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
Vertigo
Vertigo
Friday, March 05, 2010
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
.JPG)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG)
This year's edition of the horror film convention in Hunt Valley, Horrorfind Weekend, featured a fewer number of vendors which was a disappointment for movie poster collectors like myself but not short on industry celebrities and faces. A rare appearance by Adrienne King, the heroine from the original Friday 13th movie, had a perpetual line of people. Old faces like Corbin Bernson (Major League , LA Law), Danny Trejo (Heat, Desperado), and Fred Williamson (M*A*S*H, Three the Hard Way) were there. I met with Margot Kidder who was Lois Lane in the Christopher Reeve Superman movies of the 1970's and 1980's. I also met William Katt who was Carrie's date to the prom! He was a pretty neat guy and spent time getting to know each fan. There were other folks like the great makeup effects artist Tom Savini who had a lifesized friend from Gremlins for me to snap a picture. It was a nice time to take your mind off from reality for a bit.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
JULIE & JULIA Serves a Tasty Dish
Take equal parts Meryl Streep and Amy Adams. Add a dash of Stanley Tucci and have chef/director Nora Ephron whip up a delicious patisserie of confectionary delight in the true tale, Julie & Julia. Combining two source books, Julie Powell’s Julie & Julia and Julia Child’s My Life in France, Ephron’s screen adaptation parallels the lives of up and coming master chef Child and aspiring writer Powell who uses Child’s cookbook as the inspiration for her ambitious blog. The results, while not a five star meal, is certainly an entertaining, well acted drama highlighted by some amusing situations.
Two married women from different times and places yearn to satisfy their inner desire for independence. In 1949, Julia Child and her US civil servant husband, Paul, are stationed in Paris, France. Wanting to do something besides sitting around like other wives of the period, she endeavors a variety of classes from hat making to bridge lessons until she and Paul hit upon the fact that she loves to eat. Thus she embarks on a mission to conquer cooking schools and the art of culinary cuisine. In 2002, with similar desires for a more fulfilling life as an author, Julie Powell is getting adjusted to Queens, New York, with her husband, Eric. Powell’s frustrations are channeled into a blog that documents her attempts to realize all 524 recipes in Julia Child’s famous cookbook in 365 days no less. The two lead characters depend on the publishing world for success-Child with her constantly delayed French cookbook manuscript that grows to 700 pages and the doubting responses of skeptical publishers, and Julie with her daily blogs as her way of garnering attention from a publisher. Both women’s lives are set on a journey of self discovery and validation as they find that their goals will be sprinkled with adversity and roadblocks. Ultimately it will be their sheer will, self reflection, and the love of their respective spouses that will see them through in their quests.
Streep is perhaps the best actress of the past thirty years and this role only serves to elevate her status. Although the role is not a tortured soul as in Sophie’s Choice or Kramer vs. Kramer, she embodies Child as a larger than life bon vivant while mimicking her voice and mannerisms with startling acumen and enthusiam. Child’s character gets more development than Powell. As she walks with Paul, her subtle reaction to a baby carriage and subsequent meltdown at the news of her sister’s pregnancy is an interesting revelation. Her love of French food becomes an avocation and her life’s calling. The cooking moments are convincing including a cute sequence involving chopped onions that will have audiences chuckling. She is a woman’s libber by default as she attends a more advanced, male dominated cooking class.
It’s a pity that any actor in a Streep film would suffer by comparison. Yet Adams throws herself in the more contemporary but less developed role with gusto. Her role is more of the everywoman who cooks as a form of therapy. Powell’s background can’t quite compete with the rich history of Child’s origins, but what she does get is a following and respect from fans and publishers. What Ephron should have done toward the end is to reemphasize how Powell’s inability to finish anything of merit has come full circle with this accomplishment and would have provided a more compelling character development.
Stanley Tucci is a standout who more than holds his own with Streep’s Child. It is an Oscar-worthy performance. Chris Messina is a star on the rise as Eric Powell; he performs well with an essentially one note role.
There are nice moments including an amusing scene when Julie and Eric watch Dan Aykroyd’s classic Saturday Night Live take on Julia Child. A subplot involving the House Un-American Activities Committee detracts from the overall spirit of Child’s story, and the film does slow a bit in the last half-hour but never loses interest completely. Ephron does well by linking similar themes and events that each woman experiences thus providing a bond and segue over time and space. One wishes that there was a more direct connection between the two women and even a chance meeting, but we have to settle for indirect links and the sharing of kindred spirits.
Don’t expect anything more than an interesting character study of two women bound by a love for food and search for purpose in their lives. Julie & Julia is light but satisfying fare highlighted by a sumptuous main course, Meryl Streep. Bon appetite!
*** of **** (add 1/2 * for Streep fans)
Two married women from different times and places yearn to satisfy their inner desire for independence. In 1949, Julia Child and her US civil servant husband, Paul, are stationed in Paris, France. Wanting to do something besides sitting around like other wives of the period, she endeavors a variety of classes from hat making to bridge lessons until she and Paul hit upon the fact that she loves to eat. Thus she embarks on a mission to conquer cooking schools and the art of culinary cuisine. In 2002, with similar desires for a more fulfilling life as an author, Julie Powell is getting adjusted to Queens, New York, with her husband, Eric. Powell’s frustrations are channeled into a blog that documents her attempts to realize all 524 recipes in Julia Child’s famous cookbook in 365 days no less. The two lead characters depend on the publishing world for success-Child with her constantly delayed French cookbook manuscript that grows to 700 pages and the doubting responses of skeptical publishers, and Julie with her daily blogs as her way of garnering attention from a publisher. Both women’s lives are set on a journey of self discovery and validation as they find that their goals will be sprinkled with adversity and roadblocks. Ultimately it will be their sheer will, self reflection, and the love of their respective spouses that will see them through in their quests.
Streep is perhaps the best actress of the past thirty years and this role only serves to elevate her status. Although the role is not a tortured soul as in Sophie’s Choice or Kramer vs. Kramer, she embodies Child as a larger than life bon vivant while mimicking her voice and mannerisms with startling acumen and enthusiam. Child’s character gets more development than Powell. As she walks with Paul, her subtle reaction to a baby carriage and subsequent meltdown at the news of her sister’s pregnancy is an interesting revelation. Her love of French food becomes an avocation and her life’s calling. The cooking moments are convincing including a cute sequence involving chopped onions that will have audiences chuckling. She is a woman’s libber by default as she attends a more advanced, male dominated cooking class.
It’s a pity that any actor in a Streep film would suffer by comparison. Yet Adams throws herself in the more contemporary but less developed role with gusto. Her role is more of the everywoman who cooks as a form of therapy. Powell’s background can’t quite compete with the rich history of Child’s origins, but what she does get is a following and respect from fans and publishers. What Ephron should have done toward the end is to reemphasize how Powell’s inability to finish anything of merit has come full circle with this accomplishment and would have provided a more compelling character development.
Stanley Tucci is a standout who more than holds his own with Streep’s Child. It is an Oscar-worthy performance. Chris Messina is a star on the rise as Eric Powell; he performs well with an essentially one note role.
There are nice moments including an amusing scene when Julie and Eric watch Dan Aykroyd’s classic Saturday Night Live take on Julia Child. A subplot involving the House Un-American Activities Committee detracts from the overall spirit of Child’s story, and the film does slow a bit in the last half-hour but never loses interest completely. Ephron does well by linking similar themes and events that each woman experiences thus providing a bond and segue over time and space. One wishes that there was a more direct connection between the two women and even a chance meeting, but we have to settle for indirect links and the sharing of kindred spirits.
Don’t expect anything more than an interesting character study of two women bound by a love for food and search for purpose in their lives. Julie & Julia is light but satisfying fare highlighted by a sumptuous main course, Meryl Streep. Bon appetite!
*** of **** (add 1/2 * for Streep fans)
HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF- BLOOD PRINCE Sets the Finale
This remarkably well balanced series of wildly successful films based on an equally popular series of novels by J. K. Rowling shows no signs of waning with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Potter veteran director David Yates and keeper of the flame scribe Steve Kloves have kept together a burgeoning franchise that is laying the foundation for a grand finale.
A new school year begins, and Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is coming to terms with being the ‘chosen one’ to do battle against the ultimate in evil wizardry, Lord Voldemort and the evil Death Eaters surrounding Hogwart. Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) enlists Harry to serve as bait to draw out the supremely evil Voldemort. An older Professor Slughorn (Jim Broadbent) returns to the school and brings with him a mysterious history of having taught the boy who became Lord Voldemort. Harry in the meantime discovers a manuscript by the ‘Half-Blood Prince’ and thinks that it is the key to learning the wizardry secret that will enable Harry and his comrades, Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) to defeat the man who killed his parents and godfather, Sirius Black. Harry’s school rival Draco harbors revenge against him for the death of his evil father. There is the aerial game Quidditch that challenges Ron’s mettle, and the blossoming of adolescent romance between Potter and Ron’s sister, Ginny and between Ron and Hermione. Then there is Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) and some mysterious behavior that questions his allegiance. As Dumbledore makes Harry promise to do whatever he instructs, the Death Eaters are unleashed within Hogwart with devastating consequences and a shocking betrayal that will forever change the destiny of the school and foreshadow the coming showdown with Voldemort.
This is a more grownup Potter as it explores relationships more thoroughly and some amusing situations arise such as a love triangle that plagues Ron. It is amusing to see how hormones are thriving amongst the teens and love is in the air. Growing up was never this hard. There are also surprises of a high order that will send the series on a new, ominous path while raising questions about the loyalty of a major player. The one constant is our beloved trio of maturing wizards who must face an uncertain future without an important character. The film reinforces the continuous themes of loyalty and friendship among our wizard heroes. That bond and natural chemistry among the three actors is partly what holds this remarkable series together.
Most of the characters are back from the previous film Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. It does feel like school has restarted when Professors Dumbledore, Snape, and McGonagall (venerable Maggie Smith) show up. Other familiar faces reappear, which greatly help in the continuity and progression of the story. The filmmakers are wise to introduce a couple new characters here and there without shaking up the status quo too much. All the Potter films have benefited from a strong focus on storyline in keeping with the novel sources.
Production values are topnotch again, and the dark, moody colored cinematography is an artistic triumph. It is impressive at how mainstream films have pushed the creative aspects of filmmaking without sacrificing popularity; witness the cinematography and art direction of The Dark Knight and the film editing in The Bourne Ultimatum. It has almost become passé to expect imaginative state of the art special effects in the Potter films, but they are always serving the plot and not merely to draw attention to the spectacle itself.
Since these are British performers, there is a bit of adjusting to their heavy British accents. This film, perhaps more than any other, assumes that the audience is already well versed on Potter lore, and so it may prove a bit confusing to the uninitiated. It starts out well and tries one’s patience just a tad as it builds a complex narrative that loses steam half-way through and picks up momentum toward the end and never lets up with a devastating payoff which in turn sets up the two part finale in grand fashion.
Though not the best film of the series, The Half-Blood Prince sets the table for the final battle of good versus evil. This must be a pretty good film because I can’t wait for the final installments.
*** of **** stars
A new school year begins, and Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is coming to terms with being the ‘chosen one’ to do battle against the ultimate in evil wizardry, Lord Voldemort and the evil Death Eaters surrounding Hogwart. Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) enlists Harry to serve as bait to draw out the supremely evil Voldemort. An older Professor Slughorn (Jim Broadbent) returns to the school and brings with him a mysterious history of having taught the boy who became Lord Voldemort. Harry in the meantime discovers a manuscript by the ‘Half-Blood Prince’ and thinks that it is the key to learning the wizardry secret that will enable Harry and his comrades, Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) to defeat the man who killed his parents and godfather, Sirius Black. Harry’s school rival Draco harbors revenge against him for the death of his evil father. There is the aerial game Quidditch that challenges Ron’s mettle, and the blossoming of adolescent romance between Potter and Ron’s sister, Ginny and between Ron and Hermione. Then there is Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) and some mysterious behavior that questions his allegiance. As Dumbledore makes Harry promise to do whatever he instructs, the Death Eaters are unleashed within Hogwart with devastating consequences and a shocking betrayal that will forever change the destiny of the school and foreshadow the coming showdown with Voldemort.
This is a more grownup Potter as it explores relationships more thoroughly and some amusing situations arise such as a love triangle that plagues Ron. It is amusing to see how hormones are thriving amongst the teens and love is in the air. Growing up was never this hard. There are also surprises of a high order that will send the series on a new, ominous path while raising questions about the loyalty of a major player. The one constant is our beloved trio of maturing wizards who must face an uncertain future without an important character. The film reinforces the continuous themes of loyalty and friendship among our wizard heroes. That bond and natural chemistry among the three actors is partly what holds this remarkable series together.
Most of the characters are back from the previous film Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. It does feel like school has restarted when Professors Dumbledore, Snape, and McGonagall (venerable Maggie Smith) show up. Other familiar faces reappear, which greatly help in the continuity and progression of the story. The filmmakers are wise to introduce a couple new characters here and there without shaking up the status quo too much. All the Potter films have benefited from a strong focus on storyline in keeping with the novel sources.
Production values are topnotch again, and the dark, moody colored cinematography is an artistic triumph. It is impressive at how mainstream films have pushed the creative aspects of filmmaking without sacrificing popularity; witness the cinematography and art direction of The Dark Knight and the film editing in The Bourne Ultimatum. It has almost become passé to expect imaginative state of the art special effects in the Potter films, but they are always serving the plot and not merely to draw attention to the spectacle itself.
Since these are British performers, there is a bit of adjusting to their heavy British accents. This film, perhaps more than any other, assumes that the audience is already well versed on Potter lore, and so it may prove a bit confusing to the uninitiated. It starts out well and tries one’s patience just a tad as it builds a complex narrative that loses steam half-way through and picks up momentum toward the end and never lets up with a devastating payoff which in turn sets up the two part finale in grand fashion.
Though not the best film of the series, The Half-Blood Prince sets the table for the final battle of good versus evil. This must be a pretty good film because I can’t wait for the final installments.
*** of **** stars
PUBLIC ENEMIES Rekindles Gangster Era
Johnny Depp is hitting his stride in recent years with his Pirates of the Caribbean films and character roles. Director/writer Michael Mann has been a respected stylist of the crime genre with such notables as Heat, Thief, and TV’s Miami Vice. The union of these two super talents results in a more than satisfactory retelling of the legendary bank robber, John Dillinger, in Public Enemies. This violent tale focuses on the free spirit of Dillinger and his infamous robberies in the Midwest at the height of the Great Depression.
In 1933, the country is in the midst of the Great Depression and bank robber John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) captures the public’s fascination and even folk hero worship. Having helped to break his friends out of prison, he continues his robberies in and around Chicago. As the crime wave sweeps the Midwest, the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover enlists up and coming agent, Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), (who has just nailed Pretty Boy Floyd,) to capture Dillinger, Public Enemy Number One. Purvis employs a variety of sophisticated listening devices and police work to track him. Dillinger thinks he is invincible and executes even more daring bank robberies. He dates hat check girl Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) and travels with her to Florida for horse races and then to Arizona, where lawmen recognize and arrest him. Transported to Indiana State Penitentiary, an easier place to breakout than a federal prison thanks to his mob lawyer, he uses a fake gun to engineer an escape. He is joined by notorious hothead robber, Baby Faced Nelson, and they score more violent robberies. Purvis insists on recruiting a crack force of Texas lawmen who assist him in closing in on the Dillinger gang leading to a memorable shootout in Little Bohemia. As Dillinger crosses the state line, he violates federal laws and brings pressure on organized criminals, who turn on the fugitive. Billie’s fear that John will be caught or killed is tempered by her love for him, and when she is captured by local law enforcement, Purvis intercedes. When a call girl comes forward with information about Dillinger, Purvis sets up a fateful ambush at The Biograph Theater where the FBI will be waiting.
It is interesting that Dillinger’s relationship with organized crime syndicates helped him with a legal infrastructure that disappeared once the mob deemed him a risk to their lucrative business. Further, Hoover’s political agenda was desperate to make headlines and build the FBI into a future powerhouse of law. It is also fascinating how technically proficient the FBI was on its use of wire taps and eavesdropping devices while being relatively incompetent in conducting a simple arrest or taking part in a shootout.
What is refreshing is the core romance between Dillinger and Billie Frechette. Dillinger is presented as bold, charismatic and at times ruthless. It is his bravado that attracts fellow criminals and Billie to him. Cotillard gets a strong role that is considerably more than window dressing. Her performance is convincing, and her chemistry with Depp’s Dillinger makes this romance believable and heartbreaking thus lending an emotion subtext to the typical gangster movie. Bales’s Purvis is portrayed as an obsessed, determined lawman who is dry and dull in sharp contrast to the devil may care attitude of the freewheeling Dillinger. Billy Crudup registers effectively as the young Hoover. Mann favorite Stephen Lang, barely recognizable, registers a solid performance as a hardened Texas lawman who is critical to the end of the film.
Besides the usual set designs and costumes to mimic the depression era, heavy use is made of period music. The Little Bohemia shootout is a major set piece with heavy use of handheld cameras. Although a detailed montage of action, it still does not have the visceral impact of John Milius’ Dillinger or even the classic, G-Men. There is also an extended bank heist reminiscent of Mann’s Heat in its boldness and precision of execution. The climactic ambush at the Biograph Theater is depicted in excruciating detail and still carries a great deal of tension.
The last scene at a women’s prison may never actually have happened, and it is curious that Lang’s lawman and not Purvis serves as the catalyst for this key moment. The subsequent, final shot of Cotillard after getting a special message is quite memorable. It almost raises this film to another level.
Public Enemies is not the best of Michael Mann, but it is a solid entry in his canon of crime films. What is notable is another star turn by Depp, an actor at his creative peak.
*** of **** stars
In 1933, the country is in the midst of the Great Depression and bank robber John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) captures the public’s fascination and even folk hero worship. Having helped to break his friends out of prison, he continues his robberies in and around Chicago. As the crime wave sweeps the Midwest, the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover enlists up and coming agent, Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), (who has just nailed Pretty Boy Floyd,) to capture Dillinger, Public Enemy Number One. Purvis employs a variety of sophisticated listening devices and police work to track him. Dillinger thinks he is invincible and executes even more daring bank robberies. He dates hat check girl Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) and travels with her to Florida for horse races and then to Arizona, where lawmen recognize and arrest him. Transported to Indiana State Penitentiary, an easier place to breakout than a federal prison thanks to his mob lawyer, he uses a fake gun to engineer an escape. He is joined by notorious hothead robber, Baby Faced Nelson, and they score more violent robberies. Purvis insists on recruiting a crack force of Texas lawmen who assist him in closing in on the Dillinger gang leading to a memorable shootout in Little Bohemia. As Dillinger crosses the state line, he violates federal laws and brings pressure on organized criminals, who turn on the fugitive. Billie’s fear that John will be caught or killed is tempered by her love for him, and when she is captured by local law enforcement, Purvis intercedes. When a call girl comes forward with information about Dillinger, Purvis sets up a fateful ambush at The Biograph Theater where the FBI will be waiting.
It is interesting that Dillinger’s relationship with organized crime syndicates helped him with a legal infrastructure that disappeared once the mob deemed him a risk to their lucrative business. Further, Hoover’s political agenda was desperate to make headlines and build the FBI into a future powerhouse of law. It is also fascinating how technically proficient the FBI was on its use of wire taps and eavesdropping devices while being relatively incompetent in conducting a simple arrest or taking part in a shootout.
What is refreshing is the core romance between Dillinger and Billie Frechette. Dillinger is presented as bold, charismatic and at times ruthless. It is his bravado that attracts fellow criminals and Billie to him. Cotillard gets a strong role that is considerably more than window dressing. Her performance is convincing, and her chemistry with Depp’s Dillinger makes this romance believable and heartbreaking thus lending an emotion subtext to the typical gangster movie. Bales’s Purvis is portrayed as an obsessed, determined lawman who is dry and dull in sharp contrast to the devil may care attitude of the freewheeling Dillinger. Billy Crudup registers effectively as the young Hoover. Mann favorite Stephen Lang, barely recognizable, registers a solid performance as a hardened Texas lawman who is critical to the end of the film.
Besides the usual set designs and costumes to mimic the depression era, heavy use is made of period music. The Little Bohemia shootout is a major set piece with heavy use of handheld cameras. Although a detailed montage of action, it still does not have the visceral impact of John Milius’ Dillinger or even the classic, G-Men. There is also an extended bank heist reminiscent of Mann’s Heat in its boldness and precision of execution. The climactic ambush at the Biograph Theater is depicted in excruciating detail and still carries a great deal of tension.
The last scene at a women’s prison may never actually have happened, and it is curious that Lang’s lawman and not Purvis serves as the catalyst for this key moment. The subsequent, final shot of Cotillard after getting a special message is quite memorable. It almost raises this film to another level.
Public Enemies is not the best of Michael Mann, but it is a solid entry in his canon of crime films. What is notable is another star turn by Depp, an actor at his creative peak.
*** of **** stars
UP Carries You Away
Pixar has found a home with Disney and, with apologies to Dreamworks and other animation studios, no one has come close in recent years to their fresh, inventive, and importantly, timeless spirit in computer animation. In UP, a tale of loneliness and friendship is told in a simple, heartfelt way. This is one of the best films of the year and puts live action films to shame.
Carl begins as an adventure-loving boy whose childhood friendship with a girl, Ellie, grows into a marriage as adults and a dream to visit their ideal destination, Paradise Falls in South America. Later widowed, Carl becomes a crusty, elderly man who longs for escape. In time, his neighborhood is transformed into an urban development, and one fateful day with the threat of being committed to a retirement community, he takes his house on a bold, unlikely trip by balloons through the skies to South America. Unfortunately, he discovers an accidental passenger in the form of a Boy Scout named Russell who is looking to get his final merit badge by helping a senior citizen. Carl must make a momentous decision that changes his life and affects Russell. Their joint flight arrives somewhere in the vicinity of Paradise Falls. Along the way they encounter an unusual, giant bird dubbed Kevin and a dog named Dug whose thoughts are vocalized through his special electronic collar. This motley group encounters a mysterious, dangerous presence that threatens them and jeopardizes Carl’s journey to his final destination.
Pete Docter (Wall-E, Toy Story) and Bob Peterson (Finding Nemo) bring their story and screenplay talents to the fore as co-directors. It’s really a story about unfulfilled, broken dreams and things left undone, and the spirit and drive to recapture those feelings. The film begins with a subplot involving the friendship and growing romance of a young Carl and Ellie who share a passion for life and adventure. The imaginative vignettes tell a complete love story in an opening montage that ends as our film is only beginning-wow!
What makes this film head and shoulders above most animations is its poignant confrontation of life’s ups and downs. It’s about life and death told in terms that are not disingenuous. In the grand tradition of Disney classics as Bambi and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, movies about finding a safe place from danger are at the core of children’s animation, and this film plays on that tradition. The novelty here is that the lead character is elderly. There is a sense of The Wizard of Oz in its otherworldly journey of discovery and camaraderie, and even the climax smacks of Saturday morning cliffhangers. A nice change of pace is the lack of contemporary, inside jokes or puns based on pop culture that are staples of such Dreamworks hits as the Shrek films. The situations here are organically amusing from natural conflicts and plot.
Carl (voiced to perfection by Edward Asner) is a mean, bitter soul who rediscovers his innocence and humanity through Russell, who in turn discovers the safety of a nuclear family with Carl and some unlikely companions. Kevin is cute, emanating amusing sound effects and body movements without uttering a single line of dialogue. Dug is a riot as the misfit dog whose heart of gold is matched by his incessant habit of having his ‘talking’ interrupted at any moment by a sudden spasm of posturing and shouting, “point” or “squirrel”! It’s a hoot. Christopher Plummer is effectively sinister as a blast from the past. The only criticism of the movie is minor at the end when we are not quite sure about Russell’s parents and how much they are part of his life. John Ratzenberger’s (Cheers) streak of doing a voice in every major Pixar release is intact.
The computer animation is so good, that anything not human looks like a picturesque postcard. When Carl’s balloons sprout above his house, we admire their stunning, vibrant colors. Interesting uses of cinematography are employed as if this were a live action feature. The final image is ironic as it is iconic, a fitting end to a fairy tale.
This one ranks highly alongside Pixar favorites like Finding Nemo and Wall-E. Quite possibly, adults may find as much (if not more) to enjoy in this story. It’s amazing that a modest story featuring a kid and old man told with conviction and skill is one of the best films of 2009.
**** of **** stars (preceded by a winning short, Partly Cloudy)
Carl begins as an adventure-loving boy whose childhood friendship with a girl, Ellie, grows into a marriage as adults and a dream to visit their ideal destination, Paradise Falls in South America. Later widowed, Carl becomes a crusty, elderly man who longs for escape. In time, his neighborhood is transformed into an urban development, and one fateful day with the threat of being committed to a retirement community, he takes his house on a bold, unlikely trip by balloons through the skies to South America. Unfortunately, he discovers an accidental passenger in the form of a Boy Scout named Russell who is looking to get his final merit badge by helping a senior citizen. Carl must make a momentous decision that changes his life and affects Russell. Their joint flight arrives somewhere in the vicinity of Paradise Falls. Along the way they encounter an unusual, giant bird dubbed Kevin and a dog named Dug whose thoughts are vocalized through his special electronic collar. This motley group encounters a mysterious, dangerous presence that threatens them and jeopardizes Carl’s journey to his final destination.
Pete Docter (Wall-E, Toy Story) and Bob Peterson (Finding Nemo) bring their story and screenplay talents to the fore as co-directors. It’s really a story about unfulfilled, broken dreams and things left undone, and the spirit and drive to recapture those feelings. The film begins with a subplot involving the friendship and growing romance of a young Carl and Ellie who share a passion for life and adventure. The imaginative vignettes tell a complete love story in an opening montage that ends as our film is only beginning-wow!
What makes this film head and shoulders above most animations is its poignant confrontation of life’s ups and downs. It’s about life and death told in terms that are not disingenuous. In the grand tradition of Disney classics as Bambi and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, movies about finding a safe place from danger are at the core of children’s animation, and this film plays on that tradition. The novelty here is that the lead character is elderly. There is a sense of The Wizard of Oz in its otherworldly journey of discovery and camaraderie, and even the climax smacks of Saturday morning cliffhangers. A nice change of pace is the lack of contemporary, inside jokes or puns based on pop culture that are staples of such Dreamworks hits as the Shrek films. The situations here are organically amusing from natural conflicts and plot.
Carl (voiced to perfection by Edward Asner) is a mean, bitter soul who rediscovers his innocence and humanity through Russell, who in turn discovers the safety of a nuclear family with Carl and some unlikely companions. Kevin is cute, emanating amusing sound effects and body movements without uttering a single line of dialogue. Dug is a riot as the misfit dog whose heart of gold is matched by his incessant habit of having his ‘talking’ interrupted at any moment by a sudden spasm of posturing and shouting, “point” or “squirrel”! It’s a hoot. Christopher Plummer is effectively sinister as a blast from the past. The only criticism of the movie is minor at the end when we are not quite sure about Russell’s parents and how much they are part of his life. John Ratzenberger’s (Cheers) streak of doing a voice in every major Pixar release is intact.
The computer animation is so good, that anything not human looks like a picturesque postcard. When Carl’s balloons sprout above his house, we admire their stunning, vibrant colors. Interesting uses of cinematography are employed as if this were a live action feature. The final image is ironic as it is iconic, a fitting end to a fairy tale.
This one ranks highly alongside Pixar favorites like Finding Nemo and Wall-E. Quite possibly, adults may find as much (if not more) to enjoy in this story. It’s amazing that a modest story featuring a kid and old man told with conviction and skill is one of the best films of 2009.
**** of **** stars (preceded by a winning short, Partly Cloudy)
Monday, May 25, 2009
ANGELS AND DEMONS-AN IMPROVEMENT
Dan Brown’s phenomenal bestseller, The DaVinci Code was made into an equally successful film adaptation. Angels and Demons, while actually a prequel to that book, has been adapted into a movie sequel, and the results are certainly more promising. Director Ron Howard and actor Tom Hanks reteam for a better telling of intrigue, murder, and suspense amid a historic and religious setting. Essentially an almost real-time thriller which jumps from ancient landmark to landmark, this film actually works pretty well within its own confines and is thus a satisfying entertainment without getting sidetracked on the holy mission of revelatory discovery and truth that its predecessor got tangled in.
A scientific breakthrough in a Swiss laboratory generates powerful, anti-matter particles. When a mysterious group steals this deadly material, they threaten Vatican City with annihilation. The plot thickens when four Cardinals, in consideration to succeed the recently deceased Pope, are kidnapped and threatened with hourly execution at a holy site. Despite his purely scientific, empirical measure of the world, symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks with a normal hairdo this time) is whisked from Harvard campus to Vatican City where he is joined by Dr. Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer) whose lab created the stolen particles. Together, they attempt to locate the Cardinals and the anti-matter particles. We meet the Vatican Police guard and their protocols and protectiveness over not only the church and its members, but its archives which are at the heart of Langdon’s quest for clues. The Pope’s assistant, Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor), the Vatican Guard Commander Richter (Stellan Skarsgard), and elder Cardinal Strauss (Armin Mueller-Stahl) participate in the investigation. History (according to Dan Brown) has it that in 1668, four scientists or free-thinkers known as the Illuminati were kidnapped, branded and executed by the church. Now a darker version of the Illuminati is ready to exact an ‘eye-for-an-eye’ revenge on the church, and they intend to finish the job with one big bang of anti-matter. The clues lead to the four elements of fire, water, air and earth, and perhaps more. What do these have to with actual church locations? Complicating the proceedings is a mysterious assassin who carries out the lethal agenda with unerring accuracy even as Langdon, Dr. Vetra, and the police attempt to prevent further bloodshed. Should Vatican City be evacuated as thousands of people hold a vigil for the new Pope? Can everyone be trusted even in the most sensitive and elite of holy circles? These questions are raised as Langdon desperately searches for answers to save the Vatican.
Having not read the original novel, I feel the film does work on its own which is more than can be said of its predecessor which got lost in self importance and confusing exposition. Screenwriters David Koepp (Jurassic Park, Spiderman) and Akiva Goldsman (A Beautiful Mind) have tried to streamline and condense Brown’s immense, detailed novel into a serviceable story, which focuses on a race against time and is a pretty decent mystery without having the ‘holier than thou’ agenda. References are made to Langdon’s previous adventure with The DaVinci Code, but the film wisely stays on course almost in actual-time so that the suspense level is ratcheted up progressively until the potentially explosive climax.
There are some shortcomings to the film. There is alot of material covered here so it seems a bit episodic, and plot details that beg for a more patient explanation are raced over. The characters are not sufficiently fleshed out to give more meaning to what happens later. All we get are some brief notes of each person’s background to go forward; that is a missed opportunity. Perhaps Dan Brown’s book did not give much in the way of detailed history for his players, but that does not excuse the filmmakers from trying to make a stronger, more emotional connection. Further, elements of the plot strain credibility, and you need to make a leap of faith so to speak to accept some pretty amazing coincidences and key events. In particular, the climax is full of major surprises and a stunning turn of events that require a suspension of disbelief.
Production values are impressive particularly in the art direction and visual effects to recreate Vatican City (since permission for location shooting was denied). The camera work shows great fluidity, and seldom have visuals been more kinetic as in this film or for that matter any other recent adventure/mystery. This helps in the pacing and overall flow of the story.
It’s nice for a change to see male and female leads working together without resorting to the obligatory romance. Here, it’s strictly business. In fact the film plays almost like a chapter of TV’s 24 or The X Files which may determine whether the plot twists and turns are surprising or satisfyingly fresh to the uninitiated viewer. If you have seen The Godfather III, the storyline conspiracies may also seem a bit familiar. Still, you get the feeling that Howard and Hanks have gotten the hang of things this time around. What you get is a moderately interesting mystery in an elaborate, big budget setting. The visuals are impressive but the story itself is nothing special to write home about.
*** of **** stars
(**1/2 stars if you’re a 24 fan)
A scientific breakthrough in a Swiss laboratory generates powerful, anti-matter particles. When a mysterious group steals this deadly material, they threaten Vatican City with annihilation. The plot thickens when four Cardinals, in consideration to succeed the recently deceased Pope, are kidnapped and threatened with hourly execution at a holy site. Despite his purely scientific, empirical measure of the world, symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks with a normal hairdo this time) is whisked from Harvard campus to Vatican City where he is joined by Dr. Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer) whose lab created the stolen particles. Together, they attempt to locate the Cardinals and the anti-matter particles. We meet the Vatican Police guard and their protocols and protectiveness over not only the church and its members, but its archives which are at the heart of Langdon’s quest for clues. The Pope’s assistant, Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor), the Vatican Guard Commander Richter (Stellan Skarsgard), and elder Cardinal Strauss (Armin Mueller-Stahl) participate in the investigation. History (according to Dan Brown) has it that in 1668, four scientists or free-thinkers known as the Illuminati were kidnapped, branded and executed by the church. Now a darker version of the Illuminati is ready to exact an ‘eye-for-an-eye’ revenge on the church, and they intend to finish the job with one big bang of anti-matter. The clues lead to the four elements of fire, water, air and earth, and perhaps more. What do these have to with actual church locations? Complicating the proceedings is a mysterious assassin who carries out the lethal agenda with unerring accuracy even as Langdon, Dr. Vetra, and the police attempt to prevent further bloodshed. Should Vatican City be evacuated as thousands of people hold a vigil for the new Pope? Can everyone be trusted even in the most sensitive and elite of holy circles? These questions are raised as Langdon desperately searches for answers to save the Vatican.
Having not read the original novel, I feel the film does work on its own which is more than can be said of its predecessor which got lost in self importance and confusing exposition. Screenwriters David Koepp (Jurassic Park, Spiderman) and Akiva Goldsman (A Beautiful Mind) have tried to streamline and condense Brown’s immense, detailed novel into a serviceable story, which focuses on a race against time and is a pretty decent mystery without having the ‘holier than thou’ agenda. References are made to Langdon’s previous adventure with The DaVinci Code, but the film wisely stays on course almost in actual-time so that the suspense level is ratcheted up progressively until the potentially explosive climax.
There are some shortcomings to the film. There is alot of material covered here so it seems a bit episodic, and plot details that beg for a more patient explanation are raced over. The characters are not sufficiently fleshed out to give more meaning to what happens later. All we get are some brief notes of each person’s background to go forward; that is a missed opportunity. Perhaps Dan Brown’s book did not give much in the way of detailed history for his players, but that does not excuse the filmmakers from trying to make a stronger, more emotional connection. Further, elements of the plot strain credibility, and you need to make a leap of faith so to speak to accept some pretty amazing coincidences and key events. In particular, the climax is full of major surprises and a stunning turn of events that require a suspension of disbelief.
Production values are impressive particularly in the art direction and visual effects to recreate Vatican City (since permission for location shooting was denied). The camera work shows great fluidity, and seldom have visuals been more kinetic as in this film or for that matter any other recent adventure/mystery. This helps in the pacing and overall flow of the story.
It’s nice for a change to see male and female leads working together without resorting to the obligatory romance. Here, it’s strictly business. In fact the film plays almost like a chapter of TV’s 24 or The X Files which may determine whether the plot twists and turns are surprising or satisfyingly fresh to the uninitiated viewer. If you have seen The Godfather III, the storyline conspiracies may also seem a bit familiar. Still, you get the feeling that Howard and Hanks have gotten the hang of things this time around. What you get is a moderately interesting mystery in an elaborate, big budget setting. The visuals are impressive but the story itself is nothing special to write home about.
*** of **** stars
(**1/2 stars if you’re a 24 fan)
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
STAR TREK REDUX EXHILERATES
Continuing the trend of reinventing sixties iconic figures such as Batman and James Bond, Star Trek was inevitably next in line. For those who fretted that the new incarnation of creator Gene Roddenberry’s beloved franchise of ‘Wagon Train to the Stars’ would be dishonored or ignored, they needn’t worry. This new version, intended to reboot the franchise that was so popular in TV reruns and subsequently in a series of big budget films, is a remarkably balanced take on the origins of the classic Enterprise crew. It is designed to appeal to the non-initiated audience while referencing the existing canon of Star Trek lore. Director J. J. Abrams (Fringe, Alias, Mission Impossible III) brings a fresh vision abetted by Trekkie fan/writers, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman.
James T. Kirk is born as his father rescues a starship crew during a Romulan attack led by the mysterious Nero (Eric Bana). A young rebel who grows into a brash, thrill seeking adventurer, young Kirk (Chris Pine) is recruited into Star Fleet Academy by Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood). Meanwhile the half Vulcan / half human Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto) has matured amid bullying kids and decides his destiny lies with The Federation as a cadet instead of his home planet Vulcan. Kirk strikes up a friendship with an ornery young Doctor Leonard McCoy (Karl Urban is a hoot) whose distrust of space and things not medical will become legendary. It is McCoy who devises a way for Kirk to become a crew member of the newly commissioned starship Enterprise. In fact, most of what will become the core crew is assembled including communications officer Uhura (Zoe Saldana), helmsmen Sulu (John Cho) and Chekov (Anton Yelchin), and later, engineer Scotty (Simon Pegg). Seeking vengeance against the Federation, Nero has traveled through time to exact pain and destruction with a planet killing device that will draw the Enterprise to Vulcan and ultimately Earth. With the Universe in the balance, Kirk and Spock must decide if they can work together (with the help of a certain mentor).
The parallel life paths of Kirk and Spock are marked contrasts of two men who will clash and reconcile their future relationship. Kirk smacks of hawkish, shoot-from-the-hip reactionary while Spock is the logical, think-inside-the-box good soldier. Nero reminds us a bit of Khan from Wrath of Khan. The character of Uhura is a major upgrade. She is a multi-talented officer who has romantic longings for a certain Vulcan. Greenwood shines as the veteran Pike. Leonard Nimoy makes a welcome, pivotal appearance as an elder Spock who figures prominently in the history that is to come. The cast makes the most of iconic roles and excels at recreating the personas of what we remember; each crew member gets an opportunity to shine. It is nice to see this group working and improvising together for the first time to solve a crisis. Further, this story takes it for granted as does its audience that this crew is not only multicultural, but multi-species, a far cry from the novelty of the integrated crew of classic Trek.
The screenplay has some well written dialogue and clever Trek references sprinkled throughout, and age old lines of the classic show are introduced for the first time. When McCoy utters, “I’m a doctor, not a physicist”, it’s a riot. Part of the fun is watching two heavyweights like Kirk and Spock faceoff and slowly bond and seeing how Kirk ascends to the captain’s chair. We finally get to learn what the ‘Kobayashi Maru’ wargame really is and how Kirk manages to defeat the test.
Sure, the plot has some gaping holes if you think about continuity and the fate of a certain venerable, classic character. Nero’s motives are explained in time, but they don’t make total sense. This film also does not have the gravitas of deep themes as previous films which is perhaps its only true failing, but instead, we get a strong character study that more than compensates.
Technical effects are quite impressive although Abrams seems to favor close-ups and tight camera setups that put the viewer in the middle of action scenes. Fortunately, there are no jarring Cloverfield handheld camera moves. There is a good fight sequence on a weapons platform and a surprise on an ice planet. You want phasers shooting back and forth in space battle? You’ve got them here. In fact the energy level keeps this voyage bouncing along.
The Enterprise is stunning-it has never looked quite this way ever, and it is cool how they depict the starship going into warp drive. There are imaginative points of view when showing off the ship’s exterior, and the interior is brimming with activity and sound, which is in stark contrast to the more antiseptic views from the earlier show. The costumes (complete with female miniskirts) harken back to that period and yet seem fresh. At credits’ end, there is a nice dedication to the Roddenberrys, Gene and Majel Barrett (who voices the Federation computer one last time).
Fans of the old show may tear up at how faithful and creative Abrams and his screenwriters are with Trek lore and how they set everything up nicely going forward. This is their alternate universe now, and we are game for the experience. This crew, baptized under fire, is ready for new missions, and they cannot come soon enough. Way to go, Mr. Abrams. This Trek rocks!
***1/2 of **** stars
James T. Kirk is born as his father rescues a starship crew during a Romulan attack led by the mysterious Nero (Eric Bana). A young rebel who grows into a brash, thrill seeking adventurer, young Kirk (Chris Pine) is recruited into Star Fleet Academy by Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood). Meanwhile the half Vulcan / half human Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto) has matured amid bullying kids and decides his destiny lies with The Federation as a cadet instead of his home planet Vulcan. Kirk strikes up a friendship with an ornery young Doctor Leonard McCoy (Karl Urban is a hoot) whose distrust of space and things not medical will become legendary. It is McCoy who devises a way for Kirk to become a crew member of the newly commissioned starship Enterprise. In fact, most of what will become the core crew is assembled including communications officer Uhura (Zoe Saldana), helmsmen Sulu (John Cho) and Chekov (Anton Yelchin), and later, engineer Scotty (Simon Pegg). Seeking vengeance against the Federation, Nero has traveled through time to exact pain and destruction with a planet killing device that will draw the Enterprise to Vulcan and ultimately Earth. With the Universe in the balance, Kirk and Spock must decide if they can work together (with the help of a certain mentor).
The parallel life paths of Kirk and Spock are marked contrasts of two men who will clash and reconcile their future relationship. Kirk smacks of hawkish, shoot-from-the-hip reactionary while Spock is the logical, think-inside-the-box good soldier. Nero reminds us a bit of Khan from Wrath of Khan. The character of Uhura is a major upgrade. She is a multi-talented officer who has romantic longings for a certain Vulcan. Greenwood shines as the veteran Pike. Leonard Nimoy makes a welcome, pivotal appearance as an elder Spock who figures prominently in the history that is to come. The cast makes the most of iconic roles and excels at recreating the personas of what we remember; each crew member gets an opportunity to shine. It is nice to see this group working and improvising together for the first time to solve a crisis. Further, this story takes it for granted as does its audience that this crew is not only multicultural, but multi-species, a far cry from the novelty of the integrated crew of classic Trek.
The screenplay has some well written dialogue and clever Trek references sprinkled throughout, and age old lines of the classic show are introduced for the first time. When McCoy utters, “I’m a doctor, not a physicist”, it’s a riot. Part of the fun is watching two heavyweights like Kirk and Spock faceoff and slowly bond and seeing how Kirk ascends to the captain’s chair. We finally get to learn what the ‘Kobayashi Maru’ wargame really is and how Kirk manages to defeat the test.
Sure, the plot has some gaping holes if you think about continuity and the fate of a certain venerable, classic character. Nero’s motives are explained in time, but they don’t make total sense. This film also does not have the gravitas of deep themes as previous films which is perhaps its only true failing, but instead, we get a strong character study that more than compensates.
Technical effects are quite impressive although Abrams seems to favor close-ups and tight camera setups that put the viewer in the middle of action scenes. Fortunately, there are no jarring Cloverfield handheld camera moves. There is a good fight sequence on a weapons platform and a surprise on an ice planet. You want phasers shooting back and forth in space battle? You’ve got them here. In fact the energy level keeps this voyage bouncing along.
The Enterprise is stunning-it has never looked quite this way ever, and it is cool how they depict the starship going into warp drive. There are imaginative points of view when showing off the ship’s exterior, and the interior is brimming with activity and sound, which is in stark contrast to the more antiseptic views from the earlier show. The costumes (complete with female miniskirts) harken back to that period and yet seem fresh. At credits’ end, there is a nice dedication to the Roddenberrys, Gene and Majel Barrett (who voices the Federation computer one last time).
Fans of the old show may tear up at how faithful and creative Abrams and his screenwriters are with Trek lore and how they set everything up nicely going forward. This is their alternate universe now, and we are game for the experience. This crew, baptized under fire, is ready for new missions, and they cannot come soon enough. Way to go, Mr. Abrams. This Trek rocks!
***1/2 of **** stars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)