimate psychological descent into personal hell with Catherine Deneuve complete with a hallway scene to make you jump; director Roman Polanski was making ready for Rosemary’s Baby
Jaws-and its mostly unseen terror abetted by a masterful John Williams score and a new director named Spielberg would usher in the age of the blockbuster and later Jurassic Park.
Alien- ok any remake of a B-movie of the 50’s (It the Terror from Beyond Space) can’t be all bad if it delivers 100% and introduces us to one of the great movie monsters of all time and a new heroine in Sigourney Weaver.
The Exorcist-the granddaddy of good vs. evil complete with gross moments, great acting, and told with complete conviction by William Friedkin at the height of his powers.
Halloween –John Carpenter set the standard for current slasher films but no one has done a better job at modulating events until its suspenseful climax which ushered in a multitude of sequels.
Psycho-Hitchcock influenced a generation with this innovative film that broke all the rules and foreshadowed Halloween and Carrie.
Night of the Living Dead- low budget indie that has stood the test of time and has inspired dozens of good zombie films (Resident Evil, 28 Days Later) and was a big influence on that Grand Guignol, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Bride of Frankenstein-horror with pathos and over the top imagination as this sequel to Frankenstein surpasses it and establishes itself as an all time movie great among movies.
Nosferatu-a silent masterpiece courtesy of German visionary F.W. Murnau is the best Dracula film without being called Dracula (for legal reasons) and with the most horrifying shot of all time as Max Schreck’s vampire levitates out of his coffin and stalks the last survivor of a ship!
Invasion of the Body Snatchers-the notion of losing yourself to an unemotional, static form is that inhuman terror that infected The Stepford Wives but never as good as this original that puts all other remakes to shame.
Repulsion-the ultimate psychological descent into personal hell with Catherine Deneuve complete with a hallway scene to make you jump; director Roman Polanski was making ready for Rosemary’s Baby
Jaws-and its mostly unseen terror abetted by a masterful John Williams score and a new director named Spielberg would usher in the age of the blockbuster and later Jurassic Park.
Alien- ok any remake of a B-movie of the 50’s (It the Terror from Beyond Space) can’t be all bad if it delivers 100% and introduces us to one of the great movie monsters of all time and a new heroine in Sigourney Weaver.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
HORRORFIND WEEKEND 2009
.JPG)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG)
This year's edition of the horror film convention in Hunt Valley, Horrorfind Weekend, featured a fewer number of vendors which was a disappointment for movie poster collectors like myself but not short on industry celebrities and faces. A rare appearance by Adrienne King, the heroine from the original Friday 13th movie, had a perpetual line of people. Old faces like Corbin Bernson (Major League , LA Law), Danny Trejo (Heat, Desperado), and Fred Williamson (M*A*S*H, Three the Hard Way) were there. I met with Margot Kidder who was Lois Lane in the Christopher Reeve Superman movies of the 1970's and 1980's. I also met William Katt who was Carrie's date to the prom! He was a pretty neat guy and spent time getting to know each fan. There were other folks like the great makeup effects artist Tom Savini who had a lifesized friend from Gremlins for me to snap a picture. It was a nice time to take your mind off from reality for a bit.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
JULIE & JULIA Serves a Tasty Dish
Take equal parts Meryl Streep and Amy Adams. Add a dash of Stanley Tucci and have chef/director Nora Ephron whip up a delicious patisserie of confectionary delight in the true tale, Julie & Julia. Combining two source books, Julie Powell’s Julie & Julia and Julia Child’s My Life in France, Ephron’s screen adaptation parallels the lives of up and coming master chef Child and aspiring writer Powell who uses Child’s cookbook as the inspiration for her ambitious blog. The results, while not a five star meal, is certainly an entertaining, well acted drama highlighted by some amusing situations.
Two married women from different times and places yearn to satisfy their inner desire for independence. In 1949, Julia Child and her US civil servant husband, Paul, are stationed in Paris, France. Wanting to do something besides sitting around like other wives of the period, she endeavors a variety of classes from hat making to bridge lessons until she and Paul hit upon the fact that she loves to eat. Thus she embarks on a mission to conquer cooking schools and the art of culinary cuisine. In 2002, with similar desires for a more fulfilling life as an author, Julie Powell is getting adjusted to Queens, New York, with her husband, Eric. Powell’s frustrations are channeled into a blog that documents her attempts to realize all 524 recipes in Julia Child’s famous cookbook in 365 days no less. The two lead characters depend on the publishing world for success-Child with her constantly delayed French cookbook manuscript that grows to 700 pages and the doubting responses of skeptical publishers, and Julie with her daily blogs as her way of garnering attention from a publisher. Both women’s lives are set on a journey of self discovery and validation as they find that their goals will be sprinkled with adversity and roadblocks. Ultimately it will be their sheer will, self reflection, and the love of their respective spouses that will see them through in their quests.
Streep is perhaps the best actress of the past thirty years and this role only serves to elevate her status. Although the role is not a tortured soul as in Sophie’s Choice or Kramer vs. Kramer, she embodies Child as a larger than life bon vivant while mimicking her voice and mannerisms with startling acumen and enthusiam. Child’s character gets more development than Powell. As she walks with Paul, her subtle reaction to a baby carriage and subsequent meltdown at the news of her sister’s pregnancy is an interesting revelation. Her love of French food becomes an avocation and her life’s calling. The cooking moments are convincing including a cute sequence involving chopped onions that will have audiences chuckling. She is a woman’s libber by default as she attends a more advanced, male dominated cooking class.
It’s a pity that any actor in a Streep film would suffer by comparison. Yet Adams throws herself in the more contemporary but less developed role with gusto. Her role is more of the everywoman who cooks as a form of therapy. Powell’s background can’t quite compete with the rich history of Child’s origins, but what she does get is a following and respect from fans and publishers. What Ephron should have done toward the end is to reemphasize how Powell’s inability to finish anything of merit has come full circle with this accomplishment and would have provided a more compelling character development.
Stanley Tucci is a standout who more than holds his own with Streep’s Child. It is an Oscar-worthy performance. Chris Messina is a star on the rise as Eric Powell; he performs well with an essentially one note role.
There are nice moments including an amusing scene when Julie and Eric watch Dan Aykroyd’s classic Saturday Night Live take on Julia Child. A subplot involving the House Un-American Activities Committee detracts from the overall spirit of Child’s story, and the film does slow a bit in the last half-hour but never loses interest completely. Ephron does well by linking similar themes and events that each woman experiences thus providing a bond and segue over time and space. One wishes that there was a more direct connection between the two women and even a chance meeting, but we have to settle for indirect links and the sharing of kindred spirits.
Don’t expect anything more than an interesting character study of two women bound by a love for food and search for purpose in their lives. Julie & Julia is light but satisfying fare highlighted by a sumptuous main course, Meryl Streep. Bon appetite!
*** of **** (add 1/2 * for Streep fans)
Two married women from different times and places yearn to satisfy their inner desire for independence. In 1949, Julia Child and her US civil servant husband, Paul, are stationed in Paris, France. Wanting to do something besides sitting around like other wives of the period, she endeavors a variety of classes from hat making to bridge lessons until she and Paul hit upon the fact that she loves to eat. Thus she embarks on a mission to conquer cooking schools and the art of culinary cuisine. In 2002, with similar desires for a more fulfilling life as an author, Julie Powell is getting adjusted to Queens, New York, with her husband, Eric. Powell’s frustrations are channeled into a blog that documents her attempts to realize all 524 recipes in Julia Child’s famous cookbook in 365 days no less. The two lead characters depend on the publishing world for success-Child with her constantly delayed French cookbook manuscript that grows to 700 pages and the doubting responses of skeptical publishers, and Julie with her daily blogs as her way of garnering attention from a publisher. Both women’s lives are set on a journey of self discovery and validation as they find that their goals will be sprinkled with adversity and roadblocks. Ultimately it will be their sheer will, self reflection, and the love of their respective spouses that will see them through in their quests.
Streep is perhaps the best actress of the past thirty years and this role only serves to elevate her status. Although the role is not a tortured soul as in Sophie’s Choice or Kramer vs. Kramer, she embodies Child as a larger than life bon vivant while mimicking her voice and mannerisms with startling acumen and enthusiam. Child’s character gets more development than Powell. As she walks with Paul, her subtle reaction to a baby carriage and subsequent meltdown at the news of her sister’s pregnancy is an interesting revelation. Her love of French food becomes an avocation and her life’s calling. The cooking moments are convincing including a cute sequence involving chopped onions that will have audiences chuckling. She is a woman’s libber by default as she attends a more advanced, male dominated cooking class.
It’s a pity that any actor in a Streep film would suffer by comparison. Yet Adams throws herself in the more contemporary but less developed role with gusto. Her role is more of the everywoman who cooks as a form of therapy. Powell’s background can’t quite compete with the rich history of Child’s origins, but what she does get is a following and respect from fans and publishers. What Ephron should have done toward the end is to reemphasize how Powell’s inability to finish anything of merit has come full circle with this accomplishment and would have provided a more compelling character development.
Stanley Tucci is a standout who more than holds his own with Streep’s Child. It is an Oscar-worthy performance. Chris Messina is a star on the rise as Eric Powell; he performs well with an essentially one note role.
There are nice moments including an amusing scene when Julie and Eric watch Dan Aykroyd’s classic Saturday Night Live take on Julia Child. A subplot involving the House Un-American Activities Committee detracts from the overall spirit of Child’s story, and the film does slow a bit in the last half-hour but never loses interest completely. Ephron does well by linking similar themes and events that each woman experiences thus providing a bond and segue over time and space. One wishes that there was a more direct connection between the two women and even a chance meeting, but we have to settle for indirect links and the sharing of kindred spirits.
Don’t expect anything more than an interesting character study of two women bound by a love for food and search for purpose in their lives. Julie & Julia is light but satisfying fare highlighted by a sumptuous main course, Meryl Streep. Bon appetite!
*** of **** (add 1/2 * for Streep fans)
HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF- BLOOD PRINCE Sets the Finale
This remarkably well balanced series of wildly successful films based on an equally popular series of novels by J. K. Rowling shows no signs of waning with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Potter veteran director David Yates and keeper of the flame scribe Steve Kloves have kept together a burgeoning franchise that is laying the foundation for a grand finale.
A new school year begins, and Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is coming to terms with being the ‘chosen one’ to do battle against the ultimate in evil wizardry, Lord Voldemort and the evil Death Eaters surrounding Hogwart. Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) enlists Harry to serve as bait to draw out the supremely evil Voldemort. An older Professor Slughorn (Jim Broadbent) returns to the school and brings with him a mysterious history of having taught the boy who became Lord Voldemort. Harry in the meantime discovers a manuscript by the ‘Half-Blood Prince’ and thinks that it is the key to learning the wizardry secret that will enable Harry and his comrades, Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) to defeat the man who killed his parents and godfather, Sirius Black. Harry’s school rival Draco harbors revenge against him for the death of his evil father. There is the aerial game Quidditch that challenges Ron’s mettle, and the blossoming of adolescent romance between Potter and Ron’s sister, Ginny and between Ron and Hermione. Then there is Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) and some mysterious behavior that questions his allegiance. As Dumbledore makes Harry promise to do whatever he instructs, the Death Eaters are unleashed within Hogwart with devastating consequences and a shocking betrayal that will forever change the destiny of the school and foreshadow the coming showdown with Voldemort.
This is a more grownup Potter as it explores relationships more thoroughly and some amusing situations arise such as a love triangle that plagues Ron. It is amusing to see how hormones are thriving amongst the teens and love is in the air. Growing up was never this hard. There are also surprises of a high order that will send the series on a new, ominous path while raising questions about the loyalty of a major player. The one constant is our beloved trio of maturing wizards who must face an uncertain future without an important character. The film reinforces the continuous themes of loyalty and friendship among our wizard heroes. That bond and natural chemistry among the three actors is partly what holds this remarkable series together.
Most of the characters are back from the previous film Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. It does feel like school has restarted when Professors Dumbledore, Snape, and McGonagall (venerable Maggie Smith) show up. Other familiar faces reappear, which greatly help in the continuity and progression of the story. The filmmakers are wise to introduce a couple new characters here and there without shaking up the status quo too much. All the Potter films have benefited from a strong focus on storyline in keeping with the novel sources.
Production values are topnotch again, and the dark, moody colored cinematography is an artistic triumph. It is impressive at how mainstream films have pushed the creative aspects of filmmaking without sacrificing popularity; witness the cinematography and art direction of The Dark Knight and the film editing in The Bourne Ultimatum. It has almost become passé to expect imaginative state of the art special effects in the Potter films, but they are always serving the plot and not merely to draw attention to the spectacle itself.
Since these are British performers, there is a bit of adjusting to their heavy British accents. This film, perhaps more than any other, assumes that the audience is already well versed on Potter lore, and so it may prove a bit confusing to the uninitiated. It starts out well and tries one’s patience just a tad as it builds a complex narrative that loses steam half-way through and picks up momentum toward the end and never lets up with a devastating payoff which in turn sets up the two part finale in grand fashion.
Though not the best film of the series, The Half-Blood Prince sets the table for the final battle of good versus evil. This must be a pretty good film because I can’t wait for the final installments.
*** of **** stars
A new school year begins, and Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is coming to terms with being the ‘chosen one’ to do battle against the ultimate in evil wizardry, Lord Voldemort and the evil Death Eaters surrounding Hogwart. Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) enlists Harry to serve as bait to draw out the supremely evil Voldemort. An older Professor Slughorn (Jim Broadbent) returns to the school and brings with him a mysterious history of having taught the boy who became Lord Voldemort. Harry in the meantime discovers a manuscript by the ‘Half-Blood Prince’ and thinks that it is the key to learning the wizardry secret that will enable Harry and his comrades, Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) to defeat the man who killed his parents and godfather, Sirius Black. Harry’s school rival Draco harbors revenge against him for the death of his evil father. There is the aerial game Quidditch that challenges Ron’s mettle, and the blossoming of adolescent romance between Potter and Ron’s sister, Ginny and between Ron and Hermione. Then there is Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) and some mysterious behavior that questions his allegiance. As Dumbledore makes Harry promise to do whatever he instructs, the Death Eaters are unleashed within Hogwart with devastating consequences and a shocking betrayal that will forever change the destiny of the school and foreshadow the coming showdown with Voldemort.
This is a more grownup Potter as it explores relationships more thoroughly and some amusing situations arise such as a love triangle that plagues Ron. It is amusing to see how hormones are thriving amongst the teens and love is in the air. Growing up was never this hard. There are also surprises of a high order that will send the series on a new, ominous path while raising questions about the loyalty of a major player. The one constant is our beloved trio of maturing wizards who must face an uncertain future without an important character. The film reinforces the continuous themes of loyalty and friendship among our wizard heroes. That bond and natural chemistry among the three actors is partly what holds this remarkable series together.
Most of the characters are back from the previous film Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. It does feel like school has restarted when Professors Dumbledore, Snape, and McGonagall (venerable Maggie Smith) show up. Other familiar faces reappear, which greatly help in the continuity and progression of the story. The filmmakers are wise to introduce a couple new characters here and there without shaking up the status quo too much. All the Potter films have benefited from a strong focus on storyline in keeping with the novel sources.
Production values are topnotch again, and the dark, moody colored cinematography is an artistic triumph. It is impressive at how mainstream films have pushed the creative aspects of filmmaking without sacrificing popularity; witness the cinematography and art direction of The Dark Knight and the film editing in The Bourne Ultimatum. It has almost become passé to expect imaginative state of the art special effects in the Potter films, but they are always serving the plot and not merely to draw attention to the spectacle itself.
Since these are British performers, there is a bit of adjusting to their heavy British accents. This film, perhaps more than any other, assumes that the audience is already well versed on Potter lore, and so it may prove a bit confusing to the uninitiated. It starts out well and tries one’s patience just a tad as it builds a complex narrative that loses steam half-way through and picks up momentum toward the end and never lets up with a devastating payoff which in turn sets up the two part finale in grand fashion.
Though not the best film of the series, The Half-Blood Prince sets the table for the final battle of good versus evil. This must be a pretty good film because I can’t wait for the final installments.
*** of **** stars
PUBLIC ENEMIES Rekindles Gangster Era
Johnny Depp is hitting his stride in recent years with his Pirates of the Caribbean films and character roles. Director/writer Michael Mann has been a respected stylist of the crime genre with such notables as Heat, Thief, and TV’s Miami Vice. The union of these two super talents results in a more than satisfactory retelling of the legendary bank robber, John Dillinger, in Public Enemies. This violent tale focuses on the free spirit of Dillinger and his infamous robberies in the Midwest at the height of the Great Depression.
In 1933, the country is in the midst of the Great Depression and bank robber John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) captures the public’s fascination and even folk hero worship. Having helped to break his friends out of prison, he continues his robberies in and around Chicago. As the crime wave sweeps the Midwest, the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover enlists up and coming agent, Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), (who has just nailed Pretty Boy Floyd,) to capture Dillinger, Public Enemy Number One. Purvis employs a variety of sophisticated listening devices and police work to track him. Dillinger thinks he is invincible and executes even more daring bank robberies. He dates hat check girl Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) and travels with her to Florida for horse races and then to Arizona, where lawmen recognize and arrest him. Transported to Indiana State Penitentiary, an easier place to breakout than a federal prison thanks to his mob lawyer, he uses a fake gun to engineer an escape. He is joined by notorious hothead robber, Baby Faced Nelson, and they score more violent robberies. Purvis insists on recruiting a crack force of Texas lawmen who assist him in closing in on the Dillinger gang leading to a memorable shootout in Little Bohemia. As Dillinger crosses the state line, he violates federal laws and brings pressure on organized criminals, who turn on the fugitive. Billie’s fear that John will be caught or killed is tempered by her love for him, and when she is captured by local law enforcement, Purvis intercedes. When a call girl comes forward with information about Dillinger, Purvis sets up a fateful ambush at The Biograph Theater where the FBI will be waiting.
It is interesting that Dillinger’s relationship with organized crime syndicates helped him with a legal infrastructure that disappeared once the mob deemed him a risk to their lucrative business. Further, Hoover’s political agenda was desperate to make headlines and build the FBI into a future powerhouse of law. It is also fascinating how technically proficient the FBI was on its use of wire taps and eavesdropping devices while being relatively incompetent in conducting a simple arrest or taking part in a shootout.
What is refreshing is the core romance between Dillinger and Billie Frechette. Dillinger is presented as bold, charismatic and at times ruthless. It is his bravado that attracts fellow criminals and Billie to him. Cotillard gets a strong role that is considerably more than window dressing. Her performance is convincing, and her chemistry with Depp’s Dillinger makes this romance believable and heartbreaking thus lending an emotion subtext to the typical gangster movie. Bales’s Purvis is portrayed as an obsessed, determined lawman who is dry and dull in sharp contrast to the devil may care attitude of the freewheeling Dillinger. Billy Crudup registers effectively as the young Hoover. Mann favorite Stephen Lang, barely recognizable, registers a solid performance as a hardened Texas lawman who is critical to the end of the film.
Besides the usual set designs and costumes to mimic the depression era, heavy use is made of period music. The Little Bohemia shootout is a major set piece with heavy use of handheld cameras. Although a detailed montage of action, it still does not have the visceral impact of John Milius’ Dillinger or even the classic, G-Men. There is also an extended bank heist reminiscent of Mann’s Heat in its boldness and precision of execution. The climactic ambush at the Biograph Theater is depicted in excruciating detail and still carries a great deal of tension.
The last scene at a women’s prison may never actually have happened, and it is curious that Lang’s lawman and not Purvis serves as the catalyst for this key moment. The subsequent, final shot of Cotillard after getting a special message is quite memorable. It almost raises this film to another level.
Public Enemies is not the best of Michael Mann, but it is a solid entry in his canon of crime films. What is notable is another star turn by Depp, an actor at his creative peak.
*** of **** stars
In 1933, the country is in the midst of the Great Depression and bank robber John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) captures the public’s fascination and even folk hero worship. Having helped to break his friends out of prison, he continues his robberies in and around Chicago. As the crime wave sweeps the Midwest, the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover enlists up and coming agent, Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), (who has just nailed Pretty Boy Floyd,) to capture Dillinger, Public Enemy Number One. Purvis employs a variety of sophisticated listening devices and police work to track him. Dillinger thinks he is invincible and executes even more daring bank robberies. He dates hat check girl Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) and travels with her to Florida for horse races and then to Arizona, where lawmen recognize and arrest him. Transported to Indiana State Penitentiary, an easier place to breakout than a federal prison thanks to his mob lawyer, he uses a fake gun to engineer an escape. He is joined by notorious hothead robber, Baby Faced Nelson, and they score more violent robberies. Purvis insists on recruiting a crack force of Texas lawmen who assist him in closing in on the Dillinger gang leading to a memorable shootout in Little Bohemia. As Dillinger crosses the state line, he violates federal laws and brings pressure on organized criminals, who turn on the fugitive. Billie’s fear that John will be caught or killed is tempered by her love for him, and when she is captured by local law enforcement, Purvis intercedes. When a call girl comes forward with information about Dillinger, Purvis sets up a fateful ambush at The Biograph Theater where the FBI will be waiting.
It is interesting that Dillinger’s relationship with organized crime syndicates helped him with a legal infrastructure that disappeared once the mob deemed him a risk to their lucrative business. Further, Hoover’s political agenda was desperate to make headlines and build the FBI into a future powerhouse of law. It is also fascinating how technically proficient the FBI was on its use of wire taps and eavesdropping devices while being relatively incompetent in conducting a simple arrest or taking part in a shootout.
What is refreshing is the core romance between Dillinger and Billie Frechette. Dillinger is presented as bold, charismatic and at times ruthless. It is his bravado that attracts fellow criminals and Billie to him. Cotillard gets a strong role that is considerably more than window dressing. Her performance is convincing, and her chemistry with Depp’s Dillinger makes this romance believable and heartbreaking thus lending an emotion subtext to the typical gangster movie. Bales’s Purvis is portrayed as an obsessed, determined lawman who is dry and dull in sharp contrast to the devil may care attitude of the freewheeling Dillinger. Billy Crudup registers effectively as the young Hoover. Mann favorite Stephen Lang, barely recognizable, registers a solid performance as a hardened Texas lawman who is critical to the end of the film.
Besides the usual set designs and costumes to mimic the depression era, heavy use is made of period music. The Little Bohemia shootout is a major set piece with heavy use of handheld cameras. Although a detailed montage of action, it still does not have the visceral impact of John Milius’ Dillinger or even the classic, G-Men. There is also an extended bank heist reminiscent of Mann’s Heat in its boldness and precision of execution. The climactic ambush at the Biograph Theater is depicted in excruciating detail and still carries a great deal of tension.
The last scene at a women’s prison may never actually have happened, and it is curious that Lang’s lawman and not Purvis serves as the catalyst for this key moment. The subsequent, final shot of Cotillard after getting a special message is quite memorable. It almost raises this film to another level.
Public Enemies is not the best of Michael Mann, but it is a solid entry in his canon of crime films. What is notable is another star turn by Depp, an actor at his creative peak.
*** of **** stars
UP Carries You Away
Pixar has found a home with Disney and, with apologies to Dreamworks and other animation studios, no one has come close in recent years to their fresh, inventive, and importantly, timeless spirit in computer animation. In UP, a tale of loneliness and friendship is told in a simple, heartfelt way. This is one of the best films of the year and puts live action films to shame.
Carl begins as an adventure-loving boy whose childhood friendship with a girl, Ellie, grows into a marriage as adults and a dream to visit their ideal destination, Paradise Falls in South America. Later widowed, Carl becomes a crusty, elderly man who longs for escape. In time, his neighborhood is transformed into an urban development, and one fateful day with the threat of being committed to a retirement community, he takes his house on a bold, unlikely trip by balloons through the skies to South America. Unfortunately, he discovers an accidental passenger in the form of a Boy Scout named Russell who is looking to get his final merit badge by helping a senior citizen. Carl must make a momentous decision that changes his life and affects Russell. Their joint flight arrives somewhere in the vicinity of Paradise Falls. Along the way they encounter an unusual, giant bird dubbed Kevin and a dog named Dug whose thoughts are vocalized through his special electronic collar. This motley group encounters a mysterious, dangerous presence that threatens them and jeopardizes Carl’s journey to his final destination.
Pete Docter (Wall-E, Toy Story) and Bob Peterson (Finding Nemo) bring their story and screenplay talents to the fore as co-directors. It’s really a story about unfulfilled, broken dreams and things left undone, and the spirit and drive to recapture those feelings. The film begins with a subplot involving the friendship and growing romance of a young Carl and Ellie who share a passion for life and adventure. The imaginative vignettes tell a complete love story in an opening montage that ends as our film is only beginning-wow!
What makes this film head and shoulders above most animations is its poignant confrontation of life’s ups and downs. It’s about life and death told in terms that are not disingenuous. In the grand tradition of Disney classics as Bambi and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, movies about finding a safe place from danger are at the core of children’s animation, and this film plays on that tradition. The novelty here is that the lead character is elderly. There is a sense of The Wizard of Oz in its otherworldly journey of discovery and camaraderie, and even the climax smacks of Saturday morning cliffhangers. A nice change of pace is the lack of contemporary, inside jokes or puns based on pop culture that are staples of such Dreamworks hits as the Shrek films. The situations here are organically amusing from natural conflicts and plot.
Carl (voiced to perfection by Edward Asner) is a mean, bitter soul who rediscovers his innocence and humanity through Russell, who in turn discovers the safety of a nuclear family with Carl and some unlikely companions. Kevin is cute, emanating amusing sound effects and body movements without uttering a single line of dialogue. Dug is a riot as the misfit dog whose heart of gold is matched by his incessant habit of having his ‘talking’ interrupted at any moment by a sudden spasm of posturing and shouting, “point” or “squirrel”! It’s a hoot. Christopher Plummer is effectively sinister as a blast from the past. The only criticism of the movie is minor at the end when we are not quite sure about Russell’s parents and how much they are part of his life. John Ratzenberger’s (Cheers) streak of doing a voice in every major Pixar release is intact.
The computer animation is so good, that anything not human looks like a picturesque postcard. When Carl’s balloons sprout above his house, we admire their stunning, vibrant colors. Interesting uses of cinematography are employed as if this were a live action feature. The final image is ironic as it is iconic, a fitting end to a fairy tale.
This one ranks highly alongside Pixar favorites like Finding Nemo and Wall-E. Quite possibly, adults may find as much (if not more) to enjoy in this story. It’s amazing that a modest story featuring a kid and old man told with conviction and skill is one of the best films of 2009.
**** of **** stars (preceded by a winning short, Partly Cloudy)
Carl begins as an adventure-loving boy whose childhood friendship with a girl, Ellie, grows into a marriage as adults and a dream to visit their ideal destination, Paradise Falls in South America. Later widowed, Carl becomes a crusty, elderly man who longs for escape. In time, his neighborhood is transformed into an urban development, and one fateful day with the threat of being committed to a retirement community, he takes his house on a bold, unlikely trip by balloons through the skies to South America. Unfortunately, he discovers an accidental passenger in the form of a Boy Scout named Russell who is looking to get his final merit badge by helping a senior citizen. Carl must make a momentous decision that changes his life and affects Russell. Their joint flight arrives somewhere in the vicinity of Paradise Falls. Along the way they encounter an unusual, giant bird dubbed Kevin and a dog named Dug whose thoughts are vocalized through his special electronic collar. This motley group encounters a mysterious, dangerous presence that threatens them and jeopardizes Carl’s journey to his final destination.
Pete Docter (Wall-E, Toy Story) and Bob Peterson (Finding Nemo) bring their story and screenplay talents to the fore as co-directors. It’s really a story about unfulfilled, broken dreams and things left undone, and the spirit and drive to recapture those feelings. The film begins with a subplot involving the friendship and growing romance of a young Carl and Ellie who share a passion for life and adventure. The imaginative vignettes tell a complete love story in an opening montage that ends as our film is only beginning-wow!
What makes this film head and shoulders above most animations is its poignant confrontation of life’s ups and downs. It’s about life and death told in terms that are not disingenuous. In the grand tradition of Disney classics as Bambi and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, movies about finding a safe place from danger are at the core of children’s animation, and this film plays on that tradition. The novelty here is that the lead character is elderly. There is a sense of The Wizard of Oz in its otherworldly journey of discovery and camaraderie, and even the climax smacks of Saturday morning cliffhangers. A nice change of pace is the lack of contemporary, inside jokes or puns based on pop culture that are staples of such Dreamworks hits as the Shrek films. The situations here are organically amusing from natural conflicts and plot.
Carl (voiced to perfection by Edward Asner) is a mean, bitter soul who rediscovers his innocence and humanity through Russell, who in turn discovers the safety of a nuclear family with Carl and some unlikely companions. Kevin is cute, emanating amusing sound effects and body movements without uttering a single line of dialogue. Dug is a riot as the misfit dog whose heart of gold is matched by his incessant habit of having his ‘talking’ interrupted at any moment by a sudden spasm of posturing and shouting, “point” or “squirrel”! It’s a hoot. Christopher Plummer is effectively sinister as a blast from the past. The only criticism of the movie is minor at the end when we are not quite sure about Russell’s parents and how much they are part of his life. John Ratzenberger’s (Cheers) streak of doing a voice in every major Pixar release is intact.
The computer animation is so good, that anything not human looks like a picturesque postcard. When Carl’s balloons sprout above his house, we admire their stunning, vibrant colors. Interesting uses of cinematography are employed as if this were a live action feature. The final image is ironic as it is iconic, a fitting end to a fairy tale.
This one ranks highly alongside Pixar favorites like Finding Nemo and Wall-E. Quite possibly, adults may find as much (if not more) to enjoy in this story. It’s amazing that a modest story featuring a kid and old man told with conviction and skill is one of the best films of 2009.
**** of **** stars (preceded by a winning short, Partly Cloudy)
Monday, May 25, 2009
ANGELS AND DEMONS-AN IMPROVEMENT
Dan Brown’s phenomenal bestseller, The DaVinci Code was made into an equally successful film adaptation. Angels and Demons, while actually a prequel to that book, has been adapted into a movie sequel, and the results are certainly more promising. Director Ron Howard and actor Tom Hanks reteam for a better telling of intrigue, murder, and suspense amid a historic and religious setting. Essentially an almost real-time thriller which jumps from ancient landmark to landmark, this film actually works pretty well within its own confines and is thus a satisfying entertainment without getting sidetracked on the holy mission of revelatory discovery and truth that its predecessor got tangled in.
A scientific breakthrough in a Swiss laboratory generates powerful, anti-matter particles. When a mysterious group steals this deadly material, they threaten Vatican City with annihilation. The plot thickens when four Cardinals, in consideration to succeed the recently deceased Pope, are kidnapped and threatened with hourly execution at a holy site. Despite his purely scientific, empirical measure of the world, symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks with a normal hairdo this time) is whisked from Harvard campus to Vatican City where he is joined by Dr. Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer) whose lab created the stolen particles. Together, they attempt to locate the Cardinals and the anti-matter particles. We meet the Vatican Police guard and their protocols and protectiveness over not only the church and its members, but its archives which are at the heart of Langdon’s quest for clues. The Pope’s assistant, Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor), the Vatican Guard Commander Richter (Stellan Skarsgard), and elder Cardinal Strauss (Armin Mueller-Stahl) participate in the investigation. History (according to Dan Brown) has it that in 1668, four scientists or free-thinkers known as the Illuminati were kidnapped, branded and executed by the church. Now a darker version of the Illuminati is ready to exact an ‘eye-for-an-eye’ revenge on the church, and they intend to finish the job with one big bang of anti-matter. The clues lead to the four elements of fire, water, air and earth, and perhaps more. What do these have to with actual church locations? Complicating the proceedings is a mysterious assassin who carries out the lethal agenda with unerring accuracy even as Langdon, Dr. Vetra, and the police attempt to prevent further bloodshed. Should Vatican City be evacuated as thousands of people hold a vigil for the new Pope? Can everyone be trusted even in the most sensitive and elite of holy circles? These questions are raised as Langdon desperately searches for answers to save the Vatican.
Having not read the original novel, I feel the film does work on its own which is more than can be said of its predecessor which got lost in self importance and confusing exposition. Screenwriters David Koepp (Jurassic Park, Spiderman) and Akiva Goldsman (A Beautiful Mind) have tried to streamline and condense Brown’s immense, detailed novel into a serviceable story, which focuses on a race against time and is a pretty decent mystery without having the ‘holier than thou’ agenda. References are made to Langdon’s previous adventure with The DaVinci Code, but the film wisely stays on course almost in actual-time so that the suspense level is ratcheted up progressively until the potentially explosive climax.
There are some shortcomings to the film. There is alot of material covered here so it seems a bit episodic, and plot details that beg for a more patient explanation are raced over. The characters are not sufficiently fleshed out to give more meaning to what happens later. All we get are some brief notes of each person’s background to go forward; that is a missed opportunity. Perhaps Dan Brown’s book did not give much in the way of detailed history for his players, but that does not excuse the filmmakers from trying to make a stronger, more emotional connection. Further, elements of the plot strain credibility, and you need to make a leap of faith so to speak to accept some pretty amazing coincidences and key events. In particular, the climax is full of major surprises and a stunning turn of events that require a suspension of disbelief.
Production values are impressive particularly in the art direction and visual effects to recreate Vatican City (since permission for location shooting was denied). The camera work shows great fluidity, and seldom have visuals been more kinetic as in this film or for that matter any other recent adventure/mystery. This helps in the pacing and overall flow of the story.
It’s nice for a change to see male and female leads working together without resorting to the obligatory romance. Here, it’s strictly business. In fact the film plays almost like a chapter of TV’s 24 or The X Files which may determine whether the plot twists and turns are surprising or satisfyingly fresh to the uninitiated viewer. If you have seen The Godfather III, the storyline conspiracies may also seem a bit familiar. Still, you get the feeling that Howard and Hanks have gotten the hang of things this time around. What you get is a moderately interesting mystery in an elaborate, big budget setting. The visuals are impressive but the story itself is nothing special to write home about.
*** of **** stars
(**1/2 stars if you’re a 24 fan)
A scientific breakthrough in a Swiss laboratory generates powerful, anti-matter particles. When a mysterious group steals this deadly material, they threaten Vatican City with annihilation. The plot thickens when four Cardinals, in consideration to succeed the recently deceased Pope, are kidnapped and threatened with hourly execution at a holy site. Despite his purely scientific, empirical measure of the world, symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks with a normal hairdo this time) is whisked from Harvard campus to Vatican City where he is joined by Dr. Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer) whose lab created the stolen particles. Together, they attempt to locate the Cardinals and the anti-matter particles. We meet the Vatican Police guard and their protocols and protectiveness over not only the church and its members, but its archives which are at the heart of Langdon’s quest for clues. The Pope’s assistant, Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor), the Vatican Guard Commander Richter (Stellan Skarsgard), and elder Cardinal Strauss (Armin Mueller-Stahl) participate in the investigation. History (according to Dan Brown) has it that in 1668, four scientists or free-thinkers known as the Illuminati were kidnapped, branded and executed by the church. Now a darker version of the Illuminati is ready to exact an ‘eye-for-an-eye’ revenge on the church, and they intend to finish the job with one big bang of anti-matter. The clues lead to the four elements of fire, water, air and earth, and perhaps more. What do these have to with actual church locations? Complicating the proceedings is a mysterious assassin who carries out the lethal agenda with unerring accuracy even as Langdon, Dr. Vetra, and the police attempt to prevent further bloodshed. Should Vatican City be evacuated as thousands of people hold a vigil for the new Pope? Can everyone be trusted even in the most sensitive and elite of holy circles? These questions are raised as Langdon desperately searches for answers to save the Vatican.
Having not read the original novel, I feel the film does work on its own which is more than can be said of its predecessor which got lost in self importance and confusing exposition. Screenwriters David Koepp (Jurassic Park, Spiderman) and Akiva Goldsman (A Beautiful Mind) have tried to streamline and condense Brown’s immense, detailed novel into a serviceable story, which focuses on a race against time and is a pretty decent mystery without having the ‘holier than thou’ agenda. References are made to Langdon’s previous adventure with The DaVinci Code, but the film wisely stays on course almost in actual-time so that the suspense level is ratcheted up progressively until the potentially explosive climax.
There are some shortcomings to the film. There is alot of material covered here so it seems a bit episodic, and plot details that beg for a more patient explanation are raced over. The characters are not sufficiently fleshed out to give more meaning to what happens later. All we get are some brief notes of each person’s background to go forward; that is a missed opportunity. Perhaps Dan Brown’s book did not give much in the way of detailed history for his players, but that does not excuse the filmmakers from trying to make a stronger, more emotional connection. Further, elements of the plot strain credibility, and you need to make a leap of faith so to speak to accept some pretty amazing coincidences and key events. In particular, the climax is full of major surprises and a stunning turn of events that require a suspension of disbelief.
Production values are impressive particularly in the art direction and visual effects to recreate Vatican City (since permission for location shooting was denied). The camera work shows great fluidity, and seldom have visuals been more kinetic as in this film or for that matter any other recent adventure/mystery. This helps in the pacing and overall flow of the story.
It’s nice for a change to see male and female leads working together without resorting to the obligatory romance. Here, it’s strictly business. In fact the film plays almost like a chapter of TV’s 24 or The X Files which may determine whether the plot twists and turns are surprising or satisfyingly fresh to the uninitiated viewer. If you have seen The Godfather III, the storyline conspiracies may also seem a bit familiar. Still, you get the feeling that Howard and Hanks have gotten the hang of things this time around. What you get is a moderately interesting mystery in an elaborate, big budget setting. The visuals are impressive but the story itself is nothing special to write home about.
*** of **** stars
(**1/2 stars if you’re a 24 fan)
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
STAR TREK REDUX EXHILERATES
Continuing the trend of reinventing sixties iconic figures such as Batman and James Bond, Star Trek was inevitably next in line. For those who fretted that the new incarnation of creator Gene Roddenberry’s beloved franchise of ‘Wagon Train to the Stars’ would be dishonored or ignored, they needn’t worry. This new version, intended to reboot the franchise that was so popular in TV reruns and subsequently in a series of big budget films, is a remarkably balanced take on the origins of the classic Enterprise crew. It is designed to appeal to the non-initiated audience while referencing the existing canon of Star Trek lore. Director J. J. Abrams (Fringe, Alias, Mission Impossible III) brings a fresh vision abetted by Trekkie fan/writers, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman.
James T. Kirk is born as his father rescues a starship crew during a Romulan attack led by the mysterious Nero (Eric Bana). A young rebel who grows into a brash, thrill seeking adventurer, young Kirk (Chris Pine) is recruited into Star Fleet Academy by Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood). Meanwhile the half Vulcan / half human Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto) has matured amid bullying kids and decides his destiny lies with The Federation as a cadet instead of his home planet Vulcan. Kirk strikes up a friendship with an ornery young Doctor Leonard McCoy (Karl Urban is a hoot) whose distrust of space and things not medical will become legendary. It is McCoy who devises a way for Kirk to become a crew member of the newly commissioned starship Enterprise. In fact, most of what will become the core crew is assembled including communications officer Uhura (Zoe Saldana), helmsmen Sulu (John Cho) and Chekov (Anton Yelchin), and later, engineer Scotty (Simon Pegg). Seeking vengeance against the Federation, Nero has traveled through time to exact pain and destruction with a planet killing device that will draw the Enterprise to Vulcan and ultimately Earth. With the Universe in the balance, Kirk and Spock must decide if they can work together (with the help of a certain mentor).
The parallel life paths of Kirk and Spock are marked contrasts of two men who will clash and reconcile their future relationship. Kirk smacks of hawkish, shoot-from-the-hip reactionary while Spock is the logical, think-inside-the-box good soldier. Nero reminds us a bit of Khan from Wrath of Khan. The character of Uhura is a major upgrade. She is a multi-talented officer who has romantic longings for a certain Vulcan. Greenwood shines as the veteran Pike. Leonard Nimoy makes a welcome, pivotal appearance as an elder Spock who figures prominently in the history that is to come. The cast makes the most of iconic roles and excels at recreating the personas of what we remember; each crew member gets an opportunity to shine. It is nice to see this group working and improvising together for the first time to solve a crisis. Further, this story takes it for granted as does its audience that this crew is not only multicultural, but multi-species, a far cry from the novelty of the integrated crew of classic Trek.
The screenplay has some well written dialogue and clever Trek references sprinkled throughout, and age old lines of the classic show are introduced for the first time. When McCoy utters, “I’m a doctor, not a physicist”, it’s a riot. Part of the fun is watching two heavyweights like Kirk and Spock faceoff and slowly bond and seeing how Kirk ascends to the captain’s chair. We finally get to learn what the ‘Kobayashi Maru’ wargame really is and how Kirk manages to defeat the test.
Sure, the plot has some gaping holes if you think about continuity and the fate of a certain venerable, classic character. Nero’s motives are explained in time, but they don’t make total sense. This film also does not have the gravitas of deep themes as previous films which is perhaps its only true failing, but instead, we get a strong character study that more than compensates.
Technical effects are quite impressive although Abrams seems to favor close-ups and tight camera setups that put the viewer in the middle of action scenes. Fortunately, there are no jarring Cloverfield handheld camera moves. There is a good fight sequence on a weapons platform and a surprise on an ice planet. You want phasers shooting back and forth in space battle? You’ve got them here. In fact the energy level keeps this voyage bouncing along.
The Enterprise is stunning-it has never looked quite this way ever, and it is cool how they depict the starship going into warp drive. There are imaginative points of view when showing off the ship’s exterior, and the interior is brimming with activity and sound, which is in stark contrast to the more antiseptic views from the earlier show. The costumes (complete with female miniskirts) harken back to that period and yet seem fresh. At credits’ end, there is a nice dedication to the Roddenberrys, Gene and Majel Barrett (who voices the Federation computer one last time).
Fans of the old show may tear up at how faithful and creative Abrams and his screenwriters are with Trek lore and how they set everything up nicely going forward. This is their alternate universe now, and we are game for the experience. This crew, baptized under fire, is ready for new missions, and they cannot come soon enough. Way to go, Mr. Abrams. This Trek rocks!
***1/2 of **** stars
James T. Kirk is born as his father rescues a starship crew during a Romulan attack led by the mysterious Nero (Eric Bana). A young rebel who grows into a brash, thrill seeking adventurer, young Kirk (Chris Pine) is recruited into Star Fleet Academy by Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood). Meanwhile the half Vulcan / half human Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto) has matured amid bullying kids and decides his destiny lies with The Federation as a cadet instead of his home planet Vulcan. Kirk strikes up a friendship with an ornery young Doctor Leonard McCoy (Karl Urban is a hoot) whose distrust of space and things not medical will become legendary. It is McCoy who devises a way for Kirk to become a crew member of the newly commissioned starship Enterprise. In fact, most of what will become the core crew is assembled including communications officer Uhura (Zoe Saldana), helmsmen Sulu (John Cho) and Chekov (Anton Yelchin), and later, engineer Scotty (Simon Pegg). Seeking vengeance against the Federation, Nero has traveled through time to exact pain and destruction with a planet killing device that will draw the Enterprise to Vulcan and ultimately Earth. With the Universe in the balance, Kirk and Spock must decide if they can work together (with the help of a certain mentor).
The parallel life paths of Kirk and Spock are marked contrasts of two men who will clash and reconcile their future relationship. Kirk smacks of hawkish, shoot-from-the-hip reactionary while Spock is the logical, think-inside-the-box good soldier. Nero reminds us a bit of Khan from Wrath of Khan. The character of Uhura is a major upgrade. She is a multi-talented officer who has romantic longings for a certain Vulcan. Greenwood shines as the veteran Pike. Leonard Nimoy makes a welcome, pivotal appearance as an elder Spock who figures prominently in the history that is to come. The cast makes the most of iconic roles and excels at recreating the personas of what we remember; each crew member gets an opportunity to shine. It is nice to see this group working and improvising together for the first time to solve a crisis. Further, this story takes it for granted as does its audience that this crew is not only multicultural, but multi-species, a far cry from the novelty of the integrated crew of classic Trek.
The screenplay has some well written dialogue and clever Trek references sprinkled throughout, and age old lines of the classic show are introduced for the first time. When McCoy utters, “I’m a doctor, not a physicist”, it’s a riot. Part of the fun is watching two heavyweights like Kirk and Spock faceoff and slowly bond and seeing how Kirk ascends to the captain’s chair. We finally get to learn what the ‘Kobayashi Maru’ wargame really is and how Kirk manages to defeat the test.
Sure, the plot has some gaping holes if you think about continuity and the fate of a certain venerable, classic character. Nero’s motives are explained in time, but they don’t make total sense. This film also does not have the gravitas of deep themes as previous films which is perhaps its only true failing, but instead, we get a strong character study that more than compensates.
Technical effects are quite impressive although Abrams seems to favor close-ups and tight camera setups that put the viewer in the middle of action scenes. Fortunately, there are no jarring Cloverfield handheld camera moves. There is a good fight sequence on a weapons platform and a surprise on an ice planet. You want phasers shooting back and forth in space battle? You’ve got them here. In fact the energy level keeps this voyage bouncing along.
The Enterprise is stunning-it has never looked quite this way ever, and it is cool how they depict the starship going into warp drive. There are imaginative points of view when showing off the ship’s exterior, and the interior is brimming with activity and sound, which is in stark contrast to the more antiseptic views from the earlier show. The costumes (complete with female miniskirts) harken back to that period and yet seem fresh. At credits’ end, there is a nice dedication to the Roddenberrys, Gene and Majel Barrett (who voices the Federation computer one last time).
Fans of the old show may tear up at how faithful and creative Abrams and his screenwriters are with Trek lore and how they set everything up nicely going forward. This is their alternate universe now, and we are game for the experience. This crew, baptized under fire, is ready for new missions, and they cannot come soon enough. Way to go, Mr. Abrams. This Trek rocks!
***1/2 of **** stars
Sunday, February 22, 2009
OSCAR PREDICTIONS 2008 films
OK, a last minute Oscar prediction for 2008 films…..
Because it is a level playing field in terms of quality, there could be a surprise in several categories except Best Supporting Actor. I have only seen some of the acting nominees but, as always, have seen all the Best Picture ones. Enjoy the telecast-the producers(Bill Condon did Dreamgirls) should have some cool faces and events that changes the traditional presentations. Here we go. –Clint
BEST PICTURE-All the films here are good but not one grabbed me deeply. However, Slumdog Millionaire is a gritty Cinderella story with universal appeal and should complete its magical journey.
BEST DIRECTOR-Danny Boyle makes good films (Trainspotting, 28 Days Later) and this is his coming out ceremony with Slumdog.
BEST ACTRESS-very close race between my favorite, Meryl Streep in Doubt and Kate Winslet in The Reader. Historically when an actress is overdue, she wins. When an actress has another strong film that year (revolutionary Road), she wins. Winslet wins.
BEST ACTOR-Sean Penn in Milk was transforming despite Mickey Rourke in the comeback film The Wrestler. Very very close…..I go with my heart-Sean Penn.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS-very tough here too but it is likely between Penelope Cruz in Vicky Cristina Barcelona and a short, memorable moment by Viola Davis in Doubt. If Streep loses, look for Davis to be the representative winner on Doubt. Cruz is heavily favored but I still remember Davis-so Davis.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR-Heath Ledger was so good in a memorable way in The Dark Knight (which should have been a best picture nominee-it was nominated in every major guild –Producers, Director etc)
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY-Milk was a very complete film and could have won Best Picture in another year. Here is its validation.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY-Slumdog Millionaire, although this is where an upset could occur with strong competition from every film.
The rest…..
Benjamin Button should take SPECIAL EFFECTS (from Iron Man), possibly ART DIRECTION, and of course most definitely MAKEUP.
The Dark Knight in addition should take SOUND MIXING and SOUND EDITING,
Slumdog could scoop more awards like MUSICAL SCORE (think The Last Emperor), CINEMATOGRAPHY, and even COSTUME DESIGN. Probably EDITING although Benjamin Button is strong here.
Wall-E deserves BEST ANIMATION and could have been a Best Picture nominee. It could steak best song from Slumdog.
Waltz with Bashir should pickup FOREIGN FILM and Man on Wire for DOCUMENTARY FEATURE.
The tally-Slumdog-7 Oscars, Benjamin Button and Dark Knight could end up with 3 Oscars each. I give up on the short film categories.
Because it is a level playing field in terms of quality, there could be a surprise in several categories except Best Supporting Actor. I have only seen some of the acting nominees but, as always, have seen all the Best Picture ones. Enjoy the telecast-the producers(Bill Condon did Dreamgirls) should have some cool faces and events that changes the traditional presentations. Here we go. –Clint
BEST PICTURE-All the films here are good but not one grabbed me deeply. However, Slumdog Millionaire is a gritty Cinderella story with universal appeal and should complete its magical journey.
BEST DIRECTOR-Danny Boyle makes good films (Trainspotting, 28 Days Later) and this is his coming out ceremony with Slumdog.
BEST ACTRESS-very close race between my favorite, Meryl Streep in Doubt and Kate Winslet in The Reader. Historically when an actress is overdue, she wins. When an actress has another strong film that year (revolutionary Road), she wins. Winslet wins.
BEST ACTOR-Sean Penn in Milk was transforming despite Mickey Rourke in the comeback film The Wrestler. Very very close…..I go with my heart-Sean Penn.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS-very tough here too but it is likely between Penelope Cruz in Vicky Cristina Barcelona and a short, memorable moment by Viola Davis in Doubt. If Streep loses, look for Davis to be the representative winner on Doubt. Cruz is heavily favored but I still remember Davis-so Davis.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR-Heath Ledger was so good in a memorable way in The Dark Knight (which should have been a best picture nominee-it was nominated in every major guild –Producers, Director etc)
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY-Milk was a very complete film and could have won Best Picture in another year. Here is its validation.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY-Slumdog Millionaire, although this is where an upset could occur with strong competition from every film.
The rest…..
Benjamin Button should take SPECIAL EFFECTS (from Iron Man), possibly ART DIRECTION, and of course most definitely MAKEUP.
The Dark Knight in addition should take SOUND MIXING and SOUND EDITING,
Slumdog could scoop more awards like MUSICAL SCORE (think The Last Emperor), CINEMATOGRAPHY, and even COSTUME DESIGN. Probably EDITING although Benjamin Button is strong here.
Wall-E deserves BEST ANIMATION and could have been a Best Picture nominee. It could steak best song from Slumdog.
Waltz with Bashir should pickup FOREIGN FILM and Man on Wire for DOCUMENTARY FEATURE.
The tally-Slumdog-7 Oscars, Benjamin Button and Dark Knight could end up with 3 Oscars each. I give up on the short film categories.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)