OK, you may think, “another boxing film about a nobody who becomes somebody”, right? Don’t underestimate The Fighter as another boxing film. It has heart and good acting, but most of all, it is authentic. This film purposely avoids sentiment and going for easy, weepy moments. Rocky this is not. This pet project of producer and star Mark Wahlberg has been years in the making and the payoff here is a gallery of great performances by talented actors who do justice to their real life counterparts.
This true story centers on boxer Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) who struggles to be a junior welterweight champion with training by his half-brother and former fighter, Dicky Ekland (an emaciated Christian Bale). Dicky lives his dashed dreams through Micky and has his own problems with drug addiction and other criminal activities. The extended family includes a supportive father and a controlling mother, Alice (Melissa Leo). Micky’s life changes when he meets a bartender, Charlene (Amy Adams), who believes in him. When the opportunity comes to take his career to the next level and work with professional trainers and management in Las Vegas, Micky’s relationship with Dicky is jeopardized and causes a mighty rift with his family especially his ‘manager’ Alice who feels betrayed. To make matters worse, Dicky gets in trouble with the law and must serve prison. He still lives in the past, clinging to memories of boxing Sugar Ray Leonard in 1978. Micky is so torn when a seemingly winnable fight switches his intended opponent to one who is much heavier at the last minute, that he contemplates quitting altogether. Riddled with guilt, he becomes reclusive until Charlene intercedes. He begins to fight again and amasses a series of wins until he is one step away from a championship if he can overcome a challenger, Sanchez, and Dicky offers tips on how to fight him. Faced with a chance to really make something of his career, Micky must choose between his new handlers and Dicky who taught him everything he knows about boxing. It could mean a championship in the end.
The film works on different levels of relationships: Micky and Charlene, Micky and his family, but most of all the film rests on the bond between the two brothers. There is a good sense of family life and local flavor. Micky and Dicky grew up local athletes and resident celebrities of sorts in a blue collar town where everybody knows each other. When Micky and Charlene challenge Alice, there is a tumultuous change of dynamics and a tense battle of wills. The best scene and also a turning point in the story happens when Dicky confronts Charlene about her own shortcomings, and everything in a way comes full circle as each person must look within to missed opportunities and not achieving their dreams. It is an honest, pivotal moment that validates Dicky’s character who, surprisingly, still knows a thing or two about boxing. Ironically Micky and Dicky’s scenes recall Marlon Brando and Rod Steiger as brothers in On the Waterfront also about a washed up fighter.
The fight scenes are quite convincing and well edited, and when you have a well chiseled actor like Wahlberg (The Departed), a kind of modern day John Garfield, you accept him as a boxer without question. Bale (The Dark Knight) really inhabits his portrayal of a proverbial loser, and he looks the part having shed substantial weight. Was this once the boy who enchanted us in Steven Spielberg’s Empire of the Sun? Come to think of it, Spielberg has another young alumnus in Adams (Catch Me If You Can) who makes the most of her role as a bright, headstrong woman who supports Micky and butts heads with Alice and her daughters literally. Leo (Frozen River) is quite good as the proud matriarch whose influence and authority is threatened.
The film tells its story as directed by David O. Russell (Three Kings) in workman like manner. It’s almost the kind of film Clint Eastwood makes these days. The story and relationships are strong enough to easily carry the film without resorting to sentimentality. Indeed, there is a thrilling moment ringside where a shot almost follows through with Alice and Charlene hugging, but Russell cuts away to another unglamorous shot. Bravo for not taking the easy way out although there are a couple of scenes could have been extended more. It’s also nice to see the real life brothers in the end credits, and you know that the film has done their lives justice. The original screenplay and story had a lot of writers involved, and the result is a heck of a remarkable comeback story and a family that would not quit.
***1/2 of **** stars
A personal website of movie reviews and observations by a movie fan. Primarily a movie site, there will be other entertainment related segments particularly with respect to television and cable/satellite broadcasts. Occasionally, other areas may involve sports, news, and just about anything that strikes my fancy. I hope you find this site useful for information and in helping to determine if a film is worth your while. I appreciate your interest and feedback.
Friday, February 25, 2011
The Agony and Ecstasy of 127 HOURS
Based on the harrowing tale of survival by Aron Ralston and adapted by Simon Beaufoy and director Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire, 28 Days Later), 127 Hours challenges the viewer to share in a difficult, life changing event that most people could never contemplate. It’s quite a feat to engage and emotionally move an audience focused solely on one person in one place. For an actor to pull this off is a great testament to James Franco’s acting skills and physical prowess as well as Boyle’s ingenuity behind the camera.
In April, 2003, Aron Ralston (Franco) escapes the rat race of the city to go hiking in a remote terrain. After parking his car, he goes mountain biking and then by foot deeper into isolation. There, he comes upon two hikers, Megan and Kristi, who are a bit lost. He tells them that the earth with its rocks and mountains is always moving. How prophetic! Aron guides the women and puts them on the right track after a brief adventure in a cave and a sparkling pool of water. Later, he proceeds on his trek of solitude and, while climbing between a narrow ravine, slips, and as he falls, a large bolder tumbles and pins his arm against the wall. Trying everything possible to dislodge the rock, he finds he is hopelessly trapped with limited supplies. No one knows where he is because he was didn’t care enough to mention it to family or friends. He is a confident, even cocky explorer whose cavalier attitude changes through this ordeal. He displays some amazing resourcefulness in such moments as when he erects a mini tent to protect his head from the elements. As he waits in vain for help that is not coming, he contemplates his survival skills and evaluates his life and relationships. Life is precious, and he must do whatever he can to survive even if it means the unthinkable.
The entire film works despite the fact it centers exclusively on one actor. (The Spirit of St. Louis is another that comes to mind.) Franco accomplishes the difficult task by making us care for an arrogant, free spirit who knows no fear. The film focuses on minute details that could easily be glossed over. The simplest of acts become a tortuous struggle as when his pocket knife falls and he must retrieve it while still pinned. A drink of water from his ever shrinking supply becomes an agonizing death watch. The flashback scenes give us some background into his family life and a former girlfriend. He even fantasizes a vision of a boy, a son that he will perhaps have someday? He regrets the things left undone or unsaid and resolves to make changes in his life if he makes it out alive. The fact that we know the outcome does not at all diminish the agony we feel for him in close quarters and his determination to survive. In a way the big rock is a kind of metaphor for his life. What should be a liberating journey becomes a test of survival, and as the hours go by and one day bleeds into the next, we become a part of his limited world complete with cracks of sunlight and an occasional bird or insect. After awhile you wonder if we really see images he is seeing, or if it is nothing more than a mirage or hallucination. During his ordeal he uses his mini video camera to document his plight and to report on his situation and feelings. The camera becomes a sort of confessor for him.
Yes, the scene where he must separate himself from the rock is excruciating but never exploitive. The subsequent scenes where he makes his way back to civilization and encounters other hikers are powerfully heart wrenching yet life affirming. It packs a punch and wrings you emotionally as Franco finds salvation when all hope is seemingly lost. By film’s end we breathe a collective sigh of relief. Yet it is the cumulative effect of emotions and our shared experience with him that are truly affecting.
Boyle utilizes handheld cameras and crisp editing to keep things moving along in a methodically paced narrative. It is ironic at how the beautiful landscape is in sharp contrast to the horror that Aron must experience. The film may set a record for having the longest running time before displaying its first title card. There is a nice epilogue which alludes to his prophetic visions from before. This is not a morbid exercise in claustrophobia or grossness but rather a realistic recreation of the triumph of the human spirit against impossible odds and the bleakest of settings.
*** of **** stars
In April, 2003, Aron Ralston (Franco) escapes the rat race of the city to go hiking in a remote terrain. After parking his car, he goes mountain biking and then by foot deeper into isolation. There, he comes upon two hikers, Megan and Kristi, who are a bit lost. He tells them that the earth with its rocks and mountains is always moving. How prophetic! Aron guides the women and puts them on the right track after a brief adventure in a cave and a sparkling pool of water. Later, he proceeds on his trek of solitude and, while climbing between a narrow ravine, slips, and as he falls, a large bolder tumbles and pins his arm against the wall. Trying everything possible to dislodge the rock, he finds he is hopelessly trapped with limited supplies. No one knows where he is because he was didn’t care enough to mention it to family or friends. He is a confident, even cocky explorer whose cavalier attitude changes through this ordeal. He displays some amazing resourcefulness in such moments as when he erects a mini tent to protect his head from the elements. As he waits in vain for help that is not coming, he contemplates his survival skills and evaluates his life and relationships. Life is precious, and he must do whatever he can to survive even if it means the unthinkable.
The entire film works despite the fact it centers exclusively on one actor. (The Spirit of St. Louis is another that comes to mind.) Franco accomplishes the difficult task by making us care for an arrogant, free spirit who knows no fear. The film focuses on minute details that could easily be glossed over. The simplest of acts become a tortuous struggle as when his pocket knife falls and he must retrieve it while still pinned. A drink of water from his ever shrinking supply becomes an agonizing death watch. The flashback scenes give us some background into his family life and a former girlfriend. He even fantasizes a vision of a boy, a son that he will perhaps have someday? He regrets the things left undone or unsaid and resolves to make changes in his life if he makes it out alive. The fact that we know the outcome does not at all diminish the agony we feel for him in close quarters and his determination to survive. In a way the big rock is a kind of metaphor for his life. What should be a liberating journey becomes a test of survival, and as the hours go by and one day bleeds into the next, we become a part of his limited world complete with cracks of sunlight and an occasional bird or insect. After awhile you wonder if we really see images he is seeing, or if it is nothing more than a mirage or hallucination. During his ordeal he uses his mini video camera to document his plight and to report on his situation and feelings. The camera becomes a sort of confessor for him.
Yes, the scene where he must separate himself from the rock is excruciating but never exploitive. The subsequent scenes where he makes his way back to civilization and encounters other hikers are powerfully heart wrenching yet life affirming. It packs a punch and wrings you emotionally as Franco finds salvation when all hope is seemingly lost. By film’s end we breathe a collective sigh of relief. Yet it is the cumulative effect of emotions and our shared experience with him that are truly affecting.
Boyle utilizes handheld cameras and crisp editing to keep things moving along in a methodically paced narrative. It is ironic at how the beautiful landscape is in sharp contrast to the horror that Aron must experience. The film may set a record for having the longest running time before displaying its first title card. There is a nice epilogue which alludes to his prophetic visions from before. This is not a morbid exercise in claustrophobia or grossness but rather a realistic recreation of the triumph of the human spirit against impossible odds and the bleakest of settings.
*** of **** stars
Darkness at the Soul of BLACK SWAN
Director Darren Aronofsky (The Wrestler, Requiem for a Dream) has done some offbeat films but has always elicited strong performances from his leads. Perhaps his greatest achievement is getting an Oscar worthy performance from Natalie Portman in Black Swan, a film that does an impressive job of depicting a psychological downward spiral of a competitive ballerina in the role of a lifetime.
Nina Sayers (Portman) works hard at her craft and gets the coveted starring role in Swan Lake. Doted on by her mother (Barbara Hershey in an unusual role) and pushed to extremes by her ballet director, Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel), she begins to feel threatened and becomes delusional and loses touch with reality. A new arrival, Lily (Mila Kunis), understudies her and becomes not only her friend and night scene companion, but also her main competitor and threat. Is she undermining her on purpose or is Nina just imagining it all? As opening night approached, the visions become even more disturbing to the point that Nina is at the brink of her sanity and the curtain opens on the most important moment of her life.
Portman projects a complex series of conflicting emotions including anxiety, jealousy, and even guilt as if she does not deserve the lead. Guided by Aronofsky, she soars as she has never done before. Not only does she perform a substantial amount of physically demanding ballet, but we see things through her eyes and feel her pains. Does she really commit the horrible acts she thinks she may have done or is it all in her warped mind? It’s not a pleasant journey. There is extremely disturbing use of mirror images that reflect Nina’s face and become Lily in the next instant in jarring and unexpected fashion. Is Nina seeing Lily or is it a reflection of her own self? A moment that shows the various pieces of wall art at her home coming alive in nightmarish figures is truly unnerving.
Kunis as Lily brings enough menace to her role. Winona Ryder has a supporting role of a retiring, vindictive ballerina, Beth MacIntyre, who ends up in the hospital. A scene where Nina worships Beth is reminiscent of Anne Baxter and Bette Davis in the dressing room scene of All About Eve. Beth is bitter and even self abusive which kind of foreshadows what awaits Nina. Cassell is effective as the ballet director whose sexism and unusual methods are suspect but never his quest for the absolute best for his production. Hershey registers as an overly concerned, controlling mom.
The film does a good job of showing the mental and physical toll that rehearsal and practice take on a performer, and to make matters worse, the angst exhibits itself seemingly on Nina’s body in distorted and grotesque manifestations. The physical mutations would probably amuse and please the likes of David Cronenberg and David Lynch. As Leroy demands more than what she shows in technique, she knows she has to give everything in her soul and more to satisfy the ballet’s demands. There is an interesting dichotomy showing two sides of a ballerina’s psyche with the repressed, uptight Nina whose frigidity is counterpointed by the free spirited and sensual Lily. Lily evens brings out her sexuality and inner yearning that seems all too real, or is it a dream? Something that is never mentioned or shown is if Nina is a virgin or ever had a real boyfriend. Then there is the duality within Nina of White and Black Swans in which the dark side must emerge if she is to fully inhabit the lead role.
Much of the film recalls other memorable films that bend reality like The Fight Club or Affliction, and Nina’s descent into madness has striking similarities to Roman Polanski’s classic Repulsion whose woman descends into psychological delusions and paranoia.
Aronofsky’s use of camera work is startling as it works in concert with Portman’s performance, and when you see the change in her eyes near the end, it is stunning. The film employs lots of handheld shots with cinematographer Matthew Libatique to visualize a subjective viewpoint for Nina. The score by Clint Mansell is well done with a touch of foreboding. Both of them are Aronofsky veterans. The final scene as Nina readies to perform the last act as she morphs into the Black Swan to complete her transformation is haunting. The final shot is unforgettable. Some viewers may be turned off by its repellent imagery but others will be astonished by a powerful depiction of madness at any price.
***1/2 of **** stars
Nina Sayers (Portman) works hard at her craft and gets the coveted starring role in Swan Lake. Doted on by her mother (Barbara Hershey in an unusual role) and pushed to extremes by her ballet director, Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel), she begins to feel threatened and becomes delusional and loses touch with reality. A new arrival, Lily (Mila Kunis), understudies her and becomes not only her friend and night scene companion, but also her main competitor and threat. Is she undermining her on purpose or is Nina just imagining it all? As opening night approached, the visions become even more disturbing to the point that Nina is at the brink of her sanity and the curtain opens on the most important moment of her life.
Portman projects a complex series of conflicting emotions including anxiety, jealousy, and even guilt as if she does not deserve the lead. Guided by Aronofsky, she soars as she has never done before. Not only does she perform a substantial amount of physically demanding ballet, but we see things through her eyes and feel her pains. Does she really commit the horrible acts she thinks she may have done or is it all in her warped mind? It’s not a pleasant journey. There is extremely disturbing use of mirror images that reflect Nina’s face and become Lily in the next instant in jarring and unexpected fashion. Is Nina seeing Lily or is it a reflection of her own self? A moment that shows the various pieces of wall art at her home coming alive in nightmarish figures is truly unnerving.
Kunis as Lily brings enough menace to her role. Winona Ryder has a supporting role of a retiring, vindictive ballerina, Beth MacIntyre, who ends up in the hospital. A scene where Nina worships Beth is reminiscent of Anne Baxter and Bette Davis in the dressing room scene of All About Eve. Beth is bitter and even self abusive which kind of foreshadows what awaits Nina. Cassell is effective as the ballet director whose sexism and unusual methods are suspect but never his quest for the absolute best for his production. Hershey registers as an overly concerned, controlling mom.
The film does a good job of showing the mental and physical toll that rehearsal and practice take on a performer, and to make matters worse, the angst exhibits itself seemingly on Nina’s body in distorted and grotesque manifestations. The physical mutations would probably amuse and please the likes of David Cronenberg and David Lynch. As Leroy demands more than what she shows in technique, she knows she has to give everything in her soul and more to satisfy the ballet’s demands. There is an interesting dichotomy showing two sides of a ballerina’s psyche with the repressed, uptight Nina whose frigidity is counterpointed by the free spirited and sensual Lily. Lily evens brings out her sexuality and inner yearning that seems all too real, or is it a dream? Something that is never mentioned or shown is if Nina is a virgin or ever had a real boyfriend. Then there is the duality within Nina of White and Black Swans in which the dark side must emerge if she is to fully inhabit the lead role.
Much of the film recalls other memorable films that bend reality like The Fight Club or Affliction, and Nina’s descent into madness has striking similarities to Roman Polanski’s classic Repulsion whose woman descends into psychological delusions and paranoia.
Aronofsky’s use of camera work is startling as it works in concert with Portman’s performance, and when you see the change in her eyes near the end, it is stunning. The film employs lots of handheld shots with cinematographer Matthew Libatique to visualize a subjective viewpoint for Nina. The score by Clint Mansell is well done with a touch of foreboding. Both of them are Aronofsky veterans. The final scene as Nina readies to perform the last act as she morphs into the Black Swan to complete her transformation is haunting. The final shot is unforgettable. Some viewers may be turned off by its repellent imagery but others will be astonished by a powerful depiction of madness at any price.
***1/2 of **** stars
The Phenom of THE SOCIAL NETWORK
As a chronicle of events leading to the creation of the social networking site Facebook, touching nearly every computer user in the world, The Social Network is a fascinating take on Mark Zuckerberg, a maverick, whose brilliant mind is matched by his arrogance. Directed by David Fincher (Se7en, The Fight Club) from an excellent screenplay by Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men, The West Wing) and based on the book, The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich, this is a fascinating study of a success story complete with intrigue and subterfuge. In this case, the incidents play on a very human level. You would think this would make an excellent made for television HBO movie, but Sorkin and Fincher have created a remarkable, cinematic vision of an inventor, albeit a troubled one.
In the fall of 2003, Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) is portrayed as a computer genius at Harvard University with few social graces. What we know now as Facebook had its modest beginnings as a response to a failed relationship with a girl. Needing to vent some anger, Mark modifies a campus website and with the help of his buddy, Eduardo (Andrew Garfield), a concept is born for socializing on the internet. When web traffic to the site spikes to record numbers, people begin to take notice, and a phenomenon is born. A group of Harvard students enlist Mark to develop his site with their financial backing, but when they discover that he is working on his venture without them, they become incensed and contemplate legal action. Mark and Eduardo become popular ‘rock stars’ on campus as the new Facebook spreads like an epidemic to other college campuses like Yale, Columbia, and Stanford. Soon, the company approaches critical mass and the milestone of being able to monetize the site and turn a profit. Napster creator, Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), reaches out to the growing network because he understands its vast potential. Mark becomes enamored and captivated by Sean’s leadership and vision and is drawn to Silicon Valley much to Eduardo’s consternation. But with Sean’s guidance comes his lavish, illicit lifestyle which has potential consequences for all. As the company expands to the whole country and becomes a global presence, it seeks more capital, and the ensuing growing pains will test friendships and lead to betrayals and litigation. By the end, everyone is suing to get a piece of the action. We’re not talking millions of dollars at stake but staggering numbers that far exceed normal comprehension.
Jesse Eisenberg (Adventureland, Zombieland) is perfectly cast as Mark Zuckerberg, a high energy geek running around a snowy campus in his shorts and flip flops and is quick to respond to his critics with venomous sarcasm. Making us fascinated with such an unsavory character is testament to his performance. Justin Timberlake is excellent as the charismatic entrepreneur Sean, who is portrayed as a narcissistic, lecherous Svengali and mentor to Mark. Andrew Garfield lends very strong support as Eduardo, Mark’s roommate.
The film’s pace is rapid and driven, not a slow spot at all. Its structure incorporates flashbacks and flash forwards in a masterful display of film editing. The story works as a kind of techie mystery especially from the point of view of a legal deposition that frames the events of the past. Every major player gets a scripted point of view Rashomon style. All through the narrative, you keep wondering if Mark knows more than he lets on. Is he naïve or is he a schemer or both? Was the betrayal of Eduardo orchestrated by Mark or was it the machinations of Sean? It is never truly clear as to Mark’s culpability. This is success, but at what price?
There’s very little to gripe about in this film. A short scene with Eduardo’s psychotic girlfriend is shocking but ultimately pointless. Were the filmmakers trying to show his poor judge of character? Also, I noticed a scene where the actors talk in the supposed cold with digital condensation coming from their mouths; so how come the extras don’t have any? A major subplot showing Eduardo’s initiation to the elite Phoenix Club never makes clear whether Mark had a hand in his acceptance.
With its fascinating subject matter, the script begs your attention and participation. Sorkin has done a marvelous job of bringing a book to life and complemented with Fincher’s acumen. The dialogue is stunning in its blatant display of Zuckerberg’s intelligence and rebellious streak. The result is a chronicle of a techie generation with not one false note and a thoroughly engrossing screenplay that has Oscar written all over it. Fincher is proving himself to be a great director when given superior material, and his branching out from thrillers to more mainstream fare has been remarkable (as in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button). One can only wonder the goodies that await movie audiences as he explores further.
**** of **** stars
In the fall of 2003, Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) is portrayed as a computer genius at Harvard University with few social graces. What we know now as Facebook had its modest beginnings as a response to a failed relationship with a girl. Needing to vent some anger, Mark modifies a campus website and with the help of his buddy, Eduardo (Andrew Garfield), a concept is born for socializing on the internet. When web traffic to the site spikes to record numbers, people begin to take notice, and a phenomenon is born. A group of Harvard students enlist Mark to develop his site with their financial backing, but when they discover that he is working on his venture without them, they become incensed and contemplate legal action. Mark and Eduardo become popular ‘rock stars’ on campus as the new Facebook spreads like an epidemic to other college campuses like Yale, Columbia, and Stanford. Soon, the company approaches critical mass and the milestone of being able to monetize the site and turn a profit. Napster creator, Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), reaches out to the growing network because he understands its vast potential. Mark becomes enamored and captivated by Sean’s leadership and vision and is drawn to Silicon Valley much to Eduardo’s consternation. But with Sean’s guidance comes his lavish, illicit lifestyle which has potential consequences for all. As the company expands to the whole country and becomes a global presence, it seeks more capital, and the ensuing growing pains will test friendships and lead to betrayals and litigation. By the end, everyone is suing to get a piece of the action. We’re not talking millions of dollars at stake but staggering numbers that far exceed normal comprehension.
Jesse Eisenberg (Adventureland, Zombieland) is perfectly cast as Mark Zuckerberg, a high energy geek running around a snowy campus in his shorts and flip flops and is quick to respond to his critics with venomous sarcasm. Making us fascinated with such an unsavory character is testament to his performance. Justin Timberlake is excellent as the charismatic entrepreneur Sean, who is portrayed as a narcissistic, lecherous Svengali and mentor to Mark. Andrew Garfield lends very strong support as Eduardo, Mark’s roommate.
The film’s pace is rapid and driven, not a slow spot at all. Its structure incorporates flashbacks and flash forwards in a masterful display of film editing. The story works as a kind of techie mystery especially from the point of view of a legal deposition that frames the events of the past. Every major player gets a scripted point of view Rashomon style. All through the narrative, you keep wondering if Mark knows more than he lets on. Is he naïve or is he a schemer or both? Was the betrayal of Eduardo orchestrated by Mark or was it the machinations of Sean? It is never truly clear as to Mark’s culpability. This is success, but at what price?
There’s very little to gripe about in this film. A short scene with Eduardo’s psychotic girlfriend is shocking but ultimately pointless. Were the filmmakers trying to show his poor judge of character? Also, I noticed a scene where the actors talk in the supposed cold with digital condensation coming from their mouths; so how come the extras don’t have any? A major subplot showing Eduardo’s initiation to the elite Phoenix Club never makes clear whether Mark had a hand in his acceptance.
With its fascinating subject matter, the script begs your attention and participation. Sorkin has done a marvelous job of bringing a book to life and complemented with Fincher’s acumen. The dialogue is stunning in its blatant display of Zuckerberg’s intelligence and rebellious streak. The result is a chronicle of a techie generation with not one false note and a thoroughly engrossing screenplay that has Oscar written all over it. Fincher is proving himself to be a great director when given superior material, and his branching out from thrillers to more mainstream fare has been remarkable (as in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button). One can only wonder the goodies that await movie audiences as he explores further.
**** of **** stars
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Mid Atlantic Nostalgia Convention is Growing


The 2010 installment of the Mid Atlantic Nostalgia Convention in Hunt Valley, MD, showed that this convention has come a long way and expanded from its modest beginnings in Aberdeen, MD. There were seemingly more attendees and vendors. The guests were intriguing as ever.

TV’s Green Hornet star Van Williams had to bow out beforehand due to a health consideration, but there were still well known stars of TV including Roy Thinnes (cult show The Invaders), Ed Nelson (one of the busiest actors in movies and TV in the 1950’s, 60’s, and 70’s), Dawn Wells, and Mark Goddard among others.
Dawn Wells played Mary Ann in Gilligan’s Island from 1964-1967. She looked terrific and was just as spunky and energetic as her character. She noted my Shirt with The Wild Wild West and mentioned that she was a guest on that show (as was co-star Alan Hale Jr.). She also noted how her cousin was also named Clint. No surprise that her autograph line was the longest all day.
Having been a big fan of Irwin Allen’s Lost in Space, Mark Goddard (Major West) looked incredibly youthful for his age of 74. His favorite episode was “The Anti Matter Man”. He said he would hang out with series star Guy Williams at the track with their wives. He never really saw much of producer Allen who had several projects going at the time, and he marvelled at how the special effects relied on live action models rather than today's computer generated effects.
Everyone seemed to be having fun and sharing memories of their favorite TV or movie moments. This Hunt Valley hotel location was spacious and ideal for this growing event; it looks like this convention has found a home for next year.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Duvall at the Height of His Power in GET LOW
Robert Duvall is one of the best American actors of the past half century. Witness his roles in To Kill a Mockingbird, The Godfather I and II, The Great Santini, Apocalypse Now, Open Range, and a full TV resume including Lonesome Dove. In Get Low, he gives a measured, understated performance as a mysterious, old hermit who makes an unusual, life changing decision. This independent film is deceptively simple and honest. Yet it is done extremely well and leaves a deep feeling about life’s regrets.
After the brief image of a house burning down, we flash forward to a rural setting in the 1930’s to see an old home inhabited by a reclusive, elderly man, Felix Bush (Duvall), whose disheveled appearance and reputation are the stuff of rumor and legend. Are the stories about him true? Is he a killer? Haunted by visions of a woman, he decides to arrange his own funeral before his actual demise. The funeral home is run by Frank Quinn (Bill Murray) and his loyal assistant, Buddy Robinson (Lucas Black). Felix wants to invite everyone who has a story about him to tell. He sweetens the pot by offering to raffle off his vast acreage of property. He also runs into an old acquaintance, Mattie (Sissy Spacek), who has strong ties to him from way back. He later pays a visit to a preacher in another town in hopes of having him conduct the eulogy. As the plot thickens, we find that Felix is hiding a painful secret that will have the town reexamining its prejudices and assumptions about a tortured soul who is struggling for his own redemption before it’s too late.
Novice director Aaron Schneider, whose previous credits were as a cinematographer of various TV shows and movies, does a solid job with a modest budget and a lean story and script by Chris Provenzano and C. Gaby Mitchell.
It’s nice to see veteran actors like Duvall, Spacek, and Murray play older characters, wrinkles and all with enthusiasm and conviction. Duvall does a splendid job of presenting a cipher of a man whose words are sparse and direct and slowly, as the story develops, begins to open up to reveal a complex person replete with feelings of guilt. There are reasons perhaps for why he is the way he is. Duvall is destined for an Oscar nomination, and Spacek arguably deserves a nod for strong support. Bill Murray as the funeral director does a convincing job as a businessman who isn’t quite a villain or hero. He is carving a nice career niche as a dramatic character actor (aside from being a comedic superstar).
The film successfully evokes the period of depression era, small town USA. There are few items to quibble about; however, a violent break in at the funeral home doesn’t really forward the plot and is never fully explained.
There are similarities in Felix and the noble character in The Ballad of Cable Hogue. In both films, the protagonist is an aged, stubborn loner, and in the end, as his life is in its twilight, the truth sets him free. Perhaps the lesson here is that each person has a story, and some of the stories are not always evident. With Get Low, we get to see the bittersweet tale of a broken heart. Your heart will be moved too.
*** of **** stars (add ½ star for Duvall’s performance)
After the brief image of a house burning down, we flash forward to a rural setting in the 1930’s to see an old home inhabited by a reclusive, elderly man, Felix Bush (Duvall), whose disheveled appearance and reputation are the stuff of rumor and legend. Are the stories about him true? Is he a killer? Haunted by visions of a woman, he decides to arrange his own funeral before his actual demise. The funeral home is run by Frank Quinn (Bill Murray) and his loyal assistant, Buddy Robinson (Lucas Black). Felix wants to invite everyone who has a story about him to tell. He sweetens the pot by offering to raffle off his vast acreage of property. He also runs into an old acquaintance, Mattie (Sissy Spacek), who has strong ties to him from way back. He later pays a visit to a preacher in another town in hopes of having him conduct the eulogy. As the plot thickens, we find that Felix is hiding a painful secret that will have the town reexamining its prejudices and assumptions about a tortured soul who is struggling for his own redemption before it’s too late.
Novice director Aaron Schneider, whose previous credits were as a cinematographer of various TV shows and movies, does a solid job with a modest budget and a lean story and script by Chris Provenzano and C. Gaby Mitchell.
It’s nice to see veteran actors like Duvall, Spacek, and Murray play older characters, wrinkles and all with enthusiasm and conviction. Duvall does a splendid job of presenting a cipher of a man whose words are sparse and direct and slowly, as the story develops, begins to open up to reveal a complex person replete with feelings of guilt. There are reasons perhaps for why he is the way he is. Duvall is destined for an Oscar nomination, and Spacek arguably deserves a nod for strong support. Bill Murray as the funeral director does a convincing job as a businessman who isn’t quite a villain or hero. He is carving a nice career niche as a dramatic character actor (aside from being a comedic superstar).
The film successfully evokes the period of depression era, small town USA. There are few items to quibble about; however, a violent break in at the funeral home doesn’t really forward the plot and is never fully explained.
There are similarities in Felix and the noble character in The Ballad of Cable Hogue. In both films, the protagonist is an aged, stubborn loner, and in the end, as his life is in its twilight, the truth sets him free. Perhaps the lesson here is that each person has a story, and some of the stories are not always evident. With Get Low, we get to see the bittersweet tale of a broken heart. Your heart will be moved too.
*** of **** stars (add ½ star for Duvall’s performance)
Friday, July 23, 2010
INCEPTION Is a Dream Come True
Director/writer Christopher Nolan has explored dark, obsessive characters in exemplary films like The Dark Knight. In his most ambitious story yet (one that took ten years to develop), he designs a thoroughly complex story with concurrent narratives (think Godfather Part II or Intolerance) where (like his earliest film, Following, and his classic, Momento,) time and reality are bent and juxtaposed. This is not light, escapist fare but a deep, convoluted story that engages the mind and heart, and few movies in recent years can be so challenging yet rewarding to its audience.
A man named Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) washes ashore and is taken by armed guards to an old man. From there the film begins to jump in different settings or dream states. Cobb is an expert at the art of ‘inception’, the ability to enter people’s subconscious to steal an idea or plant one. A fugitive, he longs to be reunited with his two children and is constantly plagued by recurring visions of his wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard), who becomes increasingly dangerous. A wealthy Asian businessman, Saito (Ken Watanabe), makes a proposition to Cobb: extract a piece of information from a rival businessman (Cillian Murphy), and Cobb gets to return home to his kids. Vowing this to be his last job, Cobb assembles his team of experts, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a newbie architect Ariadne (Ellen Page), a forger and impersonator, Earnes (Tom Hardy), and a drug chemist, Yusuf (Dileep Rao). To infiltrate Fischer’s mind, the team designs an elaborate set of dreams within dreams to effect a con game. This compounds the risks and, as Cobb finds himself being harassed by a more menacing Mal, the team encounters last minute crises that force Cobb to make a desperate choice. Can they get Fischer to reveal his secrets in time, and what of Cobb’s personal obsession?
The plot brings to mind the alternative realities of The Matrix, Dreamscape, and Altered States. Like the magicians in Nolan’s The Prestige, it is a slight of hand where much of the film’s narrative plays like stream of consciousness. It’s about a lifetime of love that’s experienced in mere flashes or an eternity, and despite the film’s intricate machinations, its simple themes are the search for validation and love. The film is also about the need of letting go and taking a leap of faith. At times you wonder if any given scene is real or a dream, and that is the conceit of the film; for some, the dream IS the reality.
The team concept is in keeping with Mission: Impossible and Oceans 11 (any version) as each member’s expertise comes into play, and the deeper the team goes into the dreams, the greater the risks. In one key sequence set in a snow mountain compound, there is an obvious homage to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, and you wonder what wonders Nolan could work on the James Bond franchise!
This ‘dream’ cast works together very well and includes Nolan’s repertory actors, Murphy and Caine. DiCaprio (looking astonishingly like Nolan) does an excellent job as the tortured soul with a dark secret. Cotillard is hauntingly beautiful as Cobb’s wife while the younger Page is adorable as the bright architect who also serves as Cobb’s moral compass when he begins to falter and have self doubts.
The film’s technical accomplishments are outstanding, and although the special effects are terrific in depicting the mind bending scenery, the live action sets and stunt work (with Levitt doing some remarkable acrobatics) are even more impressive in depicting mixed gravity where people float or walk on walls and ceilings. In a masterful blend of film editing, the dream sequences shuttle back and forth, and time is slowed to a crawl in one instance, and given years in another. Hans Zimmer’s relentless, minimalist score is a particularly noteworthy achievement of mood and dramatic pacing.
This is not a perfect film, and (at two and one-half hours) there are moments where you think Nolan could have explored more of his subjects. A director like Steven Spielberg or Ron Howard might have emotionally milked certain scenes for all they are worth, and it is because of that, we expect a bit more connection and feelings. Like most of Nolan’s films, the brooding characters and situations are almost entirely devoid of humor or any lighthearted tone which brings to mind any number of Stanley Kubrick films. While some may find the ending a bit too neat or perhaps too open ended, it is left to the audience to decide how to interpret the meaning of the finale. Yet these are minor quibbles for grand, pure cinematic experience. Nolan has created something so special that it engages the mind. How dare he?
With Inception, Christopher Nolan is most certainly one of the best film directors. His previous masterpiece, The Dark Knight, should have been nominated for the Best Picture Oscar. Come to think of it, that very film helped change the Oscar rules to expand from five to ten nominees so that gems like Inception are not left out. It won’t be. Do take this wild ride, and you’ll find that you are obsessed with its mystery and beauty and repeating the journey again and again.
**** of **** stars
A man named Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) washes ashore and is taken by armed guards to an old man. From there the film begins to jump in different settings or dream states. Cobb is an expert at the art of ‘inception’, the ability to enter people’s subconscious to steal an idea or plant one. A fugitive, he longs to be reunited with his two children and is constantly plagued by recurring visions of his wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard), who becomes increasingly dangerous. A wealthy Asian businessman, Saito (Ken Watanabe), makes a proposition to Cobb: extract a piece of information from a rival businessman (Cillian Murphy), and Cobb gets to return home to his kids. Vowing this to be his last job, Cobb assembles his team of experts, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a newbie architect Ariadne (Ellen Page), a forger and impersonator, Earnes (Tom Hardy), and a drug chemist, Yusuf (Dileep Rao). To infiltrate Fischer’s mind, the team designs an elaborate set of dreams within dreams to effect a con game. This compounds the risks and, as Cobb finds himself being harassed by a more menacing Mal, the team encounters last minute crises that force Cobb to make a desperate choice. Can they get Fischer to reveal his secrets in time, and what of Cobb’s personal obsession?
The plot brings to mind the alternative realities of The Matrix, Dreamscape, and Altered States. Like the magicians in Nolan’s The Prestige, it is a slight of hand where much of the film’s narrative plays like stream of consciousness. It’s about a lifetime of love that’s experienced in mere flashes or an eternity, and despite the film’s intricate machinations, its simple themes are the search for validation and love. The film is also about the need of letting go and taking a leap of faith. At times you wonder if any given scene is real or a dream, and that is the conceit of the film; for some, the dream IS the reality.
The team concept is in keeping with Mission: Impossible and Oceans 11 (any version) as each member’s expertise comes into play, and the deeper the team goes into the dreams, the greater the risks. In one key sequence set in a snow mountain compound, there is an obvious homage to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, and you wonder what wonders Nolan could work on the James Bond franchise!
This ‘dream’ cast works together very well and includes Nolan’s repertory actors, Murphy and Caine. DiCaprio (looking astonishingly like Nolan) does an excellent job as the tortured soul with a dark secret. Cotillard is hauntingly beautiful as Cobb’s wife while the younger Page is adorable as the bright architect who also serves as Cobb’s moral compass when he begins to falter and have self doubts.
The film’s technical accomplishments are outstanding, and although the special effects are terrific in depicting the mind bending scenery, the live action sets and stunt work (with Levitt doing some remarkable acrobatics) are even more impressive in depicting mixed gravity where people float or walk on walls and ceilings. In a masterful blend of film editing, the dream sequences shuttle back and forth, and time is slowed to a crawl in one instance, and given years in another. Hans Zimmer’s relentless, minimalist score is a particularly noteworthy achievement of mood and dramatic pacing.
This is not a perfect film, and (at two and one-half hours) there are moments where you think Nolan could have explored more of his subjects. A director like Steven Spielberg or Ron Howard might have emotionally milked certain scenes for all they are worth, and it is because of that, we expect a bit more connection and feelings. Like most of Nolan’s films, the brooding characters and situations are almost entirely devoid of humor or any lighthearted tone which brings to mind any number of Stanley Kubrick films. While some may find the ending a bit too neat or perhaps too open ended, it is left to the audience to decide how to interpret the meaning of the finale. Yet these are minor quibbles for grand, pure cinematic experience. Nolan has created something so special that it engages the mind. How dare he?
With Inception, Christopher Nolan is most certainly one of the best film directors. His previous masterpiece, The Dark Knight, should have been nominated for the Best Picture Oscar. Come to think of it, that very film helped change the Oscar rules to expand from five to ten nominees so that gems like Inception are not left out. It won’t be. Do take this wild ride, and you’ll find that you are obsessed with its mystery and beauty and repeating the journey again and again.
**** of **** stars
Sunday, July 11, 2010
SHORE LEAVE 32 AND GALACTICA STARS

Shore Leave 32, the annual sci-fi convention weekend, in Hunt Valley, Maryland, had its usual merchandise dealers and celebrity guests including Kevin Sorbo (Hercules), Torri Higginson (Stargate: Atlantis) , Catherine Hick (Star Trek IV), Dominic Keating (Star Trek: Enterprise), Katee Sackhoff (24), and Edward James Olmos (Miami Vice). The show was a great opportunity to get personal insight into an actor’s career. I had the chance to talk to both Olmos and Sackhoff and to attend their Q&A sessions. Both were very nice, forthcoming people.
With longer, gray hair, Olmos looked older from his days on Miami Vice but no less distinguished. He was lavish in his praise for the recent Battlestar Galactica series which took a simple 1970’s concept and expanded on its human elements and important themes and garnered Emmy nominations and the Peabody Award. His costar Katee Sackhoff was a mainstay on that show as well.
The Emmy winner was asked about other work in his career including Blade Runner and Stand and Deliver for which he received a Best Actor Oscar nomination. Stand and Deliver is based on a true story of an inner city math teacher whose class took the advanced placement test and excelled to the astonishment of the country. Triumph of the Spirit was also a true story about a boxer in Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II, the only non-documentary film allowed to film on location.
When asked about who influenced him as an actor and who he rated as an admired contemporary, he chose the legendary actor Paul Muni as the most important. Meryl Streep is the one current actress he acknowledges as being so good, that she stands alone in her abilities.
Katee Sackhoff was smaller in person than I thought, with auburn brown hair and not the blonde villain, Dana Walsh, as portrayed in the final season of TV’s 24. She told of how she did not know she was the traitorous mole until later that season and subsequently knew her character would die. Her death scene, which had her shot by Keifer Sutherland as Jack Bauer, involved explosive blanks and blood squibs at close range. She said she forgot to put earplugs in her ears and could not hear for days.

She had just heard that her pilot, Boston’s Finest, was not picked up for the upcoming TV season but that she had two guest spots in Big Bang Theory. Such is the life of a working actor. She auditions all the time for roles that often go to the likes of Katherine Heigl and Claire Danes and failed to win roles in It’s Complicated and Million Dollar Baby. She would love to be on the TV show Glee and just auditioned twice for a role in Mission Impossible 4. She owns a Harley Davidson Fatboy motorcycle and plans to ride to New Orleans and follow the Easy Rider route this fall.
There was a good turnout for this event, and many fans were dressed as favorite characters from sci-fi shows. Klingons, Star Fleet officers, Cylons, Stargate soldiers, and even R2D2 made appearances. After a search for collectible film memorabilia, I was ready to switch from groupie to civilian.
Monday, July 05, 2010
TOY STORY 3 Is a Winning Number
Completing one of the greatest trilogies in movie history (joining Star Wars and Lord of the Rings), Toy Story 3 is everything one could wish for and more. These familiar toys that come alive with feelings and interplay became the cornerstone of Pixar Studios and a string of superlative animated gems. Disney should be thanking its lucky stars.
Picking up from the previous films, Andy has played with his beloved toys for years and explored imaginative adventures and thrills that are the stuff of a rich, wondrous childhood. The old gang is back with Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks), Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), and the others. As Andy approaches college age, it is a time of change, and the toys lament at not being played with anymore. They are destined for the attic or the trash dump… or maybe a chance to entertain kids at a day school. Lest you think the field of toys gets too crowded (Little Bo Peep and Etch a Sketch have moved on), there are some nice additions (Barbie doll gets to romance Ken), and some not so nice ones.
Sunnyside Daycare seems to be an ideal situation with children who want toys, and toys needing to be needed (a kind of schoolyard version of ‘The Island of Misfit Toys’); it appears to be a match made in heaven. There’s even a connection between Andy and a daycare staffer whose daughter, Bonnie, is beginning to play with her first toys. But a mysterious leader emerges in the form of a stuffed bear, Lotso (a charming Ned Beatty), who has a rigid pecking order or hierarchy for the toys, and that leaves our newcomers at the mercy of the youngest, most violent kids who abuse them.
As Woody finds a temporary home with Bonnie and tries to make it back to his friends, Buzz attempts to find out the truth of the daycare and is captured. From there, the film becomes an escape story as the toys struggle to flee their daycare prison. Last minute rescues are trumped by surprises and betrayal, and salvation can come from the most surprising source. Will Woody and Buzz save the day, and what will become of their toy brethren? Will the toys find happiness somewhere perhaps?
What has never failed is that the filmmakers treat their audience with intelligence and respect. It also does not depend on one seeing the past films, but it does help in order to appreciate certain references. The Pixar team led by director Lee Unkrich and screenwriter Michael Arndt (Little Miss Sunshine) should be commended for never losing sight of the story. The cast of voices including Joan Cusack, Don Rickles (priceless as Mr. Potato Head), Estelle Harris, Wallace Shawn, John Ratzenberger (who has voiced in every Pixar film), and newcomer Michael Keaton (as Ken) are terrific. They do a better job of acting and emoting than many a live actor.
The film’s first hour or so is good but not great. It is in the final scenes that the themes of loyalty and sacrifice take on a deeper meaning, and the film blossoms with pathos. The notion of abandonment and wanting to belong resonate universally. As the toys learn that they can make other children happy and feel a purpose again, Andy also learns a lesson in life: passing the torch from one child’s happiness to another. It’s about growing up and letting go while finding closure amidst a time of uncertainty and change. Imagine that-a kid’s film that is affecting to adults!
If this is the end of the precious series (with record box office grosses, I find that hard to believe), it has ended on a very high note. Do stay for the end credits as you learn a bit more about the fate of our beloved toys. As much as I would hate to see these animated friends go, I should remember that these jewels are to be shared and cherished by future generations. How’s that for life imitating art?
**** of **** stars (preceded by another winning short, Day and Night))
Picking up from the previous films, Andy has played with his beloved toys for years and explored imaginative adventures and thrills that are the stuff of a rich, wondrous childhood. The old gang is back with Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks), Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), and the others. As Andy approaches college age, it is a time of change, and the toys lament at not being played with anymore. They are destined for the attic or the trash dump… or maybe a chance to entertain kids at a day school. Lest you think the field of toys gets too crowded (Little Bo Peep and Etch a Sketch have moved on), there are some nice additions (Barbie doll gets to romance Ken), and some not so nice ones.
Sunnyside Daycare seems to be an ideal situation with children who want toys, and toys needing to be needed (a kind of schoolyard version of ‘The Island of Misfit Toys’); it appears to be a match made in heaven. There’s even a connection between Andy and a daycare staffer whose daughter, Bonnie, is beginning to play with her first toys. But a mysterious leader emerges in the form of a stuffed bear, Lotso (a charming Ned Beatty), who has a rigid pecking order or hierarchy for the toys, and that leaves our newcomers at the mercy of the youngest, most violent kids who abuse them.
As Woody finds a temporary home with Bonnie and tries to make it back to his friends, Buzz attempts to find out the truth of the daycare and is captured. From there, the film becomes an escape story as the toys struggle to flee their daycare prison. Last minute rescues are trumped by surprises and betrayal, and salvation can come from the most surprising source. Will Woody and Buzz save the day, and what will become of their toy brethren? Will the toys find happiness somewhere perhaps?
What has never failed is that the filmmakers treat their audience with intelligence and respect. It also does not depend on one seeing the past films, but it does help in order to appreciate certain references. The Pixar team led by director Lee Unkrich and screenwriter Michael Arndt (Little Miss Sunshine) should be commended for never losing sight of the story. The cast of voices including Joan Cusack, Don Rickles (priceless as Mr. Potato Head), Estelle Harris, Wallace Shawn, John Ratzenberger (who has voiced in every Pixar film), and newcomer Michael Keaton (as Ken) are terrific. They do a better job of acting and emoting than many a live actor.
The film’s first hour or so is good but not great. It is in the final scenes that the themes of loyalty and sacrifice take on a deeper meaning, and the film blossoms with pathos. The notion of abandonment and wanting to belong resonate universally. As the toys learn that they can make other children happy and feel a purpose again, Andy also learns a lesson in life: passing the torch from one child’s happiness to another. It’s about growing up and letting go while finding closure amidst a time of uncertainty and change. Imagine that-a kid’s film that is affecting to adults!
If this is the end of the precious series (with record box office grosses, I find that hard to believe), it has ended on a very high note. Do stay for the end credits as you learn a bit more about the fate of our beloved toys. As much as I would hate to see these animated friends go, I should remember that these jewels are to be shared and cherished by future generations. How’s that for life imitating art?
**** of **** stars (preceded by another winning short, Day and Night))
Monday, May 17, 2010
IRON MAN 2 The Same Man
After a spectacular start with Iron Man a couple summers ago, one would have hoped for an even better sequel, considering the fortunes of the Spiderman, X Men, and Batman franchises of late, whose sophomore efforts took their series to dizzying new heights. Not so here, although Iron Man 2 is definitely not a step down either. Consider it on par with the original film and as such, a pretty entertaining, well made Marvel Comics screen entry, and it boasts another strong performance by Robert Downey, Jr. as the hero.
Picking up where industrialist genius, Tony Stark, reveals himself to be Iron Man, the folks in Washington D.C., namely the military and Congress want the technology. He defies the Senate panel by declaring the armor as private property that has brought world peace. Stark’s competitor, Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) is desperate to claim the military’s approval for armored weaponry. Stark’s main girl, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) is trying to help him run Stark Enterprises despite Tony’s childish antics and thrill seeking. His buddy, Lt. Col. Jim Rhodes (Don Cheadle taking over for Terrence Howard), is under pressure by the military to get the Iron Man technology. A new assistant, Natalie Rushman (Scarlett Johansson), has a mysterious background. All this as Starks’ blood is beginning to get poisoned by his ebbing, artificial heart.
Enter the Russian, Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), whose father was snubbed by Stark’s dad. He has developed a body armor that has electric whips, while Hammer provides him the resources to exact revenge. Stark must come to terms with the distant relationship with his late father as he desperately searches for an answer to his failing heart. As Hammer presents his new military hardware to an audience, Ivan and Tony engage in a battle royal.
What the filmmakers needed to do (and could have done a bit more) was to let Downey carry the film on his shoulders; he’s certainly earned the right to flex his acting muscles after Iron Man. Here, he shows off his flair for being a bad boy whose arrogance is matched by his tech savvy, and he is a hero confronting his inner demons and pain which are directly related to the fallout with his father. It is interesting how poppa Stark is portrayed in newsreel footage as a kind of Industrial version of Walt Disney complete with a topographic industrial plan instead of a theme park.
Downey and Paltrow have good repartee and a smooth chemistry even when they argue. The dialogue is snappy and at times funny courtesy of screenwriter Justin Theroux (Tropic Thunder) and director Jon Favreau who still knows how to convey the fantasy world of super heroes, and there are enough twists and surprises to keep things humming along.
Rourke is sufficiently menacing as Ivan, spouting Russian and a dark, defiant persona. Samuel Jackson repeats as Nick Fury, the head of S.H.I.E.L.D., a secret organization that is attempting to assemble ‘The Avengers Initiative’. Johansson is on screen too briefly but there is a nice payoff where she comes through in fine form, or should I say fighting form. As a US Senator, comedian Garry Shandling is stunt casting but proves a bit of a distraction; you just can’t take his character seriously. Marvel co-creator Stan Lee makes another brief cameo, and Favreau is amusing in a larger supporting role of Happy Hogan.
Special effects are impressive and ably serve the story. That suit of armor still wows and functions in true comic book form. There is a familiar, circular prop that appears in a crucial scene that Marvel fans will want to note! Stunt work and the fight choreography that involves Johansson’s character is fun to watch but you wish there were more.
Favreau has shown a knack for comic heroes, but he has not made the big step to improve on his franchise. Perhaps in Iron Man 3 he can break the curse that has plagued super hero franchises that fell down in their third films. By the way, do stay after the credits for an interesting clip that hints at the ever growing Marvel Universe.
*** of **** stars (add ½* for Marvel fans)
Picking up where industrialist genius, Tony Stark, reveals himself to be Iron Man, the folks in Washington D.C., namely the military and Congress want the technology. He defies the Senate panel by declaring the armor as private property that has brought world peace. Stark’s competitor, Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) is desperate to claim the military’s approval for armored weaponry. Stark’s main girl, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) is trying to help him run Stark Enterprises despite Tony’s childish antics and thrill seeking. His buddy, Lt. Col. Jim Rhodes (Don Cheadle taking over for Terrence Howard), is under pressure by the military to get the Iron Man technology. A new assistant, Natalie Rushman (Scarlett Johansson), has a mysterious background. All this as Starks’ blood is beginning to get poisoned by his ebbing, artificial heart.
Enter the Russian, Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), whose father was snubbed by Stark’s dad. He has developed a body armor that has electric whips, while Hammer provides him the resources to exact revenge. Stark must come to terms with the distant relationship with his late father as he desperately searches for an answer to his failing heart. As Hammer presents his new military hardware to an audience, Ivan and Tony engage in a battle royal.
What the filmmakers needed to do (and could have done a bit more) was to let Downey carry the film on his shoulders; he’s certainly earned the right to flex his acting muscles after Iron Man. Here, he shows off his flair for being a bad boy whose arrogance is matched by his tech savvy, and he is a hero confronting his inner demons and pain which are directly related to the fallout with his father. It is interesting how poppa Stark is portrayed in newsreel footage as a kind of Industrial version of Walt Disney complete with a topographic industrial plan instead of a theme park.
Downey and Paltrow have good repartee and a smooth chemistry even when they argue. The dialogue is snappy and at times funny courtesy of screenwriter Justin Theroux (Tropic Thunder) and director Jon Favreau who still knows how to convey the fantasy world of super heroes, and there are enough twists and surprises to keep things humming along.
Rourke is sufficiently menacing as Ivan, spouting Russian and a dark, defiant persona. Samuel Jackson repeats as Nick Fury, the head of S.H.I.E.L.D., a secret organization that is attempting to assemble ‘The Avengers Initiative’. Johansson is on screen too briefly but there is a nice payoff where she comes through in fine form, or should I say fighting form. As a US Senator, comedian Garry Shandling is stunt casting but proves a bit of a distraction; you just can’t take his character seriously. Marvel co-creator Stan Lee makes another brief cameo, and Favreau is amusing in a larger supporting role of Happy Hogan.
Special effects are impressive and ably serve the story. That suit of armor still wows and functions in true comic book form. There is a familiar, circular prop that appears in a crucial scene that Marvel fans will want to note! Stunt work and the fight choreography that involves Johansson’s character is fun to watch but you wish there were more.
Favreau has shown a knack for comic heroes, but he has not made the big step to improve on his franchise. Perhaps in Iron Man 3 he can break the curse that has plagued super hero franchises that fell down in their third films. By the way, do stay after the credits for an interesting clip that hints at the ever growing Marvel Universe.
*** of **** stars (add ½* for Marvel fans)
Friday, March 05, 2010
CLINT’S OSCAR PREDICTIONS for 2009
I have seen all ten Best Picture nominees and a few others. So based on what I have seen and hear, these are my predictions in this expanded best picture year. (I left short subjects alone but Wallace and Gromit are always a sure bet.) Enjoy!
BEST PICTURE-It was between Avatar and the Hurt Locker but Inglourious Basterds is strong with SAG. A new voting system could alter the results dramatically. In the end, THE HURT LOCKER has momentum.
BEST DIRECTOR-KATHRYN BIGELOW
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY-INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS unless Hurt Locker sweeps.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY-UP IN THE AIR is so good that it’s no contest.
BEST ACTOR-JEFF BRIDGES by popular demand
BEST ACTRESS-SANDRA BULLOCK over Meryl Streep unless the voters really have a change of heart.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR-CHRISTOPH WALTZ -no contest
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS-MO’NIQUE -no contest
BEST ANIMATED FILM-UP
BEST FOREIGH FILM-EL SECRETO DE SUS OJOS
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY-THE HURT LOCKER
BEST EDITING-THE HURT LOCKER
BEST SOUND-AVATAR
BEST SOUND EDITING-AVATAR
BEST ART DIRECTION-AVATAR
BEST COSTUME-THE YOUNG VICTORIA
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS-AVATAR
BEST MAKEUP-STAR TREK
BEST SCORE-UP
BEST SONG-“THE WEARY KIND”-CRAZY HEART
BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE-THE COVE
Top Oscar tally –Hurt Locker and Avatar with 4 apiece
BEST PICTURE-It was between Avatar and the Hurt Locker but Inglourious Basterds is strong with SAG. A new voting system could alter the results dramatically. In the end, THE HURT LOCKER has momentum.
BEST DIRECTOR-KATHRYN BIGELOW
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY-INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS unless Hurt Locker sweeps.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY-UP IN THE AIR is so good that it’s no contest.
BEST ACTOR-JEFF BRIDGES by popular demand
BEST ACTRESS-SANDRA BULLOCK over Meryl Streep unless the voters really have a change of heart.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR-CHRISTOPH WALTZ -no contest
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS-MO’NIQUE -no contest
BEST ANIMATED FILM-UP
BEST FOREIGH FILM-EL SECRETO DE SUS OJOS
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY-THE HURT LOCKER
BEST EDITING-THE HURT LOCKER
BEST SOUND-AVATAR
BEST SOUND EDITING-AVATAR
BEST ART DIRECTION-AVATAR
BEST COSTUME-THE YOUNG VICTORIA
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS-AVATAR
BEST MAKEUP-STAR TREK
BEST SCORE-UP
BEST SONG-“THE WEARY KIND”-CRAZY HEART
BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE-THE COVE
Top Oscar tally –Hurt Locker and Avatar with 4 apiece
THE HURT LOCKER and the Human Essence of War
Blessed with an insightful script by journalist Mark Boal, director Kathryn Bigelow (Point Break) has finally found superior material to apply her talents, and the result is a seminal war film set in Iraq. This is not the spectacle of war in broad strokes but rather an intimate point of view. As such, it provides a very personal, visceral experience.
In the middle of the Iraq War, Sgt. J T Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) welcomes a replacement for a fallen comrade. The new soldier, Sgt. William James (Jeremy Renner), is a quirky soul whose specialty is disarming bombs. 38 days are left for Bravo Company as the group sets out to diffuse a bomb. While an automated robot might be appropriate, James insists on doing the job himself and finds a booby trap in the city streets. After a tense period and an unexpected surprise, he is successful but not before spooking Sanborn and the other soldiers nearby. His boldness and gambling has serious consequences for his comrades.
James is a loose cannon, but does he have a death wish? He has the emotional and physical scars from war, and he lives and breathes bombs to the point of keeping bomb parts as souvenirs. He is addicted to the job, and war gives his life meaning. He is the perfect war junkie. It’s a high stress existence and the only person a soldier can rely on is his fellow soldier. These men bond amid difficult life and death situations while there is barely a shot fired. This is most definitely not Audie Murphy’s kind of war.
The risks escalate when a car loaded with explosives is set afire and as James tries to disarm the device, the soldiers attract a lot of attention from the locals who may or may not be innocent observers. It becomes a precarious situation by the minute as James’ expertise is tested to the limit. We witness the risks of guerilla warfare as threats come from around any street corner.
As days melt down to hours, the tension becomes almost unbearable, and you can feel the anxiety and fear in these men. There is an arduous sequence as the group gets pinned down by deadly sniper fire amid an oppressive sun. Later, a heartbreaking scene has James attempting to defuse a bomb strapped to an innocent civilian pleading for his life. It’s a desperate task as the seconds tick away. The emotions and the impossibility of the situation make for a compelling moment.
James has a wife and son back home where he discovers some truths about himself. Finding civilian life difficult to adjust to, he realizes the one thing makes him feel alive, and that is a tour of duty.
Some notable actors like Ralph Feinnes, Guy Pierce, and Evangeline Lilly appear in what are essentially throwaway cameos. Mackie is good as a soldier whose priorities in life change dramatically through his deployment, and Brian Geraghty registers as a young soldier who cannot wait to return safely to the states. But it is Renner who excels in the difficult role of a gifted, but troubled soldier.
Bigelow has always been adept at films (Point Break, Blue Steel) with lead characters under extreme duress, and she milks each bomb sequence with measured, tightly edited cuts to agonizingly prolong and heighten the suspense. She is schooling the public with pure cinematic technique. We feel a bit detached from these men not because they are not well drawn but because the film tries to show events in a semi-documentary way especially in its generous use of handheld cameras that give the feel of news footage.
This is not a perfect film. It feels episodic at times, and perhaps that is the point: that war can be a series of moments of danger and uncertainty. Also, we never fully realize or understand what makes James tick. We know he is drawn to his job and is very good at what he does. But we never see into his psyche’s attraction to this profession beyond the adrenaline rush.
While the film may not accurately portray military tactics or protocal, it does capture the human emotions of impossibly difficult tasks amid a hostile environment. Credit the filmmakers for exploring a fascinating aspect of warfare. In terms of driving home the fear and effects of war on the common soldier, few films have ever been better.
***1/2 of **** stars
Nominated for Best Picture 2009
In the middle of the Iraq War, Sgt. J T Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) welcomes a replacement for a fallen comrade. The new soldier, Sgt. William James (Jeremy Renner), is a quirky soul whose specialty is disarming bombs. 38 days are left for Bravo Company as the group sets out to diffuse a bomb. While an automated robot might be appropriate, James insists on doing the job himself and finds a booby trap in the city streets. After a tense period and an unexpected surprise, he is successful but not before spooking Sanborn and the other soldiers nearby. His boldness and gambling has serious consequences for his comrades.
James is a loose cannon, but does he have a death wish? He has the emotional and physical scars from war, and he lives and breathes bombs to the point of keeping bomb parts as souvenirs. He is addicted to the job, and war gives his life meaning. He is the perfect war junkie. It’s a high stress existence and the only person a soldier can rely on is his fellow soldier. These men bond amid difficult life and death situations while there is barely a shot fired. This is most definitely not Audie Murphy’s kind of war.
The risks escalate when a car loaded with explosives is set afire and as James tries to disarm the device, the soldiers attract a lot of attention from the locals who may or may not be innocent observers. It becomes a precarious situation by the minute as James’ expertise is tested to the limit. We witness the risks of guerilla warfare as threats come from around any street corner.
As days melt down to hours, the tension becomes almost unbearable, and you can feel the anxiety and fear in these men. There is an arduous sequence as the group gets pinned down by deadly sniper fire amid an oppressive sun. Later, a heartbreaking scene has James attempting to defuse a bomb strapped to an innocent civilian pleading for his life. It’s a desperate task as the seconds tick away. The emotions and the impossibility of the situation make for a compelling moment.
James has a wife and son back home where he discovers some truths about himself. Finding civilian life difficult to adjust to, he realizes the one thing makes him feel alive, and that is a tour of duty.
Some notable actors like Ralph Feinnes, Guy Pierce, and Evangeline Lilly appear in what are essentially throwaway cameos. Mackie is good as a soldier whose priorities in life change dramatically through his deployment, and Brian Geraghty registers as a young soldier who cannot wait to return safely to the states. But it is Renner who excels in the difficult role of a gifted, but troubled soldier.
Bigelow has always been adept at films (Point Break, Blue Steel) with lead characters under extreme duress, and she milks each bomb sequence with measured, tightly edited cuts to agonizingly prolong and heighten the suspense. She is schooling the public with pure cinematic technique. We feel a bit detached from these men not because they are not well drawn but because the film tries to show events in a semi-documentary way especially in its generous use of handheld cameras that give the feel of news footage.
This is not a perfect film. It feels episodic at times, and perhaps that is the point: that war can be a series of moments of danger and uncertainty. Also, we never fully realize or understand what makes James tick. We know he is drawn to his job and is very good at what he does. But we never see into his psyche’s attraction to this profession beyond the adrenaline rush.
While the film may not accurately portray military tactics or protocal, it does capture the human emotions of impossibly difficult tasks amid a hostile environment. Credit the filmmakers for exploring a fascinating aspect of warfare. In terms of driving home the fear and effects of war on the common soldier, few films have ever been better.
***1/2 of **** stars
Nominated for Best Picture 2009
AVATAR and Cameron’s Magnificent Obsession
You would think that the man who redefined science fiction and action films over the past quarter century (Terminator, True Lies) and culminated with the best hat trick in movie history with Titanic garnering superlative reviews, earning the all-time box office, and winning a record 11 Oscars, would be satisfied and perhaps go on cruise control with a smaller film. But no, Cameron aims higher with a thrilling adventure that combines game changing special effects that have to be seen on the big screen in 3-D.
In the not too distant future, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a physically challenged soldier, volunteers for an unusual mission on a far away planet, Pandora, a beautiful yet dangerous world where the blue skinned Na’vi are a primitive, enlightened race who are at one with nature and its balance of life as epitomized by the Tree of Souls, a kind of fiber optic tree that has a consciousness. Utilizing a unique technology that enables Sully to become sentient in a genetically engineered substitute Na’vi body or avatar, he is deposited on Pandora to assimilate himself into their culture. Led by a stern, no-nonsense scientist Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), Jake learns the ways of the Na’vi people especially through Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), a proud warrior (much like the heroine in Heavy Metal) whose father is the tribal leader. You just know that Jake and Neytiri are going to become closer in their relationship.
Sully’s commanding officer, Col. Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), expects him to gather intelligence on the Na’vi defense and capabilities in an effort to secure the valuable minerals beneath the Na’vi settlement. It seems that a mining company wants the minerals at any cost. As Sully bonds with these people and realizes that what the military plans to do, he has a change of heart and rallies all the villages to band together for a last stand and a simple battle between good and evil ensues with the Na’vi hopelessly outgunned and overly matched.
The story is simple with political overtones about preserving a green planet and the clash between science and the military. This military is an extension of the bad asses in Cameron’s Aliens. There are obvious parallels to the Iraq War with its natural oil resource. You can see elements of The Matrix with its out of body experience, and Star Wars: Return of the Jedi with its David versus Goliath setup. Any fan of old Tarzan films knows how nature is harnessed by the hero. You get the feeling that this planet’s life force is a collective much as the trees in The Lord of the Rings trilogy and that something extraordinary might happen. The avatar plot device bares loose similarities to the 1960’s TV show Outer Limits episode Chameleon. While Jake has damaged legs, he is able to revel in his new body and experiences what amounts to a rebirth. His initiation into Na’vi life is not dissimilar to the initiation rites in Dances with Wolves.
Apparently Cameron has been gestating this idea for many years, waiting for movie technology to catch up to his complicated visuals. It was worth the wait. He has always been at the forefront of state of the art effects (The Abyss, Terminator 2) so it comes as no surprise that he has single handedly elevated the creative possibilities of 3-D presentation to the mainstream. Cameron does not resort to using 3-D as a gimmick by simply throwing objects at the screen but rather organically and even shots of the planet’s jungles are fully realized settings with plant life and insects that jump out of the screen. The motion capture compliments and reflects real acting. What is remarkable is that this film is simultaneously demonstrating multiple visual effects in a seamlessly integrated presentation courtesy of Cameron’s fertile imagination.
Production values don’t get any better. James Horner composes an energetic yet tender score that evokes his own Titanic and Glory. Although the second half settles into a more conventional war film, that’s a minor complaint. There is a reference to Jake’s late brother (a subplot that does not add much to the story) who was originally slated for the mission.
Worthington and Saldana (Star Trek), in expressive motion capture, do a very solid job of emoting real feelings and making their love a tangible, believable union. Lang has an intimidating presence as the military commander and it’s nice to see his career resurgence (Public Enemies). Weaver lends strong support as the wise, impassioned scientist who will defend the Na’vis even with her life.
Make no mistake: this is a groundbreaking film in terms of technical achievement and theatrical presentation. It needs to be experienced in 3-D to get the complete experience. Do yourself a favor and immerse yourself in this landmark film.
**** of **** stars (especially the first half)
Nominated for Best Picture 2009
In the not too distant future, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a physically challenged soldier, volunteers for an unusual mission on a far away planet, Pandora, a beautiful yet dangerous world where the blue skinned Na’vi are a primitive, enlightened race who are at one with nature and its balance of life as epitomized by the Tree of Souls, a kind of fiber optic tree that has a consciousness. Utilizing a unique technology that enables Sully to become sentient in a genetically engineered substitute Na’vi body or avatar, he is deposited on Pandora to assimilate himself into their culture. Led by a stern, no-nonsense scientist Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), Jake learns the ways of the Na’vi people especially through Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), a proud warrior (much like the heroine in Heavy Metal) whose father is the tribal leader. You just know that Jake and Neytiri are going to become closer in their relationship.
Sully’s commanding officer, Col. Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), expects him to gather intelligence on the Na’vi defense and capabilities in an effort to secure the valuable minerals beneath the Na’vi settlement. It seems that a mining company wants the minerals at any cost. As Sully bonds with these people and realizes that what the military plans to do, he has a change of heart and rallies all the villages to band together for a last stand and a simple battle between good and evil ensues with the Na’vi hopelessly outgunned and overly matched.
The story is simple with political overtones about preserving a green planet and the clash between science and the military. This military is an extension of the bad asses in Cameron’s Aliens. There are obvious parallels to the Iraq War with its natural oil resource. You can see elements of The Matrix with its out of body experience, and Star Wars: Return of the Jedi with its David versus Goliath setup. Any fan of old Tarzan films knows how nature is harnessed by the hero. You get the feeling that this planet’s life force is a collective much as the trees in The Lord of the Rings trilogy and that something extraordinary might happen. The avatar plot device bares loose similarities to the 1960’s TV show Outer Limits episode Chameleon. While Jake has damaged legs, he is able to revel in his new body and experiences what amounts to a rebirth. His initiation into Na’vi life is not dissimilar to the initiation rites in Dances with Wolves.
Apparently Cameron has been gestating this idea for many years, waiting for movie technology to catch up to his complicated visuals. It was worth the wait. He has always been at the forefront of state of the art effects (The Abyss, Terminator 2) so it comes as no surprise that he has single handedly elevated the creative possibilities of 3-D presentation to the mainstream. Cameron does not resort to using 3-D as a gimmick by simply throwing objects at the screen but rather organically and even shots of the planet’s jungles are fully realized settings with plant life and insects that jump out of the screen. The motion capture compliments and reflects real acting. What is remarkable is that this film is simultaneously demonstrating multiple visual effects in a seamlessly integrated presentation courtesy of Cameron’s fertile imagination.
Production values don’t get any better. James Horner composes an energetic yet tender score that evokes his own Titanic and Glory. Although the second half settles into a more conventional war film, that’s a minor complaint. There is a reference to Jake’s late brother (a subplot that does not add much to the story) who was originally slated for the mission.
Worthington and Saldana (Star Trek), in expressive motion capture, do a very solid job of emoting real feelings and making their love a tangible, believable union. Lang has an intimidating presence as the military commander and it’s nice to see his career resurgence (Public Enemies). Weaver lends strong support as the wise, impassioned scientist who will defend the Na’vis even with her life.
Make no mistake: this is a groundbreaking film in terms of technical achievement and theatrical presentation. It needs to be experienced in 3-D to get the complete experience. Do yourself a favor and immerse yourself in this landmark film.
**** of **** stars (especially the first half)
Nominated for Best Picture 2009
Thursday, March 04, 2010
UP IN THE AIR Soars High
Up in the Air is a timely story about the frontline, corporate downsizers who terminate workers across the country. It’s an unpleasant job with emotional backlash, and George Clooney’s performance as a top gun terminator is exemplary. Abetted by assured direction by Jason Reitman (Juno), this is a film for our times.
Ryan Bingham (Clooney) is very good at what he does, and he has the mileage to prove it. You see, corporations hire him to fly across the country to fire their employees. So good is Bingham that he has a perfect response for every possible reaction or objection. It is an art, and he has honed his skills over the years while living an insulated life of perks and frequent flier miles without any emotional attachments or long term plans for the future. He is even distant from his family. He has his routine down and lectures as a motivational speaker. Ah, what a life.
During a layover, he meets another frequent flyer, Alex (Vera Farmiga), who, like him, jets cross country and lives on her corporate credit cards and comps. So begins their jet setting affair and multi-city rendezvous. When Ryan’s employer decides to streamline expenses, a new hired gun, Natalie (Anna Kendrick), brings big changes including cutting down travel expenses and relying more on a telemarketer setup to conduct the corporate firings. This is a direct threat to Ryan’s lifestyle and he proposes to show her the ropes and what it is like to personally fire someone. It is a sobering, learning experience for Natalie as Ryan mentors her and espouses his words of wisdom and his hands on approach compared to her more empirical, scientific methods. It becomes apparent that they have differing values and philosophies on life. When Natalie tries to do a firing, it becomes a game changing event with severe ramifications for all. She is the young, wide eyed idealist, who learns about life the hard way.
At the same time, Ryan’s sister calls about a wedding that he is reluctant to attend. While most people go home for the holidays, he feels the opposite. He grudgingly takes pictures of cardboard replicas of his sister and fiancé in his travels since they can’t afford the trips. He even uses his powers of persuasion on his sister’s fiancé who has second thoughts about marriage. It is in this moment that Ryan has an epiphany and learns about himself and what’s important in life. As Ryan begins to have feelings for Alex and sets about to make his future, he discovers some startling, harsh truths that will alter his outlook on life forever.
Based on the novel by Walter Kirn, Reitman has created a smart, engaging film whose subject of corporate firings amid an economic downturn is quite timely. It is those scenes that are fascinating as they are heartbreaking, and Clooney’s Ryan is a master at finessing verbal interplay. This film puts faces and souls on the nameless whose lives are destroyed. A scene where a fired employee (J. K. Simmons is excellent) is inspired by Ryan to try something else is masterfully written.
Clooney’s Ryan is a distant cousin of sorts to his recent standout job in Michael Clayton. Rarely has he been more charming! His character lives in airport terminals and judges his success by his independence and frequent flyer miles. When Natalie, Alex and his own family converge on his life, we see him change, and that is what makes the film so special. To see someone whose outlook on life is changed forever is a rewarding, enriching feeling. When Ryan and Alex talk about life from their experiences, it is in stark contrast to the neophyte Natalie. What is refreshing is to see how Ryan becomes genuinely affected and how in the end he does the right things to correct an injustice.
Farmiga (The Departed) registers strongly as the mysterious lover, and Kendrick (Twilight) shines as the naïve Natalie. Jason Bateman (Juno) re-ups with Reitman and scores as a corporate manager. A note of interest is that many of the fired workers are played by actual, laid off employees so that their scenes do take on a sense of immediacy and realism.
This is one of those films that makes all the best lists of the year because it’s smartly written, well acted, and leaves you with that aftertaste of time well spent.
**** of **** stars
Nominated for Best Picture 2009
Ryan Bingham (Clooney) is very good at what he does, and he has the mileage to prove it. You see, corporations hire him to fly across the country to fire their employees. So good is Bingham that he has a perfect response for every possible reaction or objection. It is an art, and he has honed his skills over the years while living an insulated life of perks and frequent flier miles without any emotional attachments or long term plans for the future. He is even distant from his family. He has his routine down and lectures as a motivational speaker. Ah, what a life.
During a layover, he meets another frequent flyer, Alex (Vera Farmiga), who, like him, jets cross country and lives on her corporate credit cards and comps. So begins their jet setting affair and multi-city rendezvous. When Ryan’s employer decides to streamline expenses, a new hired gun, Natalie (Anna Kendrick), brings big changes including cutting down travel expenses and relying more on a telemarketer setup to conduct the corporate firings. This is a direct threat to Ryan’s lifestyle and he proposes to show her the ropes and what it is like to personally fire someone. It is a sobering, learning experience for Natalie as Ryan mentors her and espouses his words of wisdom and his hands on approach compared to her more empirical, scientific methods. It becomes apparent that they have differing values and philosophies on life. When Natalie tries to do a firing, it becomes a game changing event with severe ramifications for all. She is the young, wide eyed idealist, who learns about life the hard way.
At the same time, Ryan’s sister calls about a wedding that he is reluctant to attend. While most people go home for the holidays, he feels the opposite. He grudgingly takes pictures of cardboard replicas of his sister and fiancé in his travels since they can’t afford the trips. He even uses his powers of persuasion on his sister’s fiancé who has second thoughts about marriage. It is in this moment that Ryan has an epiphany and learns about himself and what’s important in life. As Ryan begins to have feelings for Alex and sets about to make his future, he discovers some startling, harsh truths that will alter his outlook on life forever.
Based on the novel by Walter Kirn, Reitman has created a smart, engaging film whose subject of corporate firings amid an economic downturn is quite timely. It is those scenes that are fascinating as they are heartbreaking, and Clooney’s Ryan is a master at finessing verbal interplay. This film puts faces and souls on the nameless whose lives are destroyed. A scene where a fired employee (J. K. Simmons is excellent) is inspired by Ryan to try something else is masterfully written.
Clooney’s Ryan is a distant cousin of sorts to his recent standout job in Michael Clayton. Rarely has he been more charming! His character lives in airport terminals and judges his success by his independence and frequent flyer miles. When Natalie, Alex and his own family converge on his life, we see him change, and that is what makes the film so special. To see someone whose outlook on life is changed forever is a rewarding, enriching feeling. When Ryan and Alex talk about life from their experiences, it is in stark contrast to the neophyte Natalie. What is refreshing is to see how Ryan becomes genuinely affected and how in the end he does the right things to correct an injustice.
Farmiga (The Departed) registers strongly as the mysterious lover, and Kendrick (Twilight) shines as the naïve Natalie. Jason Bateman (Juno) re-ups with Reitman and scores as a corporate manager. A note of interest is that many of the fired workers are played by actual, laid off employees so that their scenes do take on a sense of immediacy and realism.
This is one of those films that makes all the best lists of the year because it’s smartly written, well acted, and leaves you with that aftertaste of time well spent.
**** of **** stars
Nominated for Best Picture 2009
Coen Brothers’ Remembrances of A SERIOUS MAN
Writers and directors, brothers Joel and Ethan Coen, have often made their mark in cinema (Blood Simple, Fargo) with their take on the human condition shot on an independent film budget. In A Serious Man they get self reflective on their own childhoods growing up in a Jewish family of the 1960’s. The result is their most personal, incisive film to date, and one that is told with sharp observation and honesty.
An opening scene tells the tale of a peasant couple visited by an elderly man who turns out to be a ghost. Are they cursed or blessed by this ominous apparition?
In a 1960’s Minnesota suburb, Larry Gopnik is a timid college professor with a wife, son, and daughter. His son is smoking pot, and his daughter steals his money for a nose job. One day his wife announces that she and his best friend Sy have become close and that she wants a divorce. Further, Sy wants to have a long talk with Larry to counsel and help him through his tough time. This happens at the same time Larry is up for tenure at his college, and a Korean student tries to bribe him for a passing grade. As if this weren’t enough, his brother, Arthur, who has all sorts of physical ailments and personal problems, is staying at his house. Meanwhile, Larry spies on and is tortured by his female neighbor who likes to sunbathe in the nude.
Things go from bad to frustratingly worse as Larry goes to see three rabbis for advice only to get inconclusive or non-answers. His bills with the attorneys are mounting, and he is told to move out of his own house. Now the Korean student’s dad threatens to sue him, and he is plagued by nightmares. The events don’t turn out as expected and the twists and turns culminate with his son completing his bar mitzvah. An ominous new set of events threatens to uproot his world even as Larry seeks to make sense and order of his plight and tries to do the right things and be a ‘serious man’.
The storyline will ring true for most audiences, especially baby boomers. Larry is a brilliant study in angst and suffering. By the film’s ending, the question remains: what is important in one’s life? What matters most? No commentary is made or judgment passed about Larry and his family, and the Coens offer no answers. What we get is a case study of one family trying to survive fractious events. Although told from their Jewish background and experiences, the Coens are able to strike the right emotional connection by showing Larry’s response to a difficult set of circumstances. His feelings and reactions are universal, and perhaps that is the point of the movie: The problems of the common man are eternal and life is a stream of situations that can be daunting and are constantly supplanted by new adversity. Much as Ordinary People revealed discord and a disconnect in a middle class family, A Serious Man shows this family slowly disintegrating. Larry’s situation bears striking similarities to the lead in Into the Night.
A mostly unknown cast actually helps the film by not having the distraction of well known faces. They are people like you and me. Michael Stuhlbarg is quite convincing as Larry, and folks might recognize Arthur portrayed by TV character actor Richard Kind.
It’s not the Coens’ best work but it is their most intimate one which they could afford to do after winning Best Picture with No Country for Old Men only a couple years before. It’s certainly one of the most original screenplays of the year.
*** of **** stars
Nominated for Best Picture 2009
An opening scene tells the tale of a peasant couple visited by an elderly man who turns out to be a ghost. Are they cursed or blessed by this ominous apparition?
In a 1960’s Minnesota suburb, Larry Gopnik is a timid college professor with a wife, son, and daughter. His son is smoking pot, and his daughter steals his money for a nose job. One day his wife announces that she and his best friend Sy have become close and that she wants a divorce. Further, Sy wants to have a long talk with Larry to counsel and help him through his tough time. This happens at the same time Larry is up for tenure at his college, and a Korean student tries to bribe him for a passing grade. As if this weren’t enough, his brother, Arthur, who has all sorts of physical ailments and personal problems, is staying at his house. Meanwhile, Larry spies on and is tortured by his female neighbor who likes to sunbathe in the nude.
Things go from bad to frustratingly worse as Larry goes to see three rabbis for advice only to get inconclusive or non-answers. His bills with the attorneys are mounting, and he is told to move out of his own house. Now the Korean student’s dad threatens to sue him, and he is plagued by nightmares. The events don’t turn out as expected and the twists and turns culminate with his son completing his bar mitzvah. An ominous new set of events threatens to uproot his world even as Larry seeks to make sense and order of his plight and tries to do the right things and be a ‘serious man’.
The storyline will ring true for most audiences, especially baby boomers. Larry is a brilliant study in angst and suffering. By the film’s ending, the question remains: what is important in one’s life? What matters most? No commentary is made or judgment passed about Larry and his family, and the Coens offer no answers. What we get is a case study of one family trying to survive fractious events. Although told from their Jewish background and experiences, the Coens are able to strike the right emotional connection by showing Larry’s response to a difficult set of circumstances. His feelings and reactions are universal, and perhaps that is the point of the movie: The problems of the common man are eternal and life is a stream of situations that can be daunting and are constantly supplanted by new adversity. Much as Ordinary People revealed discord and a disconnect in a middle class family, A Serious Man shows this family slowly disintegrating. Larry’s situation bears striking similarities to the lead in Into the Night.
A mostly unknown cast actually helps the film by not having the distraction of well known faces. They are people like you and me. Michael Stuhlbarg is quite convincing as Larry, and folks might recognize Arthur portrayed by TV character actor Richard Kind.
It’s not the Coens’ best work but it is their most intimate one which they could afford to do after winning Best Picture with No Country for Old Men only a couple years before. It’s certainly one of the most original screenplays of the year.
*** of **** stars
Nominated for Best Picture 2009
PRECIOUS is a Gem
In Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire, inner city life for a desperate teen is portrayed as a hopeless cycle of poverty, neglect, and despair. As envisioned by director Lee Daniels from the adaptation by Geoffrey Fletcher, life is hard and only redeemed by people who care and are willing to nurture the abused victim. This is a harrowing look at a dysfunctional family and one girl’s hope for a better life, and it benefits from towering performances by newcomer Gabourey Sidibe and Mo’Nique who bring home this heartfelt, slice of life.
The story opens with a pleasant, idyllic family setting with a teenager, Precious (Gabourey Sidibe), and the fantasy turns suddenly into a stark reality. It is 1987 Harlem where Precious lives as a cook, gofer, and almost as a slave to her domineering, abusive mother (Mo’Nique). Together, they are poor, always hungry and living on welfare. She hopes for a normal existence and is always beaten down verbally, physically and emotionally by her mom and the neighborhood gangs. She was pregnant at age 16 by her abusive, absentee father and already has a small, mentally challenged child by him. To escape her despair, she daydreams of a loving and supportive storybook world.
Switched to an alternative school that specializes in troubled youth, she meets a disparate group of girls and a disciplined teacher, Miss Rain (Paula Patton). Precious learns to read and understand a world beyond the confines of her existence. She begins to trust her teacher, and her support group is this motley group of classmates. This support comes into play when she gives birth to her second child and when her mother attacks her.
Her mother is so manipulative that she wants to stay on welfare, and she makes no secret of her distrust of white people. She even puts on a pretend act for a visiting social worker. At the welfare office, another social worker (Mariah Carey in no makeup) learns the horrible truth about Precious’ home life. Before long, Precious receives bad news that rocks her world and sets up a confrontation with her manipulative, con-artist of a mom and determines an uncertain future for herself and her children.
Daniels lends a very sure hand in directing this powerful story. Even as a novice director, he grabs his audience and keeps you involved in a very interesting tale based on truth. He offers a fresh perspective and after a success at producing (Monsters Ball, The Woodsman), is a talent to watch. The film is shot in almost a handheld semi-documentary manner. The budget must have been modest which suits the setting and story. Its technique and exposition belie an independent film (Tyler Perry and Oprah Winfrey are executive producers).
Sidibe and Mo’Nique carry the show, but Patton and Carey are quite good as supportive characters. Singer Lenny Kravitz has a small but effective part as a male nurse who befriends Precious.
The only real negative is that the film ends abruptly which may be just the point-that life does go on and it does so on Precious’ own terms. This is no Hollywood ending, that’s for sure. Also, repetitive use is made of Precious’ daydream fantasies of a happier life. It almost veers to self parody although there is an excellent moment where she dresses in front of a mirror and sees a well dressed white woman; so much for visual statements about self image.
So good are the portrayals of Precious and her mom that the other characters are given only marginal exposition. We want to learn more about her teacher and her classmates, but this is, after all, a story about Precious. For her first acting gig, Sidibe does a remarkable job, and Mo’Nique is so convincing as a maternal monster, that Oscar beckons. For a film based on real life experiences and truths, this one is hard to beat.
***1/2 of **** stars
Nominated for Best Picture 2009
The story opens with a pleasant, idyllic family setting with a teenager, Precious (Gabourey Sidibe), and the fantasy turns suddenly into a stark reality. It is 1987 Harlem where Precious lives as a cook, gofer, and almost as a slave to her domineering, abusive mother (Mo’Nique). Together, they are poor, always hungry and living on welfare. She hopes for a normal existence and is always beaten down verbally, physically and emotionally by her mom and the neighborhood gangs. She was pregnant at age 16 by her abusive, absentee father and already has a small, mentally challenged child by him. To escape her despair, she daydreams of a loving and supportive storybook world.
Switched to an alternative school that specializes in troubled youth, she meets a disparate group of girls and a disciplined teacher, Miss Rain (Paula Patton). Precious learns to read and understand a world beyond the confines of her existence. She begins to trust her teacher, and her support group is this motley group of classmates. This support comes into play when she gives birth to her second child and when her mother attacks her.
Her mother is so manipulative that she wants to stay on welfare, and she makes no secret of her distrust of white people. She even puts on a pretend act for a visiting social worker. At the welfare office, another social worker (Mariah Carey in no makeup) learns the horrible truth about Precious’ home life. Before long, Precious receives bad news that rocks her world and sets up a confrontation with her manipulative, con-artist of a mom and determines an uncertain future for herself and her children.
Daniels lends a very sure hand in directing this powerful story. Even as a novice director, he grabs his audience and keeps you involved in a very interesting tale based on truth. He offers a fresh perspective and after a success at producing (Monsters Ball, The Woodsman), is a talent to watch. The film is shot in almost a handheld semi-documentary manner. The budget must have been modest which suits the setting and story. Its technique and exposition belie an independent film (Tyler Perry and Oprah Winfrey are executive producers).
Sidibe and Mo’Nique carry the show, but Patton and Carey are quite good as supportive characters. Singer Lenny Kravitz has a small but effective part as a male nurse who befriends Precious.
The only real negative is that the film ends abruptly which may be just the point-that life does go on and it does so on Precious’ own terms. This is no Hollywood ending, that’s for sure. Also, repetitive use is made of Precious’ daydream fantasies of a happier life. It almost veers to self parody although there is an excellent moment where she dresses in front of a mirror and sees a well dressed white woman; so much for visual statements about self image.
So good are the portrayals of Precious and her mom that the other characters are given only marginal exposition. We want to learn more about her teacher and her classmates, but this is, after all, a story about Precious. For her first acting gig, Sidibe does a remarkable job, and Mo’Nique is so convincing as a maternal monster, that Oscar beckons. For a film based on real life experiences and truths, this one is hard to beat.
***1/2 of **** stars
Nominated for Best Picture 2009
AN EDUCATION Teaches Life Lessons
Based on a memoir by Lynn Barber, supposedly this script, adapted by novelist Nick Hornby (About a Boy), was one of the great unproduced movies in Britain. Well no more. A winning performance by newcomer Carey Mulligan realizes a complex character in An Education, a fascinating study of growing up quickly in an adult world.
Following some dazzling opening credits, we see a teenage girl, Jenny (Mulligan), who is attending high school in the suburbs of London in 1961. Prodded by her parents to study hard and take cello, they dream of her acceptance to Oxford University and becoming financially secure. A top student, she desperately wants to break out of her routine and, instead, attend concerts, art galleries, and experience more of the world. Her parents feel otherwise. One rainy day, a handsome, older man named David (Peter Sarsgaard) drives up and offers her a lift home. David is a student of life. He attracts and fascinates her, and what starts innocently as an unlikely friendship develops into a deeper relationship. He is adept at charming her parents into letting her exceed her curfew and boundaries, and Jenny gets to go to an art auction, Oxford campus, and in time, even a romantic Paris getaway complete with a sunset by the River Seine.
Despite the overtures of a fellow student, Graham, he is no match for the sophisticated, mature, and apparently wealthy David. Jenny becomes self assured and even insubordinate to her teachers and principal despite their warnings and protestations. She revels in her new life with David and his carefree friends Danny and Helen, and the foursome venture into the night for partying and taking in the highlife. As romance deepens and her defiance of authority and protocol increases, can marriage be far behind, and how will Jenny’s parents react?
David is a mystery as are his motives. What does he do for a living, and is he for real? Perhaps his carefree life is not as glamorous as it seems. As Jenny finds out, life can be full of joy and surprises, and one moment she can be master of her own fate and the next instant everything could come shattering down around her. As much as her world has broadened and expanded, she also learns about humility and contrition. Such is the education of a girl learning about herself at a crucial moment in her life.
Director Lone Scherfig does a splendid job of telling a coming of age tale that hits the right notes. What this film does well is to put us inside the head of Jenny. We feel her yearnings and frustrations. We experience her highs and exhilaration at finding a life beyond her home. We also hurt when morality is twisted and she is disappointed and betrayed. That’s not just good writing (which it really is); it’s a well directed ensemble of talented actors starting with Mulligan. Production values are modest, but the period costumes and background music are infectious and authentic.
Sarsgaard (Kinsey, Jarhead) is quite magnetic as the manipulative David and inflects a convincing British accent. His scenes with Mulligan are affecting and sustain interest. Alfred Molina is good as Jenny’s stern father, while Emma Thompson is on too briefly as a proper school principal. Olivia Williams is effective as a teacher who will play a significant role in Jenny’s future.
Aside from its portrayal of a teenager, the film depicts the apparently limited options for a graduating female at the time. She either could excel academically and get a job, or she could find a husband who could take care of her. It is interesting how Jenny’s parents are motivated by this mode of thinking and how it guides their actions. There is an aspect to the story which borders on statutory laws regarding sex with a girl who is barely of adult age. The storytellers finesse their way around this and focus on the relationship and do a tasteful job in minimizing the lurid possibilities. Subtle hints of racism are folded into the narrative, this being the 1960’s.
In the end, it is Carey Mulligan in a star making turn as the idealistic teen who matures ahead of her own time and learns about life the hard way. Love that poster.
***1/2 of **** stars
Nominated for Best Picture 2009
Following some dazzling opening credits, we see a teenage girl, Jenny (Mulligan), who is attending high school in the suburbs of London in 1961. Prodded by her parents to study hard and take cello, they dream of her acceptance to Oxford University and becoming financially secure. A top student, she desperately wants to break out of her routine and, instead, attend concerts, art galleries, and experience more of the world. Her parents feel otherwise. One rainy day, a handsome, older man named David (Peter Sarsgaard) drives up and offers her a lift home. David is a student of life. He attracts and fascinates her, and what starts innocently as an unlikely friendship develops into a deeper relationship. He is adept at charming her parents into letting her exceed her curfew and boundaries, and Jenny gets to go to an art auction, Oxford campus, and in time, even a romantic Paris getaway complete with a sunset by the River Seine.
Despite the overtures of a fellow student, Graham, he is no match for the sophisticated, mature, and apparently wealthy David. Jenny becomes self assured and even insubordinate to her teachers and principal despite their warnings and protestations. She revels in her new life with David and his carefree friends Danny and Helen, and the foursome venture into the night for partying and taking in the highlife. As romance deepens and her defiance of authority and protocol increases, can marriage be far behind, and how will Jenny’s parents react?
David is a mystery as are his motives. What does he do for a living, and is he for real? Perhaps his carefree life is not as glamorous as it seems. As Jenny finds out, life can be full of joy and surprises, and one moment she can be master of her own fate and the next instant everything could come shattering down around her. As much as her world has broadened and expanded, she also learns about humility and contrition. Such is the education of a girl learning about herself at a crucial moment in her life.
Director Lone Scherfig does a splendid job of telling a coming of age tale that hits the right notes. What this film does well is to put us inside the head of Jenny. We feel her yearnings and frustrations. We experience her highs and exhilaration at finding a life beyond her home. We also hurt when morality is twisted and she is disappointed and betrayed. That’s not just good writing (which it really is); it’s a well directed ensemble of talented actors starting with Mulligan. Production values are modest, but the period costumes and background music are infectious and authentic.
Sarsgaard (Kinsey, Jarhead) is quite magnetic as the manipulative David and inflects a convincing British accent. His scenes with Mulligan are affecting and sustain interest. Alfred Molina is good as Jenny’s stern father, while Emma Thompson is on too briefly as a proper school principal. Olivia Williams is effective as a teacher who will play a significant role in Jenny’s future.
Aside from its portrayal of a teenager, the film depicts the apparently limited options for a graduating female at the time. She either could excel academically and get a job, or she could find a husband who could take care of her. It is interesting how Jenny’s parents are motivated by this mode of thinking and how it guides their actions. There is an aspect to the story which borders on statutory laws regarding sex with a girl who is barely of adult age. The storytellers finesse their way around this and focus on the relationship and do a tasteful job in minimizing the lurid possibilities. Subtle hints of racism are folded into the narrative, this being the 1960’s.
In the end, it is Carey Mulligan in a star making turn as the idealistic teen who matures ahead of her own time and learns about life the hard way. Love that poster.
***1/2 of **** stars
Nominated for Best Picture 2009
Tarantino Reinvents War in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS
Quentin Tarantino has been working on this World War II script for many years, and what is ostensibly a revenge film with moments of terrific dialogue and parallel subplots is a bit undone with untidy displays of violence and a fantasy denouement. Nevertheless, the play is the thing and few writer/directors could fashion such an entertaining if mean spirited film like Inglourious Basterds with bravura performances particularly by Christoph Waltz as a most charming and lethal Nazi.
Once upon a time during World War II a French man is questioned about the whereabouts of local French Jews by a polite German SS officer, Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) whose silky, sinister approach gets remarkable, deadly results from which one teenage French girl barely escapes.
Next we meet Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt giving a Chad Everett by way of Clark Gable impression) who has recruited Jewish soldiers to hunt down and terrorize the Nazis in an Apache Indian way. Any survivors do not escape unscathed but have a Swastika cross carved into their foreheads, their mark for life.
In 1944, a young French woman, Emmanuelle, owns a movie theater and is wooed by a German war hero, Fredrick, whose film, Nation’s Pride, is premiering in Paris. Fredrick gets Joseph Goebbels, head of German Propaganda to move the premiere to Emmanuelle’s smaller theater. She is in fact the young French girl (Shosanna) who escaped a massacre and is plotting to take revenge by killing all the Nazi attendees.
At the same time, British Lt. Archie Hicox is sent to meet a double agent in France and, with Raine’s men, attend the Nation’s Pride premiere to blowup the theater and kill high level Nazis including Hitler. Hicox meets the agent who is a famous German actress, Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger is glamorous) in a basement cafe. German soldiers and an SS officer complicate things, and a Mexican standoff ensues with explosive results. Having to alter plans, Raine substitutes himself and the surviving Basterds into the mission.
At the premiere, as head of security, Col. Landa discovers the Allied plot, and Raine is arrested and interrogated in another building. There, Landa makes a startling proposal even as Emmanuelle plots to ignite the film nitrate stored in her theater and the other ‘basterds’ in the audience execute their part of the plan. Seemingly spared the finale at the theater and having manipulated his own fate, Col. Landa and Lt. Raine have a day of reckoning.
The usual Tarantino touches are here including excruciating scenes with gunshots, scalpings, stabbings, and bat beatings. The film is structured in five chapters, and his love for movies is evident in references to German cinema icons, and, no doubt, major filmic influences from The Dirty Dozen (especially in the recruitment scene and the high octane finale), Where Eagles Dare, and any number of spaghetti westerns. Imaginative use is made of fluid camera movement and rapid edits.
While the cast is in fine form with Til Schweiger as a Charles Bronson-type, director Eli Roth as the Bear Jew, and Mélanie Laurent, radiant as the haunted Emmanuelle, the standout is Waltz. Pitt is a hoot as Raine (whose name is a play on actor Aldo Ray), and when he tries to spout Italian phrases, it is outrageous. Veteran Rod Taylor and comedian Mike Myers have fleeting cameos.
Some criticism of the film is warranted. Infamous figures get killed at the premiere; if you are going to rewrite history even in a fable, don’t take something that is so ingrained as to make an utter mockery of it. Also, any sympathetic characters pretty much go out the window, so don’t get too attached to anyone.
No Tarantino film would be complete without wonderfully written set pieces especially the one in the basement café that is very reminiscent of the final standoff in Reservoir Dogs. While his words are sublime and he is adept at setting up such scenes, he does not take full advantage of the possibilities of others which are given relatively short shrift like the arrest of Raine and the confrontation of Bridget by Col. Landa.
For fans of the talented director, this one is a must, but for the average moviegoer, the snappy screenplay may not be fully appreciated in the overall context of an entertaining story that drips a bit too much blood. Two things are for sure: A glass of milk will never seem the same again, and Brad Pitt looks fabulous in a white tuxedo.
*** of **** stars (add ½ star for Tarantino fans)
Nominated for Best Picture 2009
Once upon a time during World War II a French man is questioned about the whereabouts of local French Jews by a polite German SS officer, Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) whose silky, sinister approach gets remarkable, deadly results from which one teenage French girl barely escapes.
Next we meet Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt giving a Chad Everett by way of Clark Gable impression) who has recruited Jewish soldiers to hunt down and terrorize the Nazis in an Apache Indian way. Any survivors do not escape unscathed but have a Swastika cross carved into their foreheads, their mark for life.
In 1944, a young French woman, Emmanuelle, owns a movie theater and is wooed by a German war hero, Fredrick, whose film, Nation’s Pride, is premiering in Paris. Fredrick gets Joseph Goebbels, head of German Propaganda to move the premiere to Emmanuelle’s smaller theater. She is in fact the young French girl (Shosanna) who escaped a massacre and is plotting to take revenge by killing all the Nazi attendees.
At the same time, British Lt. Archie Hicox is sent to meet a double agent in France and, with Raine’s men, attend the Nation’s Pride premiere to blowup the theater and kill high level Nazis including Hitler. Hicox meets the agent who is a famous German actress, Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger is glamorous) in a basement cafe. German soldiers and an SS officer complicate things, and a Mexican standoff ensues with explosive results. Having to alter plans, Raine substitutes himself and the surviving Basterds into the mission.
At the premiere, as head of security, Col. Landa discovers the Allied plot, and Raine is arrested and interrogated in another building. There, Landa makes a startling proposal even as Emmanuelle plots to ignite the film nitrate stored in her theater and the other ‘basterds’ in the audience execute their part of the plan. Seemingly spared the finale at the theater and having manipulated his own fate, Col. Landa and Lt. Raine have a day of reckoning.
The usual Tarantino touches are here including excruciating scenes with gunshots, scalpings, stabbings, and bat beatings. The film is structured in five chapters, and his love for movies is evident in references to German cinema icons, and, no doubt, major filmic influences from The Dirty Dozen (especially in the recruitment scene and the high octane finale), Where Eagles Dare, and any number of spaghetti westerns. Imaginative use is made of fluid camera movement and rapid edits.
While the cast is in fine form with Til Schweiger as a Charles Bronson-type, director Eli Roth as the Bear Jew, and Mélanie Laurent, radiant as the haunted Emmanuelle, the standout is Waltz. Pitt is a hoot as Raine (whose name is a play on actor Aldo Ray), and when he tries to spout Italian phrases, it is outrageous. Veteran Rod Taylor and comedian Mike Myers have fleeting cameos.
Some criticism of the film is warranted. Infamous figures get killed at the premiere; if you are going to rewrite history even in a fable, don’t take something that is so ingrained as to make an utter mockery of it. Also, any sympathetic characters pretty much go out the window, so don’t get too attached to anyone.
No Tarantino film would be complete without wonderfully written set pieces especially the one in the basement café that is very reminiscent of the final standoff in Reservoir Dogs. While his words are sublime and he is adept at setting up such scenes, he does not take full advantage of the possibilities of others which are given relatively short shrift like the arrest of Raine and the confrontation of Bridget by Col. Landa.
For fans of the talented director, this one is a must, but for the average moviegoer, the snappy screenplay may not be fully appreciated in the overall context of an entertaining story that drips a bit too much blood. Two things are for sure: A glass of milk will never seem the same again, and Brad Pitt looks fabulous in a white tuxedo.
*** of **** stars (add ½ star for Tarantino fans)
Nominated for Best Picture 2009
DISTRICT 9: Science Fiction as Allegory
This film is an experiment in relatively low budget filmmaking based on an interesting concept. Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings trilogy) acts as producer for newbie director Neill Blomkamp and a script by Blomkamp and Terri Tacthell to create an imaginative, powerful film whose DNA is civil strife in South Africa. Much as High Noon was about the Communist ‘witch hunts’ of the late 1940’s and The Sand Pebbles was a corollary to the Vietnam War, District 9 smacks of Apartheid commentary in its home setting of Johannesburg, South Africa. The results are a well made science fiction film that integrates an important message.
A government civil servant worker named Wikus Van De Merwe leads a relocation of an alien race dubbed ‘The Prawns’ from their current home in District 9 to a camp in a different part of South Africa. The military also wants to make use of the sophisticated alien weaponry that can only be operated by the aliens DNA.
Wikus leads a group of soldiers into an alien camp and during the confrontation, he finds a mysterious vile that explodes when opened and splashes his face with an unknown substance. And quicker than you can say, The Fly, he starts to notice some startling changes as his body becomes nauseous and altered. A reunion at home with his wife and friends becomes a tragic start of something ominous and, when the military realizes the unlimited value of Wikus’ genetic ability to operate the alien weaponry, he becomes a hunted fugitive.
Trying to find refuge in the alien camp, he locates one of the aliens who concocted the substance. And the two devise a plan to steal the liquid now in military custody. The alien needs the material for his ship and, in exchange, he will help Wikus. Can he be trusted? How fast before Wikus changes completely? Back in District 9, the alien attempts to liftoff in his ship with his son, and Wikus has similar plans to escape. Soon the military catches up to them for an explosive climax. At that moment, Wikus makes a momentous decision that will change his life and the fate of his alien companion.
The mostly unknown cast is uniformly excellent and capably led by Sharlto Copley as Wikus. Technical credits are superior particularly makeup and visual effects. Good use is made of a periodic timeline to show the passage of time and development of the events. Lots of handheld cameras and lack of a musical score lend a feeling of immediacy and reality. Told in a quasi-documentary style through flashbacks and interviews, the film takes on a realistic aura grounded in truth. Rarely has a science fiction film (Cloverfield) ever been presented in this convincing manner. This is narrative driven and doesn’t let up. Once it begins, you have to hang on for dear life.
A number of topics are ever present throughout the film including segregation and racism, military dominance, and ultimately love. Do aliens have rights? Do they have a soul? It’s a great premise for a film that the filmmakers take and expand upon. There is the use of private military contractors, and instead of oil, the resource the military seeks is superior technology in weaponry.
The film has elements of other films like Alien Nation, Black Hawk Down and Starship Troopers. It’s not for all tastes but for those who appreciate this genre with a moral twist, it is a rewarding experience. The action is graphic and unrelenting as the stakes get higher. As violent and startling as some of the scenes are-no punches pulled here, there is a noble theme that is never lost. What comes through in District 9 is its humanity amid the aliens and hardware, and the final shot cannot help but be affecting. Wow, an independent science fiction film with state of the art technical effects and a compelling, intimate story. Where do I sign up?
**** of **** stars (for science fiction purists)
Nominated for Best Picture 2009
A government civil servant worker named Wikus Van De Merwe leads a relocation of an alien race dubbed ‘The Prawns’ from their current home in District 9 to a camp in a different part of South Africa. The military also wants to make use of the sophisticated alien weaponry that can only be operated by the aliens DNA.
Wikus leads a group of soldiers into an alien camp and during the confrontation, he finds a mysterious vile that explodes when opened and splashes his face with an unknown substance. And quicker than you can say, The Fly, he starts to notice some startling changes as his body becomes nauseous and altered. A reunion at home with his wife and friends becomes a tragic start of something ominous and, when the military realizes the unlimited value of Wikus’ genetic ability to operate the alien weaponry, he becomes a hunted fugitive.
Trying to find refuge in the alien camp, he locates one of the aliens who concocted the substance. And the two devise a plan to steal the liquid now in military custody. The alien needs the material for his ship and, in exchange, he will help Wikus. Can he be trusted? How fast before Wikus changes completely? Back in District 9, the alien attempts to liftoff in his ship with his son, and Wikus has similar plans to escape. Soon the military catches up to them for an explosive climax. At that moment, Wikus makes a momentous decision that will change his life and the fate of his alien companion.
The mostly unknown cast is uniformly excellent and capably led by Sharlto Copley as Wikus. Technical credits are superior particularly makeup and visual effects. Good use is made of a periodic timeline to show the passage of time and development of the events. Lots of handheld cameras and lack of a musical score lend a feeling of immediacy and reality. Told in a quasi-documentary style through flashbacks and interviews, the film takes on a realistic aura grounded in truth. Rarely has a science fiction film (Cloverfield) ever been presented in this convincing manner. This is narrative driven and doesn’t let up. Once it begins, you have to hang on for dear life.
A number of topics are ever present throughout the film including segregation and racism, military dominance, and ultimately love. Do aliens have rights? Do they have a soul? It’s a great premise for a film that the filmmakers take and expand upon. There is the use of private military contractors, and instead of oil, the resource the military seeks is superior technology in weaponry.
The film has elements of other films like Alien Nation, Black Hawk Down and Starship Troopers. It’s not for all tastes but for those who appreciate this genre with a moral twist, it is a rewarding experience. The action is graphic and unrelenting as the stakes get higher. As violent and startling as some of the scenes are-no punches pulled here, there is a noble theme that is never lost. What comes through in District 9 is its humanity amid the aliens and hardware, and the final shot cannot help but be affecting. Wow, an independent science fiction film with state of the art technical effects and a compelling, intimate story. Where do I sign up?
**** of **** stars (for science fiction purists)
Nominated for Best Picture 2009
THE BLIND SIDE Shines Brightly
In the tradition of feel good sports movies like The Rookie and Hoosiers comes The Blind Side, and what sets this apart from the genre is a commanding performance by Sandra Bullock. In her best role to date, Bullock’s character lifts this story, one that is a perfect example of popular filmmaking and its themes of love, hope, and redemption.
Opening with the infamous injury of NFL quarterback Joe Theisman by Lawrence Taylor, the film centers on the importance of protecting the quarterback’s ‘blind side’, and hence the position of left tackle has become vital to a football team’s success. This true story recounts the beginnings of tackle Michael Oher who was eventually drafted by the Baltimore Ravens.
Coming from a broken family, Oher enters a predominantly white high school. Quiet and introverted, he does poorly in his classes and performs marginally in athletic sports. Befriended by a younger boy, S. J. Tuohy, Michael (Quinton Aaron), by circumstance, endears himself to the wealthy Tuohy family, led by strong-willed mom, Leigh Anne (Bullock). She offers the homeless boy a place to sleep for the night which turns out to be a mansion of a home, and in time, a trust and bond develops as he is adopted by this surrogate family. Leigh Anne makes the young man her project so to speak and grows to love him as her own despite his abusive childhood which includes his biological mother who can barely survive on her own and his friends from the ’hood who border on criminals.
Encouraged by his ‘family’ and the school faculty, Michael improves his grades and play on the football field. He opens up and is befriended by more schoolmates. Because his sense of family is so important to him, he takes his protective instincts to a new level, and it carries over to football with spectacular results. Before long, marquee college coaches descend on Memphis and attempt to recruit the gentle giant. To help get his grades get up to par, the family hires a tutor, Miss Sue (Kathy Bates in an all too brief role). When an official from the NCAA interviews Michael about any conflict of interest (since the Tuohys are avid Ole Miss Alumni) with the University of Mississippi, Michael is at a crossroads in his career and relationship with the Tuohy family.
There are moments to savor such as Thanksgiving in the Tuohy household and how the family rallies around Michael. And of course, the famous scene where Leigh Anne coaches Michael to protect his quarterback as if he were family is amusing. When she delves into his neighborhood, she gets a heavy dose of living on the other side of the tracks, and a scene where a local gang confronts her and gets more than they expected is a standout. It is a stark contrast to her comfortable lifestyle and her judgmental friends. The college recruitment scenes are amusing and lend an air of authenticity by showing real life coaching legends like Nick Saban and Lou Holtz. What is refreshing is how Michael is befriended by S. J. and later, his sister, Collins. Having children making positive, life affirming choices for the welfare of others is a rare depiction in film.
Director John Lee Hancock (The Rookie) deserves credit for weaving a good script based on Michael Lewis’ book into a pretty good film with a strong cast. The Tuohy kids are well played by Jae Head and Lily Collins, and singer Tim McGraw is quite good as Leigh Anne’s supportive husband Sean. But this is most definitely Bullock’s show, and her energy is infectious and carries the film through sheer will. It’s the kind of performance that gets awards. Think of Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich.
This film is a real crowd pleaser and easily watchable for most family members, not an easy trick. (Do stay for the end credits to see snapshots of the real life Tuohy family.) Yes, the narrative is very straightforward and plays with facts in places, but the spirit of a family and its matriarch who would not let one of her own fail cannot help but touch and inspire.
***1/2 of **** stars (mostly for Bullock)
Nominated for Best Picture 2009
Opening with the infamous injury of NFL quarterback Joe Theisman by Lawrence Taylor, the film centers on the importance of protecting the quarterback’s ‘blind side’, and hence the position of left tackle has become vital to a football team’s success. This true story recounts the beginnings of tackle Michael Oher who was eventually drafted by the Baltimore Ravens.
Coming from a broken family, Oher enters a predominantly white high school. Quiet and introverted, he does poorly in his classes and performs marginally in athletic sports. Befriended by a younger boy, S. J. Tuohy, Michael (Quinton Aaron), by circumstance, endears himself to the wealthy Tuohy family, led by strong-willed mom, Leigh Anne (Bullock). She offers the homeless boy a place to sleep for the night which turns out to be a mansion of a home, and in time, a trust and bond develops as he is adopted by this surrogate family. Leigh Anne makes the young man her project so to speak and grows to love him as her own despite his abusive childhood which includes his biological mother who can barely survive on her own and his friends from the ’hood who border on criminals.
Encouraged by his ‘family’ and the school faculty, Michael improves his grades and play on the football field. He opens up and is befriended by more schoolmates. Because his sense of family is so important to him, he takes his protective instincts to a new level, and it carries over to football with spectacular results. Before long, marquee college coaches descend on Memphis and attempt to recruit the gentle giant. To help get his grades get up to par, the family hires a tutor, Miss Sue (Kathy Bates in an all too brief role). When an official from the NCAA interviews Michael about any conflict of interest (since the Tuohys are avid Ole Miss Alumni) with the University of Mississippi, Michael is at a crossroads in his career and relationship with the Tuohy family.
There are moments to savor such as Thanksgiving in the Tuohy household and how the family rallies around Michael. And of course, the famous scene where Leigh Anne coaches Michael to protect his quarterback as if he were family is amusing. When she delves into his neighborhood, she gets a heavy dose of living on the other side of the tracks, and a scene where a local gang confronts her and gets more than they expected is a standout. It is a stark contrast to her comfortable lifestyle and her judgmental friends. The college recruitment scenes are amusing and lend an air of authenticity by showing real life coaching legends like Nick Saban and Lou Holtz. What is refreshing is how Michael is befriended by S. J. and later, his sister, Collins. Having children making positive, life affirming choices for the welfare of others is a rare depiction in film.
Director John Lee Hancock (The Rookie) deserves credit for weaving a good script based on Michael Lewis’ book into a pretty good film with a strong cast. The Tuohy kids are well played by Jae Head and Lily Collins, and singer Tim McGraw is quite good as Leigh Anne’s supportive husband Sean. But this is most definitely Bullock’s show, and her energy is infectious and carries the film through sheer will. It’s the kind of performance that gets awards. Think of Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich.
This film is a real crowd pleaser and easily watchable for most family members, not an easy trick. (Do stay for the end credits to see snapshots of the real life Tuohy family.) Yes, the narrative is very straightforward and plays with facts in places, but the spirit of a family and its matriarch who would not let one of her own fail cannot help but touch and inspire.
***1/2 of **** stars (mostly for Bullock)
Nominated for Best Picture 2009
Sunday, February 14, 2010
The Best Romantic Films of All Time
The best love stories can stand the test of time. Such a theme permeates virtually every genre of film. Comedic examples like Woman of the Year and Bridget Jones’ Diary and silent classics City Lights and Broken Blossoms could easily be on this list. Tearjerkers Love Is a Many Splendored Thing, Random Harvest and Waterloo Bridge are every bit as good as Love Story. Dramas like A Place in the Sun, The Apartment and Now Voyager are in the running. Literary pieces like Romeo and Juliet (1968) and its musical version, West Side Story are legendary. Theatrical plays Picnic, Splendor in the Grass and some odd pairings in Wall-E and Harold and Maude are memorable. Even Hitchcock’s Vertigo and Penn’s Bonnie and Clyde are immersed in romance.
In chronological order:
SUNRISE-A simple tale of two lost souls and perhaps the greatest silent film ever.
GONE WITH THE WIND-Scarlett and Rhett tower over most screen couples even Dr. Zhivago’s Yuri and Lara and Wuthering Heights’ Heathcliff and Cathy.
CASABLANCA-Impossible love and sacrifice foreshadow Roman Holiday.
THE AFRICAN QUEEN-Two soon-to-be-lovers struggle to survive the elements. Sounds like Titanic.
AN AFFAIR TO REMEMBER-A remake of a classic Love Affair was, itself remade a couple times but most memorably in Sleepless in Seattle.
BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S-Vintage urban love in New York would presage Annie Hall and When Harry Met Sally.
LOVE STORY-“Love means never having to say you’re sorry.” Literary adaptations like The Bridges of Madison County followed this formula with “This certainty comes but once in a lifetime.”
THE WAY WE WERE- Popular love stories like An Officer and Gentleman don’t get much better than this.
GHOST-A spiritual bond that survives even in death as evidenced in The Ghost and Mrs. Muir and Destiny.
THE NOTEBOOK-The emotions transcend the mind as in A Beautiful Mind and other films with a twist.
In chronological order:
SUNRISE-A simple tale of two lost souls and perhaps the greatest silent film ever.
GONE WITH THE WIND-Scarlett and Rhett tower over most screen couples even Dr. Zhivago’s Yuri and Lara and Wuthering Heights’ Heathcliff and Cathy.
CASABLANCA-Impossible love and sacrifice foreshadow Roman Holiday.
THE AFRICAN QUEEN-Two soon-to-be-lovers struggle to survive the elements. Sounds like Titanic.
AN AFFAIR TO REMEMBER-A remake of a classic Love Affair was, itself remade a couple times but most memorably in Sleepless in Seattle.
BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S-Vintage urban love in New York would presage Annie Hall and When Harry Met Sally.
LOVE STORY-“Love means never having to say you’re sorry.” Literary adaptations like The Bridges of Madison County followed this formula with “This certainty comes but once in a lifetime.”
THE WAY WE WERE- Popular love stories like An Officer and Gentleman don’t get much better than this.
GHOST-A spiritual bond that survives even in death as evidenced in The Ghost and Mrs. Muir and Destiny.
THE NOTEBOOK-The emotions transcend the mind as in A Beautiful Mind and other films with a twist.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY and the Politics of Fear
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
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)