| STARDUST Rated PG-13 (for some fantasy violence and risqué humor) Adventure/Fantasy/Drama/ 128 minutes 
3½ stars |
Stardust is often described as an “adult” fairy tale because it has some darker moments. It has been adapted for the screen from a book of the same name by Neil Gaiman. While this is always tricky because a film can not possibly incorporate all the storylines and nuances available to readers of a book, this film mostly succeeds in its translation. It follows the mythic/fairy tale structure of the hero on a journey. That hero is Tristan Thorn (well played by a likeable Charlie Cox) a young, gangly, naïve hero who has fallen totally in love with the local self-centered beauty Victoria (a well-cast Sienna Miller). One night when they see a star falling over the horizon Tristan impulsively proclaims he will bring it back to her in a week’s time to prove his love.
What Tristan doesn’t know is that long ago his father made his way from their tiny Victorian village of Wall, charging through a guarded opening in the wall into “Faerie”, a magical place where humans can mix with non-humans, and the same place Tristan needs to go to retrieve the fallen star. His father meets a beautiful slave named Una (the lovely Kate Magowan), who is shackled to a witch’s wagon, and nine months later---Tristan arrives in a gift basket to his father in Wall. What Tristan also doesn’t know is that Una is a princess with brothers who want to be King of a land called Stormhold.
It gets more complicated as different characters are after the fallen star, who is actually a girl named Yvaine (a luminous Claire Danes). A witch queen, Lamia (Michele Pheiffer playing evil/ugly with relish) is after the fallen star’s heart so she and her two witch sisters can live forever as young beauties. Then there are the Princes of Stormhold (most of whom are dead, having killed each other off, but providing comic relief as they enter scenes as ghosts in black and white) acting as a Greek chorus, who want to get their hands on Yvaine’s necklace. The most significant of these is the youngest (and alive), the ruthless Septimus, played by Mark Strong who is terrific (and reminds one of a young Basil Rathbone in the classic 1938 movie, The Adventures of Robin Hood).
The special effects are excellent, the cinematography, costumes, makeup, and the production values are all good. The music deserves special mention. The floating pirate ship, helmed by Robert DeNiro, (in a very unique role for him), the old inns, towns, transformation of people into animals, the unicorn, harnessed lightning, all add to the fantastical atmosphere. The humorous, wry dialogue adds a light tone to the script, and you will recognize familiar fairy tale elements woven into the narrative.
But while the story is interesting and well-structured, it’s also not very compelling. What is missing is what The Princess Bride does so well---it provides suspense and anticipation. There is never a doubt here that young lovers will unite, evil will be punished, the good will survive, the hero will fulfill his destiny. Maybe an extra sprinkling of stardust would have helped. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| RUSH HOUR 3 Rated PG-13 (for sequences of action violence, sexual content, nudity and language) Action/Comedy/Crime 90 minutes
3½ stars |
Keep your expectations low and go with the flow. That’s the best way, and nothing wrong with the approach, to enjoy Rush Hour 3. Some laughs and some action. Isn’t that enough for a summer movie?
Chris Tucker is back as Carter and he’s cracking wise and sarcastic as ever. And tuneful, too. Our first shot of him is as he directs traffic to the music of his headphone and if a few accidents result, well hey, if he can manage a date out of the mayhem, why not? Not for him alone, of course, but also for his very good buddy Lee. That’s Jackie Chan, who, as usual, is imbued with a condition which, in action movies, necessitates a hero to chase/leap/escape/fight on a regular basis (seemingly every ten or fifteen minutes) with all manner of devices (weapons or not).
What’s the plot? Something about an ancient worldwide Chinese criminal organization. The script is by Jeff Nathanson and he attempts to be logical, but often scenes and action appear to have been inserted for the purpose of supplying Tucker with chances to joke or as pretexts for comic routines by the two leads. For instance, the men are taken into custody upon arrival in Paris. The ostensible reason, according to the head of French Security, Detective Revi (Roman Polanski, no less!), is the gun the men carried aboard their flight (through airport screening in California?) But maybe he doesn’t want violent Americans in France (a sentiment openly and emphatically expressed by the cab driver Carter and Lee come upon) or maybe he’s part of the corrupt criminal element. It doesn’t matter either way as the heroes are beaten with Paris telephone books (huh? Repeat, huh?) which will later be used as the basis of a joke when Lee says it is lucky it wasn’t a Hong Kong directory which would be much thicker. But the truly egregious element of this bit is when Revi slips on a rubber glove and a shot follows of the two men uncomfortably walking out of the airport. It’s a sight gag. But it has no reason to exist, makes no sense within the context of the story, and contributes nothing whatsoever to the plot. On the other hand, this is not serious suspense we’re talking about so if a laugh is possible, why not go for it (though hopefully without sinking to low taste)? And anyway, even in high minded versions of this genre, where is the plausibility in heroes with superhuman knowledge, ability, and dexterity?
All of which is to say, what the heck’s wrong with some laughs and lively action sequences unburdened by significance? When Lee is battling his nemesis Kenji (Hiroyuki Sanada, suitably ruthless) Carter watches for awhile, then he comments, “Kill him already.” Who hasn’t thought just that in some other movie when a duel-to-the-death has gone on too long? Anyhow, Brett Ratner (along with fine, professional contributions from all the tech people) has delivered exactly what is to be expected – a movie to sit back and enjoy as, plain and simple, entertainment. Rush Hour 3 is no great shakes. Stay away if you have high expectations. Otherwise, if you accept it on its own very limited terms, you’ll probably feel you got your money’s worth. Review by Charles Zio
| DANS PARIS Foreign Film - France Advisory for Parents Drama 93 minutes
4 stars |
Take two brothers, polar opposites in personality and temperament, set them down in Paris in their divorced father’s small apartment, stir, and the result is “Dans Paris,” a warm and wise movie for those who don’t mind subtitles, enjoy excellent acting, and appreciate a French sensibility.
Jonathan (Louis Garrel, believably appealing and charming) is a happy-go-luck college student whose company everyone seems to enjoy (women most especially). In contrast, his brother Paul (Roman Duris, never less than sympathetic) is depressed after splitting from his girlfriend Anna (Joana Preiss, veering between overbearing and sexy) who alternately demands and rejects his affection. Paul responds by moving back home and remaining ensconced in bed (which, due to the family’s finances, he shares with his younger sibling). Both brothers are a mystery to their father Mirko (Guy Marchand, a mixture of paternal sincerity and befuddlement) and at a loss how to help his morose older son other than to insist on feeding him (sole and, yes, chicken soup) and having his former wife drop in (Marie-France Pisier, lighting up the apartment with her charm) who temporarily (but only temporarily) cheers Paul. Mirko fears he is suicidal and he is right, though Paul’s attempt (a leap into the Seine) is a failure (further reason for him to be unhappy).
Jonathan’s solution is elementary - that Paul find a woman. Trouble is Paul has already found her in Anna who he continues to mourn. To get him out from under the covers, Jonathan suggests they go look at the Christmas windows at the Bon Marche store. He is to call Paul when he arrives and his brother will come to meet him. However, the short trip ends up taking many hours as Jonathan runs into two willing strangers (a woman on a motorcycle and another looking at the windows alongside him) and a former girlfriend Alice (Alice Butaud, combative and yet vulnerable) who he invites to the apartment later that night. And, in fact, Alice does ring the bell. While she waits for Jonathan, Paul speaks to her about the loss (by suicide) of their sister Claire who had “bubbling days” when she would cry from an inner sadness that Paul believes is placed inside each of us at birth and which needs our attention and care.
Jonathan, speaking briefly and directly to the camera at the start, tells us the motto on their coat of arms is “Take time to ignore the sadness of your family” and also that every lineage has its great quality and “ours is detachment.” So it is no surprise, and satisfyingly welcome, when the sadness in engaged and the detachment thrown aside by virtue of Paul reading a children’s book he gave Jonathan for Christmas years ago. In the tale of Tom, a rabbit, and Loulou, a wolf (yeah, it’s obvious but affecting nonetheless) comes laughter and healing.
Chrisophe Honoré’s script is economical, amusing, and thought-provoking while avoiding being laden with meaning. His direction is effective and nicely orchestrates the photography of Jean-Louis Vialard (with touches of claustrophobia) and quick editing by Chantal Hymans (suggesting time flying and yet static).
Near the end of “Dans Paris” there is a heartfelt duet sung, via phone, between Paul and Anna. It’s a lovely moment in a movie with more than a few. It may not be “April in Paris” but, inspired by this film, Christmas in the City of Lights just might be a good second choice. Review by Charles Zio
ULTIMATUM |
THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM Rated PG-13 (for violence and intense sequences of violence) Action/Adventure/Drama/Suspense 111 minutes
4 stars |
Jason Bourne does find out his identity and so does the audience. The answer may not be that much of a surprise, but the movie does take you through non-stop action to get there. It may also make you look more suspiciously at our covert agencies (or add to your paranoia) depending on the way you see their role. The British historian Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” (Keep that in mind.)
Jason Bourne has been a killer all along, but it has been fairly easy to empathize with his lone wolf situation, where he has now spent three movies, with what seems like every other person in the world trying to kill him. So you can’t blame the guy for being hyper-vigilant. But he’s such an efficient killing machine himself that he manages to not only evade these hired hands, but jump across continents trying to find the answers to the puzzle that is his life.
Matt Damon continues to do a fine job with the role; keeping Jason tightly coiled and intense. The cast is uniformly good with Joan Allen and David Strathairn being top notch, as usual. Other notable performances: Julia Stiles, Paddy Constantine, Scott Glenn, Joey Ansah, Edgar Ramirez, and a cameo by Albert Finney.
Director Paul Greenglass knows what makes this genre work, although the shaky camera tends to be a bit overdone. The multiple locations help keep the film interesting along with all the action sequences, including car chases and incredible stunts: a well-done, exciting effort. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| EL CANTANTE Rated R (for drug use, pervasive language and some sexuality) Biography/Drama 106 minutes
3½ stars |
“El Cantante” means “the singer” and the music is fine (in fact, excellent) but as a biography of Héctor Lavoe, one of the founders and greatest stars of the salsa movement, the insights are minimal.
Marc Anthony sings the heck out of Lavoe’s songs conveying the power, emotion, and joy of the Spanish words (some of the songs are subtitled with the translations floating along the sides of the screen). Abetted by Willie Colón’s (John Ortiz completely inhabiting his role) invigorating and exciting brass, it is obvious why salsa became the phenomenon it was. The musical performances are so terrific you wish they were longer and more had been added.
Because, frankly, the story (by director Leon Ichaso, David Darmstaedter, and Todd Anthony Bello) is primarily skin deep. Lavoe had a troubled relationship with his father and, as with so many other musicians, became involved with drugs. And? Oh yes, he fell in love with a strong, feisty, take charge woman named Puchi (Jennifer Lopez engrossing throughout) who was his lover, wife, mother of his child, muse, enabler, and guardian. She frames the picture, telling us about Héctor after the fact of his death in his forties from HIV. Unfortunately, her various descriptions of Lavoe’s character makeup aren’t translated into reality in Anthony’s performance. Of course, he’s not an actor (mercifully he has sufficient talent not to embarrass himself or the movie), but forget any insight into Héctor’s motivations, triumphs, or demons.
Though there is an old fashioned feel to this movie, due to the style and tone of Leon Ichaso’s direction (and production, design, and editing choices), the real flaw lies in keeping the audience at a distance. Héctor tells Puchi late in the film that he doesn’t like to talk about what’s bothering him (and neither does Puchi, he asserts). That seems to be the case and it’s a problem, because if Lavoe isn’t going to tell us, or at a minimum we aren’t shown a clue (film is a visual medium after all), then what’s the point of watching? Not too much. But as for listening – the music in “El Cantante” is definitely most pleasurable. Review by Charles Zio
| RESCUE DAWN Rated PG-13 (for some sequences of intense war violence and torture) Action/Adventure/Drama 126 minutes
4½ stars |
Writer/Director Werner Hertzog has made a disturbing, intense, haunting film based on his 1997 documentary, “Little Dieter Needs to Fly” about pilot Dieter Dengler’s Vietnam Prisoner of War (POW) experiences. Hertzog obviously had a more dramatic retelling in mind.
Dengler, a German-American with an expansive, cheery personality, is briefed along with other pilots in 1965 about a secret mission over Laos. They are even shown a film about how to survive in the jungle. As the pilots joke about the mission, Dieter’s first, he looks relaxed and ready to go. Once in the plane, though, the aerial footage of bombs falling on small thatched houses is horrifying. When he’s shot down and captured, but refuses to sign a confession, the relentless nightmare begins.
What follows are scenes of torture, despair, paralyzing fear, heroism, cruelty, loyalty, madness, and an absolute determination to live. The extreme of war does separate those who barely hang on, from those who will struggle until their last breath to be free. After everything is stripped away, what is left is the best and worst of humanity. When Dieter reaches his final POW camp, he’s housed with five other prisoners. He quickly assesses that if he doesn’t make something happen he will die in the camp with the others.
Surrounded by a dense, lush, but forbidding jungle, it will only be possible to survive outside the prison during the rainy season (so there is water to drink). Dieter waits, but conditions begin to deteriorate in the camp with little food available, even for the guards. He plots his escape, but some of his fellow captives don’t want any part of the plan. He can only count on one of them, Duane, another American prisoner. How he escapes and the consequences of that bold, desperate act reflect the resilience of the human spirit.
The acting is excellent. Christian Bale as Dieter is so committed to making the character authentic that he lost enough weight to look skeletal in several of the scenes. Every twinge of hope and misery registers across his face. Steve Zahn’s poignant performance is understated, and all the more honest for it. As Duane, he presents a man broken by imprisonment, yet willing, it’s not certain whether out of loyalty, hopelessness, or both, to go along with Dieter in his escape. Jeremy Davies, totally believable as Gene, is a man who has gone over the edge, and is not coming back. All the supporting actors are very good, giving performances that may even allow feelings of empathy for some of those caught in a conflict not of their making.
Hertzog knows his story well, and every choice adds to the overall strength of the film from the writing, directing, set and production design, music, sound, to the cinematography.
The film stays with you. How would you survive in the same circumstances if you were tested to your limits? Would you have the mental stamina, physical fortitude, and will to live? That war is hell, no one disputes; and this hell is agonizingly real. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| THIS IS ENGLAND Foreign Film - UK Not Rated - Add Consent Advisory for Parents Drama 100 minutes
4½ stars |
Ever watched the news (with enough years to offer perspective) and thought, “Hey, haven’t I seen a movie before?” Well, here’s the reverse, a movie akin to a news feature (“in-depth” or “behind the scenes” or “beyond the headlines”). Even though it’s a different country (per the title), era (the 80s), and war (the Falklands), the issues raised (individual, societal, and national) are familiar, and hot button. “This Is England” is well done, timely, and aside from a too neat ending, worthwhile.
Shaun (Thomas Turgoose, natural and believable throughout) is a lonely 12-year-old living with his mother Cynthia (Jo Hartley, effectively low key) in a dull/downscale section of Nottingham, where they’ve relocated after the death of his beloved father in the Falklands War. Shaun’s life is as empty and abandoned as the littered landscape/seashore through which he wanders, but he’s got a temper and is fearless in taking on those twice his size or age. By chance, he makes the acquaintance of Woody (Joe Gilgun, appealing as the tough guy/softie) and his gang of skinheads (commendable performances by each) who are, in word and deed, goodly sorts. Along with their ladies (of note, Vicky McClure as Lol), Shaun is transformed (shaved head, suspenders), educated (in various vices), and befriended (at times as playmates). He’s happy and all seems well in his new “family.”
Then Combo (Stephen Graham, effectively alternating menace and caring), a buddy of Woody’s, arrives from a stint in prison. Filled with anger at hard times facing the lower economic classes and putting the blame on immigrants (specifically, Pakistanis), he endeavors to recruit Woody and his gang to his cause (taking back England for the English), mostly to no avail since he has alienated most of them with bigoted comments about Milky (Andrew Shim, quiet and easygoing), of Jamaican descent, and the group is, remember, far from an assemblage of hooligans. On the other hand, Shaun, perceiving a substitute father (Combo says he was exactly like him when young), follows the older man to a clandestine meeting of the militant right-wing National Front (“we’re not racists, we’re realists”). He even hangs a flag of St. George’s Cross (symbol of England’s patron saint) in his window. It’s a short hop to the spewing of hatred, slurs spray painted on walls, threats against immigrant children, and robbery and menacing of a Pakistani store owner.
At this point, the guess is Shaun is on the threshold, if not through the door, to being a lost cause. Not so. His activities with Combo have been a game of let’s pretend, rather than deeply felt commitment. When Combo (reeling from romantic rejection) erupts in unprovoked violence against Milky, Shaun’s inherent kindness/sympathy/childishness awake him from his misplaced affection and loyalty. The last shot, though, is enigmatic. Has Shaun been saved from a downward spiral? Or is he halfway through a basic training in thuggery?
Needless to say, and it is evident in the viewing, politics is a major factor in this movie (war, immigration, lost souls, society in flux, etc.). (There are news clips of Thatcher and especially of soldiers in an extended appearance at the end but they’re integral and don’t feel intrusive.) It is to Shane Meadows credit (add well-deserved applause here) as director and writer that its inclusion, though vital and central, is done with subtlety and craft thereby leaving room for thought and consideration while at the same time he draws us into the story of a sad, little boy and those who surround him, positively and negatively. Danny Cohen’s photography and Mark Leese’s production design present a bleak, deadend world where the sun never seems to shine and Chris Wyatt’s efficient editing reflects a world at once in movement yet going nowhere. And the music (featuring the “ska” genre) is a treat. Which can also be said of this movie as a whole. Review by Charles Zio
MOVIE |
THE SIMPSONS MOVIE Rated PG-13 (for irreverent humor throughout) Animation/Comedy 87 minutes
3½ stars |
About The Simpsons I am completely neutral. That is, you can hit me with a wet doughnut (which I hear is a Homer favorite) since I’ve yet to see an episode. Not out of aversion or distaste, but because my schedule didn’t permit, and when it did, well, how do you miss something of which you never partook? Having now seen the movie I just might be inclined to tune in now and then. As for the loyal and devoted fans (and a program can’t run over a decade and a half without them), they’ll undoubtedly enjoy the movie, though why exactly it’s a movie is another question.
The plot – Lisa, a pesky do-gooder, raises the alarm about dumping and toxic levels in Springfield Lake and meets her match, and love, in Colin, newly-arrived from Ireland. Elsewhere, Marge is attempting to decipher an “inspired” message given by Grandpa Abe in church warning of the town’s impeding demise. Meanwhile, Homer has taken home a pig (rescued after appearing in a commercial with Krusty The Clown). At the same time, Bart, tricked and misused by his father, wishes he were the son of the religious next door neighbor. And, for her part, baby Maggie tolerates/ignores the chaos round about and sticks to her pacifier. The crisis occurs when Homer, impatient in the toxic recycling line to get to the doughnut shop (closing and offering great bargains), rushes to the lake and deposits into it his pig droppings silo. It is the straw (so to speak) that sends the lake into overdrive rendering a cute squirrel into a multi-eyed, tooth-enlarged monster. The head of the EPA, with President Schwartzenegger’s approval, puts Springfield under a huge dome. The townspeople, none too pleased, attack Homer and his family who manage to escape through a sink hole and go to Alaska to start life anew. When a crack develops in the dome, the government decides to create a new Grand Canyon on the former site of Springfield. Homer’s family leaves to save their hometown and, finally caring for someone aside from himself, Homer follows and saves the day (with an assist from Bart).
To be sure, there’s wit, cleverness, corn, satire, parody, and slapstick. In fact, it’s hard to think of anything in the humor arsenal that’s not utilized. And technically, the animation is more than impressive. There is also a sense of familiarity – characters and settings and references no doubt familiar to devotees of the program. And any review would be seriously remiss if it failed to mention the rightly lauded voices of Dan Castellaneta, Julie Kavner, Nancy Cartwright, Yeardley Smith, Hanz Azaria, and Barry Shearer as well as the creativity and originality of Matt Groening, James L. Brooks, Al Jean, and Ian Maxtone-Graham (among a slew of others).
The direction of David Silverman leads me back to my original question. He is competent and proficient in moving the story along and not milking the moments or the laughs. An efficient job overall. Still, and he is not accountable for the fact, isn’t this merely a large screen television show? Chalk it up to a failure of comprehension on my part, but I’m at a loss to understand why this movie couldn’t have appeared just as easily as, say, a holiday special? Why exactly not? If you’re a fan, though, you might feel differently. I’m inclined to agree with Homer who states early on we viewers are fools for having paid to see something that is free otherwise. It’s funny because it’s true and, unfortunately, the movie never does convince you to the contrary. Review by Charles Zio
| NO RESERVATIONS Rated PG-13 (for some sensuality and language) Comedy/Drama/Romance 103 minutes
4 stars |
The title doesn't give away much about this sweet, quiet, touching movie. Kate (Catherine Zeta-Jones) is a top chef who is cut off from her feelings and as a result is a brittle, defensive, lonely woman with no social life. She sees a psychiatrist but doesn’t seem to be making much progress in her search for self-awareness. Then the unthinkable happens when her sister, the only person she is close to, is killed on her way to New York to visit Kate. Her young niece Zoe (Abigail Breslin) survives the accident and comes to live with Kate. Needless to say this is a life-altering event.
When Kate returns to the kitchen after a few days off, she finds a free-spirited chef, Nick (Aaron Eckhart) has been hired. Kate resents this intrusion into her orderly world, but it’s obvious there is a physical attraction from the beginning.
There are hints along the way as to why Kate is so closed off: her mother’s early death, her father’s neglect, her caretaking of her free-spirited younger sister, disappointment in love and friendship.
With other actors this might seem cloying and mundane, but all the leads bring their characters to life. Catherine Zeta-Jones has a captivating screen presence, not only because of her beauty, but because she’s able to relay the subtext of her character so well. She and Aaron Eckhart have good chemistry. He can be the masculine chef without being macho, and then tender when it’s called for in the script. But the one who really makes it work is Abigail Breslin. She is so natural that when she cries, laughs, hurts, or is angry, it’s totally believable.
In fact, it’s the relationship between Kate and Zoe that’s the true success here. It allows Kate to realize that can she can let her guard down and love someone despite the fact that love will hurt sometimes. Life has come full circle. The love she gave to her sister, was given to Zoe, and Zoe has brought back to her. When she learns to give love again, she’s able to accept love.
Like a tasty dish made with fresh ingredients and skill, this recipe is tender and delicious. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| HAIRSPRAY Rated PG (for language, some suggestive content, and momentary teen smoking) Musical/Comedy 107 minutes
4½ stars |
Be prepared to be more entertained than expected with this over-the-top musical comedy extravaganza set in 1960s Baltimore. The movie has a storyline that allows for plenty of songs and laughs, but doesn’t lose the message of tolerance for those who are different. Yet, it’s not heavy-handed either. It strikes just the right balance, and much of the credit goes to the writers, past and present, but especially Leslie Dixon for this updated screenplay, and to the director, Adam Shankman, for pulling off this fully realized film musical.
The time is 1962. High schooler Tracy Turnblad (Nikki Blonsky in a star-making performance) wants desperately to be on the Corny Collins Show, the “Bandstand” of Baltimore. The problem is that Tracy is more than a bit zoftig (plump) and doesn’t fit the model proportions of her rival, Amber Von Tussle, (a well cast Brittany Snow). And Amber’s mother, the evil Velma Von Tussel, (Michelle Pfeiffer so vindictive we almost forget how gorgeous she still is) who runs the television program, wants to keep her off.
Despite obstacles, Tracy gets on the show, and becomes popular with the audience. At school, her dreamy ways get her sent to detention where the black kids hang out and dance. This opens a new world to Tracy and she becomes socially conscious. When she realizes that Motormouth Maybelle (Queen Latifah) and her black classmates are being forced from the show because they’re doing away with “Negro Day,” she joins a protest march. This subplot provides some of the most touching moments in the film.
“Hairspray” is full of star turns and good performances. The experienced performers as well as the newer ones bring their best qualities to their parts. As mentioned, Nikki Blonsky is outstanding as Tracy, and adorable with her megawatt smile. Just like in “Chicago,” Queen Latifah commands the screen whenever she is in a scene, and brings a dignity to Maybelle, even with dyed blond hair. Christopher Walken’s off-kilter goofiness is perfect for Tracy’s father, Wilbur Turnblad. Zac Efron, Amanda Bynes, Elijah Kelley, Taylor Parks, Allison Janney, and James Marsden also shine in their roles. As far as John Travolta as Tracy’s mother, Edna Turnblad, I’m not as enamored of his mannered performance as I’m guessing I’m supposed to be since, at times, it’s the one false note in this gifted cast. He is at his best, though, in the scenes where he’s dancing (and less self-conscious), especially in the back yard scene with Wilbur as they romantically take on different personas before they collapse looking deeply into each other’s eyes.
The music by Marc Shaiman and choreography work perfectly with the mood and story. The production design by David Gropman, and art direction by Dennis Davenport deserve special mention. The wonderful costumes by Rita Ryack are oscar-worthy.
You will definitely leave the theater smiling. “Hairspray” is fun, charming, and delightful from beginning to end. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
PRONOUNCE YOU CHUCK AND LARRY |
I NOW PRONOUNCE YOU CHUCK AND LARRY Rated PG (for crude sexual content throughout, nudity, language and drug references.) Comedy 110 minutes
2 stars
|
It’s difficult to say why this film went wrong, but not where it went wrong. Start with the premise. A firefighter who lost his wife three years ago is so deep in grief he “forgets” to change the death benefits to his kids? Weak. He asks his best friend on the fire department (whose life he saved) to become his domestic partner to remedy the situation and assures him that no one else will find out? Unbelievable. They go through with a “marriage” to defraud the city of New York, and these are the protagonists? Deceitful. The film has just about every stereotype of “gay” you can imagine. Insensitive. Firefighters come off looking like homophobic jerks at the beginning of the movie and silly saps at the end. Insulting. It’s just plain not funny. True.
Adam Sandler (Chuck) plays his usual persona, which is starting to get tired. Kevin James makes out slightly better only because he can play sincere better than Sandler. The two “husbands” see a lawyer (the sexy Jessica Biel) in case the city investigates them, which they do with the bureaucrat Clinton Fitzer (Steve Buscemi who isn’t given much to work with). As the fraud is investigated and the charade continues, various actors show up in small or supporting roles that don’t use their talents well: Ving Rhames, Dan Aykroyd, Nicholas Turturro, Rachel Dratch, Mary Pat Gleason, and Richard Chamberlain.
Where are the “real-life” women in the movie? Isn’t there something between the extreme babe in Biel, and the opposite in the ditzy housekeeper? Or maybe that’s the point? It’s not a film women are expected to enjoy so why try appealing to them? Don’t fire fighters wives rate an appearance that shows they support their husbands and keep the family together while the men protect and serve the people of New York City? Questionable. The production values and photography are good, but the movie doesn’t have much new, instructive, interesting, or necessary to say. Embarrassing. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| TALK TO ME Rated R (for pervasive language and some sexual content) Biography/Drama 118 minutes
4 stars |
Brotherhood, in every sense, is what it’s all about, and “Talk To Me” speaks on the subject with humor, warmth, and relevancy.
Petey Greene (Don Cheadle, who, as usual, never hits a wrong note) is a consummate con man, with attendant vices, and a popular prison d.j. Managing a parole, he calls on Dewey Hughes (Chiwetel Ejiofor, believable throughout) a fellow prison mate’s brother, for a job at the D.C. radio station where he is an executive. His presence, along with that of Vernell, his girlfriend (Taraji P. Henson, delightfully sassy and fierce, yet sensitive), is a shock (enjoyable for the audience) to the owner, E.G. Sonderling (Martin Sheen, firmly in charge). Dewey persuades his boss to give Petey a chance and, doing what he does best, Petey is outspoken and forthright. So, of course, he’s fired. But, Dewey, in his corporate suit/posture/voice, turns out to be, in fact, a housing project child and stages a coup, locking every door in sight (literally), and putting Petey back on the air and inviting phone-ins. By the time Sonderling and his minions break through, the lines are flooded and there’s no stopping Greene (“Talk To Me” is his catch phrase to the callers). All of this, by the way, is in the context of history. The movie starts in 1966 and leads up to the night Dr. Martin Luther King is assassinated and the city breaks out in riots. Petey goes on the air, quiets the rage, and emcees a concert the next night with James Brown. What was admirable and heroic about Greene, before and after this high point, was his plain-spoken honesty. Dewey, however, thought Greene should aim higher and, becoming his manager, steers his career to the breakthrough of an appearance on Johnny Carson, then a fairly assured entry to success. But, it’s not Petey’s dream and feeling it’s a sellout, he sabotages the opportunity. Dewey and Petey sever their relationship and travel separate ways – Dewey to become a d.j. and owner of the radio station; Petey to obscurity/drink/disease. Vernell arranges a reconciliation and the two men are able to bond before Greene’s untimely passing.
Just a second. There is emotion and message here and appreciation of a man of his time and still of worth today, but it’s low key, without beating one over the head with a hammer. And that is precisely why the movie is warm and moving, even if, inevitably, a little bit of syrup seems to seep in at the end of any such biography. Plus, yes, the film is funny, thanks primarily to Cheadle and Henson. From clothes to attitude- what a duo. Again Ejiofor is excellent, along with all the bits, everybody is in synch.
Credit is certainly, and deservedly, due to director Kasi Lemmons for crafting a movie that succeeds admirably in being simultaneously entertaining and informative. And a special nod to Michael Genet and Rick Famuyiwa for a script that’s skillful, intelligent, and humorous. “Talk To Me” – Yeah, go listen. Review by Charles Zio
THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX |
HARRY POTTER and THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX PG-13 (for sequences of fantasy violence and frightening images) Adventure/Drama/Family/Fantasy 138 minutes
4 stars |
Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe in an affecting performance that carries the film) has been growing up and is now a teenager, so maybe that’s why this darkest film so far in the series is primarily about Harry’s teen angst. Author J. K. Rowling has cleverly set up this dilemma from the first book when Harry is an orphan living with a hostile “muggle” family. His quest to defeat Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes suitably off-putting) in this film is as much about Harry’s identity crisis as about overcoming evil. How do we know this? Because there are a number of allusions to Harry and Voldemort sharing certain traits.
We get further information during the film from both Dumbledore (Michael Gambon looking appropriately wizened) and Sirius Black (Gary Oldman in one of the strongest performances in the series) who tell him, in effect: we all have dark places as well as light within us that can’t be denied, but who we are is really about the choices we make and what we do.
After an episode of using magic outside Hogwart’s, Harry is dismissed and finds himself in a kind of safe house where those on the side of good, the secret Order of the Phoenix, are trying to find a way to hold off Voldemort. Other influential wizards don’t believe Voldemort is back, setting up a power struggle. This allows Delores Umbridge (the wonderful Imelda Staunton) to come to Hogwort’s and eventually take over the school.
Harry, feeling alienated from his friends and everything around him, not knowing where to turn, wants to go it alone, but Ron (Rupert Grint still effective as the loyal friend), Hermione (Emma Watson still playing the smart girl with conviction) and others won’t let him, showing the power of friendship and belonging.
The movie gets off to a slow start. It should be able to stand alone and mostly does, but knowledge of the books is essential to understanding the finer points of what’s going on with the characters, and all the wizard-speak. What has been edited from the book makes it appear to be a weaker storyline than some of the other films, and repetitive. The set design and special effects, though, especially in the last part of the film, are excellent.
The world of Harry Potter remains an intriguing and entertaining one. How does an anointed young wizard find himself and save his world at the same time? That answer is to come, but for now it’s tough to be a teenager no matter who or where you are; count on it. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| TRANSFORMERS PG-13 (for intense sequences 0f sci-fi action violence, brief sexual humor, and language) Action/Adventure/Sci-fi 144 minutes
5 stars |
Hasbro better have its toy factory working overtime cause “Transformers” is a clink/clank, boom/bellow, roar/rumble winner. If you have even the slightest reason to think you might like this movie, rest assured, you will.
The casting, first off, is perfect. Shia LaBeouf, in yet another letter-perfect performance as a bright/overly aware/socially awkward teen, is Sam, who has just earned his first car. It’s a rusty, beat-up Camaro, but it seems to “like” him, and together they manage to give a ride to his crush, Mikela (who can blame him if it’s the lovely and spunky Megan Fox). Meanwhile, Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson (equally convincing as tough, brave soldiers) are fighting an alien metallic scorpion in Qatar as the Secretary of Defense (a believably over-somber Jon Voight) tries to puzzle out who’s attacking America’s military internet. There are dandy bits by Kevin Dunn and Julie White (beautifully playing off each other as Sam’s wellmeaning/ soft-hearted father and caring/feisty mother), John Turturro (an absurd, ultra top secret agent), Anthony Anderson (hungry, dance-loving computer whiz), Rachel Taylor (savvy net geek), and Bernie Mack (as Boliva, a two-bit, second-hand car salesman).
Then there are the “bots,” on earth in search of the life-giving “cube” to resurrect their now-destroyed (by war) civilization. The good ones, the Autobots, lead by Optimus Prime (among whom is Bumble Bee, Sam’s car), are battling the bad ones, the Decepticons, lead by Megatron, who was found by Sam’s grandfather (an artifact of whose is a key element in the movie) decades ago in the Arctic. Let it be said that the special visual effects by Industrial Light and Magic, and the work of every technician in every discipline, are superb and must be seen to be believed (as is always, rightly, said of high quality product).
As can Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman who’s script (based on a story by John Rogers and themselves) is lucid/understandable/and around, and sometimes even within the razzle-dazzle, genuinely funny. Shia delivers many of the one-liners (convincingly and dryly) such as telling his father, to prevent discovery of the transformers, with nervous and forced sincerity how much he loves him. Or there is Bumble Bee in its car state playing appropriate songs as Sam picks up and drives Mikela (too funny to spoil by telling). Or even, in general, Mojo, Sam’s bandaged Chihuahua.
Finally, hail to director Michael Bay, who has orchestrated a movie it’s a pleasure to watch in terms of plot, pacing, editing, design, production, and so on, and so forth. “Transformers” for 4th of July. That’s what I call, now and for the rest of the summer - fireworks. Review by Charles Zio
| SICKO MPAA Rating PG (for brief strong language) Documentary 113 minutes
5 stars |
Whatever you think of Michael Moore, you’ll find yourself alternating between choking up and being outraged at the American health care situation presented in “Sicko.”
Moore does not address, except briefly at the start, the almost 50 million people with no health coverage at all. Instead, the focus is on people who held policies and trusted only to have subsequently been denied benefits. Then again, since large health insurers income is based on the refusal of services and procedures, it’s obvious they’ll find almost everything (no exaggeration) a cause for denial. In the meantime, people remain sick, worsen, or die – a concern for some employees with conscience (they cannot be commended enough), but not the highly compensated CEOs.
In a change, Moore doesn’t ambush the “bad guys.” He lets the video tape do the talking, including the voices of Nixon and Erlichman hatching the HMO concept (pleased it’ll mean profits even while withholding services) and shots of members of Congress (pleased and being highly paid by the pharmaceutical industry) at the signing of the drug benefits bill presided over by a beaming George Bush (he and Cheney get a few cameos). On the other hand, Hillary gets lauded for having tackled the issue and then slapped for selling out for campaign donations. Glimpsing backers of the present, dysfunctional program presented in the film, it’s hard to ignore that, well, it seems the supporters are overwhelmingly white/male/affluent (with, one guesses, guaranteed corporate or Congressional insurance policies)? In contrast, we see good, honest, heroic (rescuers on 9/11), hard working people with no hope of medical justice and you’d have to have a heart of stone not to be moved by what they have, or previously, endured.
Moore’s advocacy of the viability and superiority of universal health care is illustrated by visits to Canada, London, Paris, and finally Cuba where, in addition to citing statistics, America’s system suffers by comparison. At the end, Moore asks, in effect, what’s wrong with us? Why do we (kind,decent, generous, sympathetic, quick to lend a hand) accept the insurance and drug status quo that operates to the citizen’s detriment? Think about it. Because, if you’re not facing the consequences yet, chances are, sadly, more than likely, eventually, you will. Whatever his faults (name any that apply), Moore has raised an issue that demands attention and action. The rest is up to us. Review by Charles Zio
| RATATOUILLE MPAA Rating G Animation/Comedy/Family 110 minutes
4½ stars |
Rat On - Disney. This one is a winner! It wasn't clear how a movie about French restaurant cooking in Paris and a rat chef was going to work, but it absolutely does. The story makes sense, in a cartoon world, is easy to follow, has the appropriate peaks and valleys, and goes to a logical conclusion. The "chef" Remy (nicely voiced by Patton Oswalt), a young blue rat, has a calling that his rat family can't quite understand. When he gets separated from them and ends up in Paris at the restaurant of his recently departed idol Gusteau (voiced with joie de vie by Brad Garrett), he can't resist helping the hapless Linguini (in a good turn by Lou Romano) from destroying a soup recipe. Soon Remy and Linguini join forces and a legend is born.
Having had several chefs in the family, it is surprising to see how well portrayed the finicky cooking staff's seriousness is about food, the rush to get the orders out, the pleasure in serving their patrons, and how close to perfection they want to be in every dish they present. Chefs are artists, and the proof is in the careful preparation and presentation. It's obvious the time was taken to get it right in the movie.
The animation is excellent. Pixar's attention to detail is so fine-tuned that you can see individual hairs on Remy's fur, and when the humans walk their clothes move separately from their bodies. This is an all out feast for the senses. All the voice overs are distinctive, easy to identify, and well-done. Especially noteworthy are Peter O'Toole as Anton Ego, Ian Holm as Skinner, Janeane Garafalo as the sole female "feminist" chef, Colette. And what would we do without Brian Dennehy as the disapproving father?
The audience of parents and children I saw it with all walked out of the movie smiling and laughing. (There's also some wise words at the end about critics.) When the audience is entertained, and critics agree, filmmakers can be proud of their work and everyone wins in the end. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
OR DIE HARD |
LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence and action, language and brief sexual situations) Action/Adventure/Thriller 128 minutes
3½ stars |
My uncle used to say, “You buy the premise, you buy the bit.” If you have bought into the “Die Hard” movies, then you will probably think “Live Free or Die Hard” is entertaining. It’s not the best of them, but it is more violent, implausible, and outrageous as it carries on the franchise. As with the first two, money, and by extension, the power it brings is the root of all evil. The tool for the takeover, besides guns, helicopters, trucks, and lethal human fighting machines is the US computer system which, of course, an evil genius is using to literally shut down America.
Certainly Bruce Willis’ character John McClane has been battered by life, and is less brash than he used to be. This time he’s divorced and following his college age daughter around at night to make sure No means No. He gets more into his old character habits as the film goes on, and some of his smug overconfidence returns. Bruce Willis is an appealing actor, with the right vehicle, and one suspects he shares some of the more exuberant traits of his personality with McClane.
Willis is surrounded by less well-known actors who do a credible job. Matt Farrell (Justin Logan) is the computer nerd who inadvertently helps start the disaster rolling by showing off his computer smarts. Lucy McClane (Mary Elizabeth Winstead looking like a young Bonnie Bedelia) is the daughter who is angry at Pop for butting into her life. As Bowman, the FBI man in charge of fighting for our side, Cliff Curtis does as much as he can with a part that gives over too much authority to McClane too quickly.
The real stars here, besides Willis, are the stunt men and women and the special effects folks who pull off some of the most extreme stunts (in a non-fantasy film) so far this summer. As mentioned, the movie is exceedingly violent with lots of blood, gore, with old and several new ways to kill people. (How did this get a PG-13 rating?) If you can get past that fact, and that McClane should have died three or four times, or at the very least had many broken bones for a guy who’s not a comic book hero, then you will continue to buy the premise, and the bit. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| 1408 PG-13 (for thematic material including disturbing sequences of violence and terror, frightening images and language) Horror/Thriller 94 minutes
2½ stars |
1408 is the title of this movie, but, it can be reviewed in 20 words or less. However, in fairness to all those involved, I’ll try to stretch it a bit since I’d like to believe no one ever deliberately sets out to make a bad movie (even so they appear on a regular basis).
John Cusack is topnotch (that’s the first four words of the actual review, filler to follow). Playing a writer who has turned from the non-selling quality fiction of his youth (lost idealism, how sad) to a successful series of books debunking ghostly locations (cynicism has its rewards), he receives a post card telling him not to stay in room 1408 at the Dolphin Hotel in New York. Who sent this postcard? Why? These questions are among those unanswered by the writers (the movie is based on a Stephen King short story and one guesses not a gem). Nor does director, Mikael Hafstrom, shed much light (well, some literally, almost none figuratively). Logic, it seems, is beside the point. To paraphrase the poet, Cusack is not to reason why, he is there to do or die. Ignoring the ominous warnings of hotel manager (or is he more?) Samuel L. Jackson (paid well, one hopes, for wasting his talent on this toss away role) that no one lasts more than an hour in the room, Cusack enters the accursed 1408.
The special effects are excellent (the next five words, we’re up to nine). If you’ve seen or read ghost/horror/supernatural movies/television/books you will see a reprise of phenomena familiar to the genres – blood, ghosts, self-controlled radios, floods, and so on and so on and so on. In short, the destruction of Room 1408 is far worse than a rampaging rock star could muster. I mean, like, it’s total. And Cusack reacts with total commitment, allowing himself to descend into convincing madness. He doesn’t hold back one iota. Go, John!
Except – and here’s the next four, thirteen total – No thrills, no chills. For all the mayhem, there isn’t a scare in sight. You won’t have to remind yourself, “It’s only a movie” because it’s so lacking in suspense you almost wish 1408 would finally finish Cusack off. And that’s another thing – the picture seems to end about four times, which is annoying not surprising (because you want the darn thing to end already).
Okay, that’s enough. Oh yeah, the final two words (at least I made it to fifteen) of the review – Don’t bother. Reivew by Charles Zio
| MPAA Rating R (for language) Drama/Music Foreign Film - Ireland Runtime 85 minutes
4½ stars out of 5 |
Once was probably made for less than the costume budget of Chicago or Dreamgirls or the coming Hairspray, but it’s got more than enough heart to match, if not exceed, any of them. Too bad it doesn’t have the ad budget of the others so a larger audience could discover this winning film.
Glen Hansard is an aspiring Irish singer/songwriter who lives at home with dad, works in the family repair business, and nurses ambition for success along with a broken heart (betrayal from his former girlfriend). Strumming his battered guitar on the streets of Dublin he meets Marketa Irgova, a Czech refugee with her own tangled love life, who happens to be a trained pianist. Together a friendship forms and music is made. And, no, the movie will not unfold as you may expect which makes it that much more of a pleasure. Do not anticipate big, showy numbers, choruses, and choreography. This is a small film and the better for it in every way. As for the music, you will not recognize the rock-oriented songs but they’re good, catchy, and (what songs are supposed to do in a musical) skillfully advance the story through the lyrics.
The writer/director John Carney (bassist with the Frames, an Irish band) is commended for putting together a work in which the small details (warm and never overdone) add up to feelings effectively underplayed and, thus, more quietly touching. He was also astute in choosing his bandmate Hansard (adeptly and appealingly portraying an everyman) and Irgova (nicely conveying gentleness and determination) as his stars since they are believable throughout. As are, by the way, the rest of the cast who don’t seem to be acting at all. Also part of the charm of Once is its simplicity - the shots of busy streets, the stores and apartments, a walk in the woods – wherein the story seems to be captured in the real world, not on fancy movie sets. If there’s a minor criticism it’s that, at times, words could be missed due to the brogue or Czech accent, but the emotions are universal and understood nonetheless.
If musicals are making a comeback, it’s to be hoped, amid the razzle and dazzle, there’ll be room for little, small budget gems. It’s not every movie (let alone musical) that leaves you feeling satisfied. But Once most definitely does. Review by Charles Zio
| KNOCKED UP R (for sexual content, drug use, and language) Comedy/Drama/Romance 129 minutes
4 stars out of 5 |
Who knew that unplanned pregnancy could be so funny? Writer/director Judd Apatow has made a film that shrewdly slips through our defenses allowing us to focus on a group of incongruent, confused characters. Refreshingly, the film doesn’t preach, and there is no one, not even any of the parents, who wisely have all the answers. Everyone is puzzled, fearful, has secret fantasies and needs they have a difficult time sharing, just like real people. All the while we’re treated to fresh, funny dialogue with expert comic delivery.
Alison Scott (Katherine Heigl in an endearing performance) is on the fast track at work as she gets promoted to on-air talent for an entertainment show. (Alan Tudyk, and especially Kristen Wiig, have very funny cameos as Alison’s bosses.) To celebrate, she and her sister Debbie (a delightfully irritable Leslie Mann) go to a club where Alison meets the man of her dreams, NOT, in young, average-looking, flabby slacker Ben Stone (a terrific Seth Rogen). The two drink too much and have a one-night stand that results in Alison’s pregnancy. Alison makes the decision on her own to keep the baby; Ben agrees to support her, although how he plans to do this is a mystery to everyone since he doesn’t take much care of himself.
As they get to know each other, and themselves, they are surrounded by characters who are bewildered in their own way. Pete, Alison’s frustrated brother-in-law (the always reliable and interesting Paul Rudd) bonds enough with Ben to tell him about the woes of marriage. Ben’s buddy slacker group (hilariously played by Jason Segel, Jay Baruchel, Jonah Hill, and Martin Starr) see life from a decidedly careless point of view.
The humor can be crude at times, but never loses its good-natured appeal. The balance with some serious moments, as the enormity of parenthood looms, is just right. Would an ambitious beauty like Alison really fall for someone like Ben? Maybe not in real life, but what makes the difference is good movie making; I’m sold on “Knocked Up”.
Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| DRAMA/MEX Not Rated (but caution advised) Drama - Limited Release 105 minutes
2½ stars |
There are not many good points to “Drama/Mex.” In fact, only two (one grudging, the second somewhat interesting). Neither is incentive enough to leave a comfortable couch. The actors, though committed and convincing in their roles, are playing unappealing characters.
Spending 105 minutes with this bunch seems twice as long (or necessary). Diana Garcia is Fernanda, a spoiled rich girl, having dinner with her ex-boyfriend, Chano (Emilio Valdés), a sleazy lowlife (he uses the restaurant’s bathroom sink to relive himself, yes, on tip toe). Her vulgarity-laced verbal rant is such a turn on he follows her home where, after dropping into the backyard (clumsily), and her brief protest, he takes her on the living room floor, much to her pleasure (immediately afterward she strolls into the kitchen to fry up something to eat). While the former lovers are so involved, Trigrillo (Miriana Moro), a rebellious teenager is entering the ranks of hustlers of old men (massage and relaxation only!). She’s a fast study and know-it-all tease, and she illogically rescues her undeserving first victim, Jaime (Fernando Becerril), on the verge of company theft and a child molester, by bedding him which, in the morning sunshine, inspires her to abandon her career of one day and go, well, who knows (or cares) where. Back to Fernanda. Her new boyfriend, Gonzalo (Juan Pablo Castaneda), is a skilled soccer goalie with a foul mouth, a romantic, weepy nature, and a jealous streak who shouts, yells, and ineffectually fights his rival Chano. Of course, Fernanda chooses him (okay, he pushes her around a bit, maybe that was the clincher), sealed by an intimate fling on the beach. By the way, all the bit parts, aside from a group of musicians Gonzalo hires for serenading, are also unsavory. Still, unsympathetic characters can sometimes arouse and hold one’s curiosity. But these selfish, long-winded, overbearing people don’t even come close.
On the other hand, “Crash” and “Babel” proved a film with multiple stories of parallel/overlapping/concurrent or sequential events, can succeed. “Drama/Mex” gives the format a little twist. Occasionally casual, off-handed shots or comments return in unadorned flashback to clarify, expand upon, or illuminate what has been presented. For instance, while Fernanda swears away in the restaurant there’s a man at another table looking at her past the back of a young person. Is he being nosy, prying, disgusted, enticed, repulsed? Later on, we come back to discover it’s Jaime seated with Tigrillo who informs him that Fernanda is cheating on Gonzalo. This happens more than once; unfortunately this material doesn’t deserve the cleverness. Blame Gerardo Naranjo who has written a repetitious tale lacking nuance or emotional depth and, since he is the director, too, there’s no chance the scenes will be cut, as they should be for any effectiveness, in half. Was it also his choice for the film to be photographed by Tobias Datum to look carelessly washed out and gray? A mistake. If indeed this is Acapulco, Mexico it merely seems a somewhat pretty beach rather than the beautiful, natural attraction it is. Or is that the point, that in a paradise on earth, there are all manner of snakes, engaged in all manner of distasteful drama? If so, get me a ticket to Cancun. Review by Charles Zio
| LICENSE TO WED PG-13 (for sexual humor and language) Comedy/Romance
2 stars |
It doesn’t say much when the funniest bit in a romantic comedy involves the animated model “baby” dolls that have assorted liquids and gels coming out of various orifices. “License To Wed” is lacking in storyline, so there is an over-reliance on that cute effect and the actors.
The idea is that couples about to be wed by Reverend Frank (Robin Williams in a toned down performance) have to prove they belong together by going through his one-of-a-kind pre-marriage program. Of course, he tests the relationships by putting them through hell (thus the “babies”) so they are sufficiently humbled enough to take marriage seriously. He is funny---at times. But it’s an inconsistent performance. His sidekick and partner in crime is Choir Boy, played by a young teenager named Josh Flitter, who is amusing for a scene or two, then is just kind of---there, for the rest of the movie.
Mandy Moore plays the initially single Sadie Jones and is pretty and appealing as the lead, but she played a similar role in “Because I Said So” with similar results. Leading man John Krasinski (Ben Murphy) is several inches taller than the statuesque Moore, so they match that way, but there doesn’t seem to be much chemistry between the two. The supporting actors don’t add much, hard as they try. And it’s too bad because Grace Zabrinski, Peter Strauss, Roxanne Hart, Eric Christian Olsen, Christine Taylor, and DeRay Davis are an interesting group of actors.
Romantic comedies have to have an extra spark these days because the audience basically knows what’s going to happen the minute they sit down. Something funnier and more original would have helped. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
KILLED ME |
I KNOW WHO KILLED ME Rated R (for grisly violence including torture and disturbing gory images and for sexuality, nudity and language) Crime/ Drama/Thriller 105 minutes
½ star |
Television has upped the ante with all the well-done crime and forensic shows. But even by low-end movie crime/suspense/thriller standards this ranks near the bottom. There is such a disconnect in the way this movie comes across that the audience was groaning and laughing by the end when we learn the “answers.” I’m sure that was not the intent, but it is unfortunately the result.
Aubrey Fleming (Lindsay Lohan showing more skin than acting range), is a seemingly regular high school girl almost completely absorbed in her writing, which she reads out loud to her class on occasion. She goes about her life with friends and a new boyfriend, Jerrod (Brian Geraghty). Then, a classmate of Aubrey’s disappears and is found murdered in a most brutal, sadistic way. When Aubrey disappears soon after, the police suspect a serial killer. Yet, Aubrey shows up almost dead on the side of the road with the same injuries as the murdered girl: absent right hand past her wrist, right leg below the knee. The catch is that she insists she’s not Aubrey, but Dakota, a tough-talking young stripper.
No one believes she isn’t Aubrey, including her parents, Daniel and Susan Fleming (Neal McDonough trying but miscast, and--Julia Ormand? What is Julia Ormand doing in this movie?). So it seems it’s up to Aubrey/Dakota to find the solution, and she does what the police can’t, traipsing in the woods and around a spooky isolated house, as a recent double amputee yet!
The pace is way too slow as hints, clues, and red herrings are dropped here and there---between shots of gruesome torture and Ms. Lohan, as Dakota, driving the scummy guys wild with her pole dancing or having steamy sex with Jerrod. The movie has an uneven tone, silly plot contrivances, spectacularly stupid holes in logic, and less than stellar acting; not much in the way of suspense or thrills, either. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| EVENING PG-13 Drama 117 minutes
3½ stars |
Put together excellent acting and a soap opera story and what have you got? A disappointment.
The pros Vanessa Redgrave, and in cameos Meryl Streep, Eileen Atkins, Glenn Close, and Barry Bostwick, give a course in acting by demonstrating that a look, a gesture, a slight intonation can, in the right hands, express volumes. Lessons learned by Toni Collette and Natasha Richardson (doing the Redgrave pedigree proud) and being absorbed by the “youngsters” lead by Claire Danes who acquit themselves nicely with special note of Mamie Gummer uncannily resembling her mother Streep (in every way). Hugh Dancy, as the aimless/upper class/alcoholic effectively conveys charm/confusion/sympathy. The toughest role is Patrick Wilson’s (who is able enough to save it from total disaster) as the handsome/Korean War scared/doctor beloved by a number of the main characters, which is puzzling as his persona is written so vaguely it’s hard to understand why, exactly, he seems to be the “It Boy” of Newport.
And now that it’s been alluded to – the script. Written by Susan Minot (based on her book) and Michael Cunningham, if you’ve ever seen a soap opera, read a romance novel, or watched an old weepie (what used to be called “a woman’s picture”) you know what’s coming and what to expect. (All right, in a sentence – “Evening alternates between a dying, old woman in the present and her past memories of young love. Ugh!) There’s little contribution from director Lajos Koltai (though no real damage either). On the other hand, Gyula Pados’ photography is sometimes striking and/or effectively moody.
“Evening” is one of those movies you leave thinking “if only they had __________________ (fill in as appropriate).” Given the money, the time, the talent, and the fact the moviemakers obviously cared it’s a shame when the results are pretty much for nought. No matter what time of day. Charles Zio
| EVAN ALMIGHTY PG for mild rude humor and some peril) Comedy/ Fantasy 90 minutes
3 stars |
It is reasonable to expect that the most expensive comedy ever made ($175 million!) would be funny. Although “Evan Almighty” has other merits, hilarity is not one of them. Steve Carell does his best (which is good indeed) as a pretentious news anchor elected to the House of Representatives and recruited by a corrupt politician, Congressman Long (John Goodman, skillfully alternating twixt sincerity and venality), to aid him in a land grab. Evan’s mantra “I’m successful, powerful, handsome, and happy” falls by the wayside once his prayer to the Lord for help on making good on his campaign pledge to “Change The World,” is answered.
God, in the person of Morgan Freeman (appealingly bemused/assured/wise), assigns Evan the task of building an ark. Evan tries to resist but ongoing deliveries of supplies and tools for ark building, physical changes (why these are essential is unclear aside from lending a biblical look), and an increasing menagerie of animals (in pairs of course) tracking his every move, finally convince a befuddled Evan to do God’s bidding. Unfortunately, even his understanding wife Joan (the irresistible Lauren Graham) has doubts and thinks it best to leave with her three sons in tow. Don’t worry, God intercedes and the family returns and along with various non-human assistance the ark is completed in time to avoid a catastrophe.
Overall, many positive messages are affirmed – faith, goodness, religion, the family, the environment, the triumph of good over evil, etc. It’s all heart warming and affirmative. But in the humor department, it must be repeated, mostly just amusing. The genuine laughs (unfortunately too few) come courtesy of the delightful Wanda Sykes (as Evan’s sassy, no nonsense executive assistant). The script by Steve Oedekerk is not inspired but director Tom Shadyac smartly keeps the film moving and thankfully an hour and a half (which is definitely long enough). Ian Baker’s cinematography is clean and controlled as is the editing by Scott Hill. And yes, the animal shots are dandy. There seems little reason this movie wasn’t made for a great deal less and shown on the Disney Channel. In terms of future “Almightys” – no please. Review by Charles Zio
| A MIGHTY HEART R for language and some peril) Drama/History/Thriller 100 minutes
3½ stars |
This is ultimately a very moving film, but difficult to watch for a long stretch at the beginning. Most people are familiar with the story of journalist Daniel Pearl's death as chronicled by his wife, Mariane Pearl, also a journalist, when she was five months pregnant. That is why the film is so detailed, but also what hinders the audience from connecting on an emotional level. Perhaps more of "Danny" at the start of the film would have helped instead of snapshots as Mariane remembers her missing husband as she goes through the aftermath of his kidnapping.
We meet Daniel and Mariane, an intelligent, happy couple about to leave Kurachi, Pakistan the next day, after Daniel does one last dangerous interview. He's assured he will be alright as long as he meets the person in a public place. When he doesn't return that night, Mariane immediately goes into emergency mode. That's when the frenzy begins and all kinds of people show up at the house of her friend, Asra Nomani (an impressive Archie Panjabi), where Mariane is staying.
I'm sure the chaos that follows is very close to what happened. For the viewer, though, it's difficult to keep track of who's who, as more and more people become involved in trying to find Daniel. There are so many shaky hand held shots on crowded streets or in front of the house that can the viewer can get dizzy. Ironically, it is after Daniel's death that the film slows down enough for the audience to take in the whole of Mariane's tragedy.
As Mariane, Angelina Jolie is the focus of the film and is absolutely terrific. The acting by the rest of the ensemble cast is very good as well. It is a sad but important story. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| YOU KILL ME R for language and some violence) Comedy/Thriller 92 minutes
3½ stars |
If “You Kill Me” were about five or ten minutes shorter and a little less underplayed it would have been a gem. As it is, it’s interesting and unusual and for that alone deserves a pat on the back.
Ben Kingsley is Frank, an alcoholic killer for a Polish mob in Buffalo, New York, under the auspices of his uncle Roman (Philips Baker Hall, forceful and authoritative). After failing to eliminate the gang’s rival O’Leary (Dennis Farina, glib and ruthless), Frank is sent to San Francisco to dry out. He gets a part time job (at which he quickly excels) in a funeral parlor and meets Laurel (Téa Leoni, quirky and charming) while being mentored (via AA) by Tom (Luke Wilson, sympathetic and down-to-earth). Now, this is not your everyday movie plot and that’s due to a script by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely that focuses on character and motivation and doesn’t aim for fireworks (the bloodshed is not graphic yet still has impact).
John Dahl, the director, assisted by Jeffery Jur, photography, keeps the palette dark and shadowy (even daylight shots of San Francisco seem bleached out) and there is a pervading sense of the unexpected, foreboding, and ominous. In short, you don’t know exactly what is going to happen next and as you get to know and like the characters you hope against hope it won’t be fatal.
Ben Kingsley is a pleasure to watch, though he underplays a bit too much. He’s a cool/level-headed/business-like killer and, along with the numbing effects of drink, his reactions are subdued and quiet. Though it’s a fine portrait, it makes him seem almost unequal (despite his profession) to Leoni, as a cynical, take charge woman who’s not intimidated or easily defeated by whatever life throws her way.
“You Kill Me” is a good, little film and a nice change from big, loud, splashy summer fare. It’s short of a home run but more than respectable. If you’d like to see something a bit different and don’t go with outsized expectations, you might find director Dahl’s movie to your liking. Review by Charles Zio
THE RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER |
THE FANTASTIC FOUR: THE RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER PG (for sequences of action violence, some mild language and innuendo) Action/Adventure/ Fantasy/Sci-Fi 92 minutes
3½ stars |
Like a number of releases so far this summer, this movie owes much of its appeal to special effects. Based on the comic book series, it has four characters with different super powers who work together. Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd) is the brilliant scientist whose limbs can stretch in all directions. This comes in handy when people or things are falling so he can reach out and grab them. There is a sister and brother, Sue (Jessica Alba) and Johnny (Chris Evans) Storm. She can be invisible and push or hold off objects from a distance. He turns into a fireball and flies around. The non-human looking character is Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis) a hulk who appears to be made entirely of rock. He, of course, is all brute strength and physical power.
You get the idea. This is meant to be cartoon-like fun. Amidst the absurdity, it does have a storyline that is not difficult to follow. Quite simply, the Fantastic Four must save the world. The key to this is the Silver Surfer (Doug Jones) who has been creating havoc all over the earth as he speeds along on his surfboard. The Four’s rival Victor Von Doom (Julian McMahon) shows up to add the necessary touch of evil needed to complicate matters and threaten them further. It may not be a great idea to question what happens too closely as this movie has its own peculiar logic.
The actors mostly carry off their roles. Ioan Gruffudd, as the group leader Mr. Fantastic, creates a sufficient balance between distracted scientist and social nerd. Chris Evans’ Johnny is brash and good-looking with a tendency toward superficiality and sarcasm. The costume Michael Chiklis wears limits what he can do physically, yet Doug Jones is surprisingly expressive as the semi-animated Surfer. Jessica Alba is adequate as Sue, but spends too much time pouting like a spoiled teen.
At least the director, Tim Story, moves things along at a quick pace. As mentioned, the special effects are excellent. If you are or were a comic book fan, or just like this kind of action/fantasy summer movie (or have children who do), “The Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer” will be an amusing diversion. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| LA VIE EN ROSE FOREIGN FILM - France/UK/Czech Republic PG-13 (for substance abuse sexual content, brief nudity language, and thematic elements) Biography/Drama/Music 140 minutes
4 stars out of 5 |
For anyone curious about/interested in/or a fan of Edith Piaf, the film you’ve been waiting for has arrived, especially in the person of Marion Clotillard. While the lack of subtitles for the songs is a drawback to a fuller appreciation, the tumult of Piaf’s life and the power and feeling in her voice are front and center.
Let me mention the award-worthy actress again – Marion Clotillard. How masterful is she? Consider Edith was called “The Little Sparrow” being a delicate 4’8” while Marion is a foot taller, and yet you believe she’s also small and fragile. Part of this effect is due to the cleverness of director Olivier Dahan and the skill of cinematographer Tetsuo Nagata in the shot angles and compositions used to frame and present Piaf (e.g., having her seated and others standing above). But this alone wouldn’t be sufficient without the skill, deserving high praise, of Clotillard. Playing Piaf from her teenage years through her early death (exuberant youth to physically ravaged), she is completely convincing in conveying the impetuousness, stubbornness, and vulnerability of a woman with a gift to sing. And the voice and songs are Piaf’s herself (wise, since how to imitate an original?) and here again Clotillard is masterful giving no hint of lip-synching.
Piaf is a French icon whose story is familiar to her countrymen but not to Americans. Dahan, writing the script as well as directing (well done in both regards), has attempted to highlight a life that’d be melodramatic if it weren’t true – abandoned by her mother a street singer, father a circus contortionist, spent years in grandmother’s brothel, temporarily blinded, and that’s merely childhood. The movie careens randomly from present to past and episode to incident (drink, drugs, lovers, friends, mentors, leeches) suggesting Piaf’s state of mind nearing her end. The supporting actors are all fine but unfamiliar aside from Gerard Depardieu (as Louis Leplee who discovers and names “Piaf”) and the production designer Olivier Raoux who does an excellent job.
“La Vie en Rose” was Piaf’s greatest hit and the rendition in the movie is in English from an American visit and is delightful (that she had found at the time the love of her life in French boxing champion Marcel Cerdan (Jean-Pierre Gassion) didn’t hurt). The other songs are sadly not subtitled except for the last “Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien” (“No, I Regret Nothing”), the summation and culmination of a life lived, despite all, to the fullest. Thanks to Marion Clotillard, Piaf lives and reigns once more. Review by Charles Zio
| OCEAN'S THIRTEEN PG-13 for brief sensuality Comedy/Crime/Drama 122 minutes
3 stars out of 5 |
“Ocean’s Thirteen” is like a very private party you’ve been allowed to attend. You may be in the room but you’re limited to watching as the members of the club have the fun. If you’re lucky you get a chuckle or two. A poor return on investment.
Simply told (because there’s not much to it), Danny’s old mentor Reuben has suffered a heart attack after being scammed out of his share of the newest, most elegant hotel/casino in Vegas by bad guy Willy Bank and Ocean gathers his pals to exact revenge by bankrupting the establishment. Of course, their various plans are burdened (so they claim) by difficulties, if not impossibilities. And yet the guys, with the seeming greatest of ease, quickly manage to hurdle every single roadblock. The result is nary a drop of suspense as there isn’t a scintilla of doubt all the elements will fall into place (which also relieves one from the necessity to pay attention, whatsoever, to the pesky details of the operation). So, the scheme succeeds, Reuben is restored to health and wealth, Willy and his cold sidekick, Abigail, get their comeuppance, and Ocean and his cronies are free to be grifters another day (oh-oh).
The great appeal of the Ocean movies, and it’s no secret, is the cast. George Clooney (Danny Ocean) is firmly planted at the corner of Charm and Likeability. Brad Pitt (Rusty Ryan) is smooth and knowing. Matt Damon (Linus Caldwell) is the tenacious striver. Al Pacino as the heavy (Willy Bank) effectively underplays (and amusingly kids himself). Elliott Gould (Reuben) does nicely with a cameo that doesn’t call for much range. Ellen Barkin (Abigail), Andy Garcia (Terry), Don Cheadle (Basher), and all the rest do well with the small moments they are given in their small roles. That the cast is entertaining is attested by the fact the movie, running almost two hours, doesn’t seem quite that long though you’re not engrossed by the action. Steven Soderbergh has directed as best he can and he does a fine job as the cinematographer (named Peter Andrews in the credits).
It’s obvious time and money has been lavished on “Ocean’s Thirteen” and the actors uniformly declared they had a good time during the filming. For the viewer, though, it’s a great deal of setup and too little payoff. Review by Charles Zio
of the CARRIBEAN: At World's End |
MPAA Rating PG-13 (for intense sequences of action/adventure violence and some frightening images) Action/Adventure/Comedy/Fantasy Runtime 168 minutes
4 stars out of 5 |
This film is a wild ride, and I don’t mean the kind at Disney Amusement Parks. Like the other sequels so far this season, it has a bad case of too-much-itis. Writers Ted Elliot and Terry Russio created a clever yarn that seemed to have gone somewhat astray with the first sequel in 2006. This second sequel brings back more heart, but more of everything else, too.
The plot is a maze of double, triple, and quadruple-crosses with all the characters out for his/her own purposes. It seems the pirates’ enemies, namely the British (who want their booty and their special powers) and Davy Jones and company (who want their souls for eternity) are trying to wipe out the pirates for good. This sets in motion the convoluted plots and subplots that bring old adversaries together to join forces against them, and at different times, each other.
Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) dies at the end of the last movie, but of course, we get him back again here, as we do Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) who died in the first but was resurrected at the end of the second (ya follow?). One character says of Jack Sparrow, “...does he make this up as he goes along?” Exactly what I was thinking. But since the film is smart enough to make fun of itself, you can’t take the nonsense too seriously, either, because coherence is pretty much out the window.
Johnny Depp is back in good form this time around after being a bit too cowardly and sociopathic for my taste last year. He actually has to fight his enemies and take leadership instead of causing trouble then running away so others can clean up his mess. Geoffrey Rush has a knack for making the unbelievable believable and adds much needed substance to the film. Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly are adequate again as the beautiful people/young lovers as evidenced by the fact that they’re the only ones with white, unstained, gross teeth. Bill Nighy has a good turn as Davy Jones, as does Stellan Skarsgard as Will Turner’s dead barnacled father Bill Turner. Others that add fun to the weird mix of pirates: Chow Yun-Fat, Lee Arenberg, Mackenzie Crook, Kevin NcNally, and Naomie Harris as Tia Dalma, now Calypso---don’t ask. The non-pirate types providing good performances include Jonathan Pryce, Jack Davenport, and Tom Hollander. Keith Richard makes his expected cameo as Captain Teague, Jack’s father, but it’s an oddly lackluster showing.
The real spectacular delights are provided by the special effects, visual effects, art department, make-up, costumes, stunts, and photography.
So, although the movie is way too long and story too long-winded and absurd, it does ultimately provide a satisfying ride. Just be prepared to hold on so you don’t get seasick. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| MPAA Rating PG (for some crude humor suggestive content and swashbuckling action) Animation/Comedy/Fantasy Runtime 92 minutes
3½ stars out of 5 |
Some laughs, a message of self-acceptance, high-quality animation and, if we’re lucky, the end of this series that’s run its course.
The plot is simple. The king is dying and Shrek, through his wife Fiona, is the heir though he doesn’t want the position (preferring his swamp). The only other candidate is Arthur Pendragon (nicknamed “Artie”), Fiona’s cousin who appears to be a hopeless dolt. In the meantime, Prince Charming enlists a bar full of villains to stage a coup. You can pretty much guess the details since the movie isn’t all that original. Also, most of the humor feels stale and jokey, primarily forced and imposed rather than clever and witty. The authors, in fact, seem to be trying too hard (for the record – Jeffery Price, Peter S. Seaman, Chris Miller, Aron Warner, based on a story by Andrew Adamson and the book by William Steig).
What buoys the film, as in the past, are the voices of Mike Myers (Shrek), Eddie Murphy (Donkey), and Antonio Banderas (Puss in Boots) with able assists from Cameron Diaz (Fiona), Rupert Everett (Prince Charming), and Justin Timberlake (Artie). Other celebrity vocals make cameos and there are some funny moments and the first song over the end credits is lively and a crowd pleaser. Chris Miller, the director and one of the writers, does the best he can, although more imagination would have helped, and anyway there’s a limit to what can be done with the material.
Of course, kudos to the animators and tech guys. The result is visually arresting and a pleasure to behold. And, once more, the lesson of self-acceptance is valuable for everyone, especially to the youngsters in the audience. Still, after watching “Shrek the Third” the question occurred – “Was this movie necessary?” Sadly, the answer is - not really. Review by Charles Zio
SECOND CHANCE FILM SERIES |
CHARLOTTE FILM FESTIVAL: SECOND CHANCE FILM SERIES Not Rated College of Education Building UNC-Charlotte June 14, 2007 |
Several films from last fall's Charlotte FIlm Festival were recently presented at UNC-Charlotte with help from the Department of Languages and Cultures (chaired by Prof. Robert Reimer). More films from the 2006 Festival will be shown this year: "Expiration Date" and "Speechless" on July 17 at Ballantyne Village Theatre and "Encounter Point" and "Bjorn" on August 9 at the Light Factory.
On June 14, "The Tragedy of Glady," by Karrie Crouse, was screened. This 20 minute student film from North Carolina School of the Arts is a delightfully dark comedy about a teen obsessed with fantasies of death. She imagines her parents as victims of a bloody suicide, takes a toaster to her own bath for the same purpose, and offends her best friend Claire by claiming that her little brother has been mauled by the family dog. Yet the film takes an even darker turn at the end, when Claire is lost--and not just as a friend--showing a tragic side to the teen temptation of toying with death.
"Perils in Nude Modeling," by Scott Rice, was also shown. This 10 minute film builds in erotic and comic intensity, with a Kafka-esque view of a sadistic art teacher and his sweating students, as they make quick renderings of a nude model, while competing (like on many TV game shows) not to be the next one sent out of the room. And yet, a personal connection develops between one student and his model, beyond art's objectifying of beauty.
A full length film, "Approaching Union Square," by Mark Meyers, was the last one screened that night. In a series of monologues, various characters show their fears, passions, and joys in contemporary New York (with brief responses from others). This culminates when they meet as strangers on a city bus, while trying to help one character who's fainting, just before a disastrous explosion somewhere offscreen, which she had been feeling in advance. In fact, the film begins with this character talking with her shrink about how she can "sense tragedy before it happens." It then shows a man telling others in group therapy about his sex addiction, a girl in a bar telling her friends about a boy she met on the subway and started dating, an Italian actor telling a student journalist about his luck in America with TV and women, young men after a basketball game talking about whether to visit a girl they know in the hospital, and so on. Each of these slices of life, more theatrical than cinematic, involve fine acting with much feeling, tinged with issues of loneliness and death.
So, if you missed the many fine works in last year's Charlotte Film Festival, you have a "second chance" to catch a few more in the next two months. And then, be sure not to miss the new works in the 2007 Festival this September. Review by Mark Pizzato
EXPLORING ANIMATION |
NODA FILM FESTIVAL: EXPLORING ANIMATION Not Rated Neighborhood Theater June 10-13, 2007 |
This summer, NoDa's free film festival brought many fantastic animations to the Neighborhood Theater's screen. Sunday's showing of crazy cartoons, of The Fabulous Baron Munchausen, and of creative claymations had small audiences, but many more viewers appeared for the anime, foreign films, and "cutting edge" works on Monday through Wednesday nights.
The Munchausen movie, by Karel Zeman (1961), is an engaging fantasy that melds live actors with two-dimensional cut-outs and three-dimensional scenes. A modern moon walker discovers a group of 18th-century men there, but then travels back to earth (and back in time) to partake in the Baron's adventures and steal his princess. It's especially interesting for those who know the more elaborate film by Terry Gilliam, which this one inspired.
The various foreign shorts shown on Tuesday were also inspiring, perhaps to future filmmakers in the Charlotte audience. My favorite was the Italian cartoon of a triangular shaped face and stick figure, who pumps up various other colored shapes to create a beach, women on it, fish to eat, a shark in the ocean, a car and its road, plus many other things, some of which he pulls the plug on--to deflate.
Also shown that night was an amazing Czech rendition of Alice in Wonderland, by Jan Svankmajer (1989), that had to be seen to be believed--or maybe not, even then. It mixes a live actress, playing the little girl, Alice, with multiple eruptions of fantasy figures, coming alive from stuffed animals and ordinary objects, yet following the narrative of the Lewis Carroll text. While Alice watches, a stuffed rabbit inside a glass display case in her room springs to life, breaks out of the glass, pulls a pocket watch out of its open chest, licks it off to see the time, becomes concerned that it's "late," and runs off. Alice follows it, of course. The rabbit's sawdust stuffing is falling out, so it sews part of the hole in its chest and eats more sawdust from a bowl. Alice continues to follow it and fall into more adventures, going through several small desk drawers, as well as many small and large doors. Each time she opens a drawer, she pulls the handle off and falls backward, then pries the drawer open and reaches in or climbs in, sometimes getting sucked into another world, or pricking her finger on the compass inside.
She meets ever stranger creatures: sock worms that burrow through holes in the floor, one of which becomes the story's caterpillar by putting on dentures to speak, and other animals with skull heads that attack Alice inside a toy-block house, including Bill the lizard, who, when cut open, is sewn up again by the rabbit and refilled with sawdust. When Alice eats or drinks, she grows or shrinks, becoming a doll when small or a girl again when larger. At one point, she becomes a big doll and is dragged away by rabbit's animal friends. She then cuts her way out of the doll encasing her and emerges again as a girl. Alice eventually encounters the Queen and King of Hearts, as actual playing cards, along with their soldiers, whose heads the rabbit cuts off with scissors, as the Queen repeatedly commands. Thus, many of the fantastic filmic inventions here have sexual allusions--especially the sock worms, pricked finger, and periodic close-ups of Alice's mouth, when she narrates--as these details follow, yet also depart from the original Lewis Carroll story. Review by Mark Pizzato
THE LAST HANGMAN |
PIERREPONT THE LAST HANGMAN FOREIGN FILM - UK R for disturbing images, nudity, and brief sexuality) Drama 90 minutes
3½ stars out of 5 |
Albert Pierrepoint was a second generation hangman and, in his day (starting in the 1930s), was ranked the best in England. This movie, based on his life and subtitled “The Last Hangman,” is thoughtful and raises serious issues but, ultimately, lacks impact.
Albert Pierrepoint took to his profession without hesitation. Why not? He was a happily married, pub singing, good chap merely earning a living and those eliminated were receiving legal punishment (dismissing any need to reflect on the merits of their cases). And, too, he believed that once dispatched, the deceased returned to a state of innocence. With these tenets Albert suffered neither guilt nor conscience. After World War II he was chosen by Field Marshall Montgomery to carry out his duties on Nazi prisoners and, upon discovery, was hailed a hero on his return from Germany. His wife, Anne, took the opportunity to use their savings to open a pub lifted to success by her husband’s new reputation.
Still, remorse has a way of catching up. Over 20+ years, Albert entered the waiting room/shackled the hands/marched to the hanging cell/came face-to-face/covered heads/pulled the lever/lowered bodies/stripped and cleaned remains/and saw into their coffins hundreds of people. To be precise – 608. For Albert, and society, out of sight was out of mind. Even more, unspoken was unreal. Until, finally, he is confronted by a pleading victim’s mother, decried by protestors, denounced for having blood on his hands, and confronted with his most difficult execution (a personal one).
Timothy Spall gives a most convincing performance as a man capable of compartmentalizing his feelings and being stunned when forced to face his actions. Juliet Stevenson is very effective as sweet, ambitious Anne overlooking her spouse’s career because of its financial benefits. Of note also is Eddie Marsan as Albert’s best friend Tish. The script by Jeff Page and Bob Mills and direction by Adrian Shergold are lucid and efficient.
“The Last Hangman” raises many questions - the merits of capital punishment, justice and its miscarriage, denial, self-deception, acquiescence, and, the word Albert cites, revenge. But no answer is suggested as to the true source of Albert’s regret and this in turn insulates the viewer, like the man himself, from larger considerations. Anne insisted she and Albert not talk about “it.” And neither do we. Review by Charles Zio
| MOVING MIDWAY Documentary Not Rated Approximately 98 minutes |
The Light Factory brings a truly unique Southern story to Charlotte in “Moving Midway”, the second in the “Best of Full Frame” from the Full Frame Documentary Festival in Durham, North Carolina (April 12-15, 2007). Written and directed by Raleigh native Godfrey Cheshire, it is about literally moving the plantation house his family built in 1848 to a new location. Yet, the journey encompasses so much more.
Mr. Cheshire’s cousin, Charlie Silver, who has inherited the plantation, has to make a decision since traffic, stores, parking lots, and modern life are changing what the plantation used to be—--a retreat for the extended Hinton family. Typically this is a more difficult situation for the older generation who better remember the glory days, and sense of time, place, and position of the family in the community. How the move affects the writer/director and other family members, forcing a re-examination of their 400 year history in America as well as that of the “old South” is an appealing, polished, moving tale with some surprising outcomes.
The film picks up energy as Godfrey finds Robert Hinton, a black Associate Director of Africana Studies at New York University who believes his grandfather, Dempsey Hinton, was born a slave at Midway Plantation around 1860, making him kin to Godfrey and family. Mr. Hinton, a dignified but pragmatic man, injects a dose of reality to the sometimes wistful “memories” about the genteel life of master/slave that existed on plantations. One of the family members insists that they must have treated their slaves well because they were and are such “nice” people. But well-treated slaves are still slaves all the same.
To his credit, Mr. Cheshire narrates his thoughts and feelings about the move and the implications of the family history, but also provides multiple view points even when it is not necessarily the most flattering portrait of the speaker. Yet, all those interviewed on camera come across as authentic individuals.
Technically, the documentary is well-paced with just the right amount of narration by Mr. Cheshire, interviews, history, film clips of how Hollywood has portrayed the South (Mr. Cheshire is a well-known film critic), and interesting footage of the orchestration of the move itself. The cinematography is never intrusive, has a good mix of shots, and allows the viewer to watch the action without overshadowing the narrative. The editing is also to be commended as many hours of footage must have been winnowed down and shaped into its present form, deciding what is and isn’t crucial to the storyline.
Mr. Cheshire graciously answered questions after the showing and was open to all comments from the audience. Obviously, he cares deeply about this project and his family, and has made a fine documentary illuminating not only the changes forced on his family by modern life, but the often complex relationships that are helping create a New South rather than a fabricated one. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| RADIANT CITY Canada Documentary Not Rated Approximately 90 minutes |
You have to give it to The Light Factory. They bring Charlotte audiences interesting, quirky films you wouldn’t see here otherwise. At the Knight Gallery last night (June 7) they showed a “documentary” from the Full Frame Documentary Festival in Durham, North Carolina (April 12-15, 2007). Titled “Radiant City,” it is ostensibly about the Moss family and their move out to a suburban maze in Calgary, Canada. In the never-ending quest for a better life are we destroying our sense of community in service of isolated bigger homes far outside the urban environment?
The film is surprisingly funny. As each of the family members, father Evan, mother Jane, adolescent son Nick, and eleven year old Jennifer give his/her impressions of moving out of their safe, comfortable older home to a brand new larger one, the definite impression is that Mom takes the hit for this one. Interspersed between the monologues are comments from experts: architects, writers, professors, and disturbing facts about modern life, i.e. 80% of everything built in North America has been built in the last 50 years.
Words like “disaggregate” and “redensification” come at the audience like bullets to dodge, but the appeal of the family, especially Nick, and the everyday problems of getting in and out of their self-imposed prison is at the heart of the film. The car-dominated culture of the suburbs forces Mom to drive three kids to all their various activities and lessons. Dad has to drive two hours a day back and forth to work, and his participation in a play (which sparked the idea for the film) ticks off Mom. The daughter has her gymnastic classes four days a week and the family travels, yet again, to competitions on weekends. Nick’s dry humor and search for plain old fun with his friends among the dirt of unfinished construction sites clearly shows adolescent energy with no good outlet.
The clever device of using cartoon-like title sequences, shaky hand-held outdoor shots to remind the audience of the nature of documentaries, and sped-up scenes of blurred cars on highways, helps hide the surprise at the end, which is that the suburbanites we’ve been watching are all---actors. Yes, they all live in suburbs and have first hand knowledge of the lifestyle, but they are not the people we’ve come to know. That they give their take on the topic shows they were active participants in the project. Whether this is truly a documentary, then, is another subject.
At the talkback after the film run by Wendy Fishman, Director of Film & Video for The Light Factory, astute audience members did not seem to be caught off guard or resent the actor switch. The discussion was more about issues we all deal with...what is the best environment for us as individuals, and as a society, to enhance living a productive and fulfilling life? Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| MPAA Rating R (for strong bloody violence, some graphic sexual content, nudity and language.) Crime/Drama/Thriller 120 minutes
4 stars out of 5 |
Popular business owner Earl Brooks (Kevin Costner) is chosen “Man of the Year.” He’s also a serial killer. The film gets right to it as he murders a young couple in their bedroom the very night he wins the award. The plot and subplots are inventive and complex, not difficult to follow, and often surprising in their outcomes. The story is not rushed as the tension builds naturally when the body count starts to rise.
There is a clever device used to give the audience information about what Mr. Brooks is thinking. Another persona called Marshall (William Hurt), who can only be seen and heard by Mr. Brooks, pops up periodically and has discussions, and even arguments with him as Mr. Brooks tries unsuccessfully to curb his compulsions. It’s not entirely accurate to call him an alter ego since only Mr. Brooks can see and hear him, and it’s not a case of split personality since Earl is quite lucid during the meticulously planned murders. It is especially helpful in moments when the character is vulnerable, making him more recognizable as human and not a killing-machine cliché. This mechanism, more familiar in plays, is a variation of getting facts across to the audience by having someone talk to a psychiatrist, cop, friend, co-worker, only more interesting.
Mr. Brooks is not only an “organized” killer, in crime speak parlance, he is so thorough he takes photos of the victims, perves on them for a while then burns them. He is also able to travel the city unnoticed, enter people’s apartments like a ghost, go out of town in disguises, move people’s furniture without their knowledge, all as he is in total control. He may be one of the most sinister killers ever on screen, making the point that these are not crimes of passion, but well-thought out, cold-blooded hits. His only affections seem to be for his wife Emma (Marg Helgenberger), and daughter Jane (Danielle Panabaker).
Of course, one thing Mr. Brooks didn’t plan on is that a certain “Mr. Smith” (Dane Cook) takes photos from his apartment across the street as he offs the two young lovers, then attempts to blackmail Earl into teaching him to kill for the thrill. Mr. Smith thinks the photos give him a one-up advantage over Mr. Brooks. He would be wrong.
Meanwhile, Demi Moore plays Detective Tracy Atwood who has knowledge of the killer’s MO and wants to get him—-bad. She’s tied up in a nasty divorce with her leech of a husband, though, and has to pay him off or sit at a desk. Meanwhile, another criminal she put away is after her. This loops back to her when Mr. Brooks uses it to try to get her off the case, permanently.
Kevin Costner effectively strikes the right balance of evil and remorse. The weasely Mr. Smith is well-played by Dane Cook. William Hurt is the perfect choice for Marshall as his quiet voice and measured malevolence encourages Earl.
I do have a complaint. As much as the male characters are developed and layered, can we please have women who are something other than GI Jane Amazons or simpleton homebodies? Marg Helgenberger is a vibrant, engaging actor and capable of more than the few crumbs given here. Demi Moore, in a familiar performance, is pretty much given a shrill one-note cop to contend with, as is Lindsay Crouse as Captain Lister. Danielle Panabaker’s role as the daughter Jane is probably the most questionable of all (through no fault of her own). The women characters in this film, the actors, and the audience, deserve better. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| MPAA Rating R (for some strong violence sexuality, nudity, language and drug use) Drama/Horror/Thriller Runtime 102 minutes
4 stars out of 5 |
The grimy, gritty underside of life is far from pleasant. So is this movie. But there is something to be said for dramatizing a descent into madness. Adapted by Tracy Letts from his stage play, “Bug” tells the story of Agnes (Ashley Judd), a woman so damaged, desperate, and cornered by life that she gets drawn into someone else’s paranoid delusions. That someone is Peter (Michael Shannon) who Agnes first meets and pities as a pathetic loner. As their relationship develops, bugs start to “appear” with ever alarming frequency.
The pacing in the film is extremely important in order to believe these two sorry individuals could get to the final act of madness. The director, William Friedkin, an expert at exploring the dark recesses of humanity, achieves the same feat with this film.
The acting by this small cast is well-done. Although Ashley Judd is a bit young for the role, she throws herself fearlessly into the part. Michael Shannon is believable and truly frightening. Harry Connick, Jr. could be more intimidating, and looks a bit too clean-cut as Agnes’ abusive ex-husband, especially since he’s just coming out of prison. As Agnes’ lesbian waitress co-worker, Lynn Collin avoids making the role a cliché. Brian F. O’Byrne as the mysterious Dr. Sweet adds an interesting subtle menacing touch.
The subject matter of this intense, dark film will not be for everyone, including the extreme manifestations of the delusions (however horrid). But make no mistake, whatever the feeling about the way this particular story plays out; the consequences of untreated mental illness are very real. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| Foreign Film - Canada Rating PG-13 Drama/Romance Runtime 110 minutes
4 stars out of 5 |
The young Canadian actress/writer/director, Sarah Polley, adapted the short story “The Bear Came Over the Mountain” by Alice Munro into this screenplay. As such, the film brings literary aspects to the screen we don’t usually see as it takes its time, uses lyrical language, visual symbolism, and takes on a serious subject with insight.
Fiona (a still beautiful Julie Christie) and Grant (the sad-eyed Gordon Pinset), a sophisticated, literate couple in their 60s, have been married forty-four years. It seems like another comfortable day in retirement as they come back to their large, comfortable county home after cross country skiing. They make small talk, laugh over dinner, and begin to clean up. Grant hands Fiona a frying pan to put away. She hesitates; she looks around, and then puts it in the freezer. And so begins the journey that everyone fears and no one wants to take. Alzheimer’s Disease is causing Fiona to “disappear” as she acknowledges one night at dinner with friends when she can’t pronounce the word “wine.”
Grant sets in motion the torturous process of watching the woman he loves so desperately slip from his grasp. We empathize as he is left to make decisions that will ensure his loneliness when he puts her in a facility for patients with Alzheimer’s Disease. When Grant sees Fiona next, she has created a care-taking bond with another, almost inert patient, Aubrey (well-played by Michael Murphy), and doesn’t recognize Grant. The no-nonsense administrator Madeleine (crisply played by Wendy Crewson), and the helpful nurse (warmly played by Kristen Thomson) try to help him come to terms with his loss. Grant finds Fiona deteriorating when Aubrey’s wife Marian (Olympia Dukakis in another sharp portrait) has taken him home from the facility.
These are the essential facts of the story, but so much more makes this film a small gem: the sweeping, snowy landscapes that mirror the isolation of Gordon’s life, his observation of families trying to make connections with loved ones who don’t know them anymore, his desperate attempt to have Fiona acknowledge him as her husband. What makes this last situation all the more poignant is that there have been betrayals in the marriage that cannot be addressed or fixed. No matter how much we love someone, or try to right a wrong, possession of another person, body and soul, is not possible.
Julie Christie’s performance is impressive especially since her put-together looks in the opening conflict with the building confusion in her mind. She looks absolutely luminous in some shots, so it’s easy to see how her husband could be in denial. Gordon Pinset as the heart-broken distraught husband hits all the right notes.
Sarah Polley obviously has great respect for the literary aspects of the short story. There is a problem, though. It was published in late 1999, and the issue of placing an Alzheimer’s patient in a facility and not being able to see him/her for thirty days is an out-dated one. This is necessary for the plot to unfold, but I find it disturbing for those watching who may not have experience with the disease.
Despite this flaw this is a sensitively made, touching, achingly realistic view of a subject that probably would not have been able to get funding in the US. That is too bad for American filmmaking, but how terrific that Sarah Polley has been able to bring this film to appreciative audiences. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| MPAA Rating PG-13 (for sexual content, language and thematic elements) Comedy/Romance Runtime 107 minutes
3½ stars out of 5 |
“Waitress” is sweet. Too sweet. But its gentleness and humanity are admirable making the real life tragic death of its writer/director Adrienne Shelly still sadder. Though the movie isn’t an outright success, it shows Shelly as a fine actress and a promising filmmaker.
“Waitress” is the unmistakable offspring of “Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore” and its television incarnation “Alice.” In this version, Jenna (a touching and irresistible Keri Russell) is everyone’s level-headed best friend dreaming of a better life. Becky (Cheryl Hines warmly appealing) is the older, sarcastic, heart of gold realist. Dawn (Adrienne Shelly acting in addition to writing/directing) is the sad sack, insecure, gentle loser. And Cal (Lew Temple humanizing the grouchy boss) gives us the brusque, but underneath kindly, manager. They’re a very nice bunch of people. As is Old Joe, the rich elderly guy who owns the diner and reads Jenna like a book, thankfully portrayed without sentimentality by Andy Griffith, and Ogie, Dawn’s nerdy pursuer who Eddie Jemison saves from stereotype by infusing him with sincerity and devotion. Gosh darn it if everyone, no matter how remotely glimpsed, in this Southern town isn’t down right good folk!
Except, of course, there has to be a snake and that would be Earl, Jenna’s controlling/selfish/threatening husband played to the hilt, with a fine moment of vulnerability, by Jeremy Sisto. His worst offense is having gotten Jenna pregnant, the final dashing of her cherished plan to escape him. With no joy whatsoever at impending motherhood she goes to her family doctor. Lo and behold, there’s a new one in town. Namely, Dr. Jim Pomatter invested by Nathan Fillion with utmost charm, likeability, and amusingly futile attempts to hide his feelings behind professional patter (which never fail to ignite Jenna’s passion). How could an affair not ensue for this wonderful couple?
Before closing mention must be made of a humorous device - the diner serves only pies, both entrees and deserts (mouth wateringly shot by Matthew Irving), which Jenna daydreams into existence and names for happenings in her everyday life. This is a prime example of the whimsy and fairy tale touches to be found in “Waitress.” Oh heck, might as well say it – the movie goes down pretty easy even though it’s ultimately unfulfilling because, yeah I’ll say it again, this movie is sweet, sweet, sweet. Review by Charles Zio
| MPAA Rating PG-13 (for sequences of intense action violence) Action/Adventure/Sci-Fi Runtime 140 minutes
4 stars out of 5 |
Tobey Maguire is again, and reliably, Peter Parker, in college, still smart, and still picked on (though why he puts up with it now as a superhero remains unanswered). Of course, he’s still in love with Mary Jane Watson and let it be said Kirsten Dunst continues to play her with a hint of tartness amid the apple pie sweetness deserving of exploration at some point. As is the case with Peter this go round when his dark side is unleashed by a creeping black thingamabob that crashes to earth, takes him over, and emphasizes his aggressive tendencies, both physical and egotistical. This is a favorite ploy – the evil twin of the superhero – and Maguire pulls it off, also, it’s humorous to watch the behavior of the nerd who thinks he’s become a cool guy.
While Peter is indulging himself, he ignores Mary Jane whose dream of Broadway stardom is dashed and she briefly turns to Harry Osborn (James Franco, convincing once more, as bad/good/bad/good) still nursing a grudge, falsely held, against Spider-Man for killing his father, the Green Goblin. Still around are Aunt May (Rosemary Harris managing, if barely, to keep within bounds the sugar she spoons out) and J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons making the most of his moments as the editor of The Daily Bugle). There is enough here for the third installment.
However, the script by Sam Raimi and his brother Ivan, and Alvin Sargent throw in still more. First, a rival photographer to Peter is introduced in the person of sleazy, sneaky Eddie Brock who later, after being infected, becomes the malevolent, vampiric Venom, each played to perfection by Topher Grace. Second, Flint Marko, a petty criminal/possible murderer, who morphs in/and out of the Sandman, with Thomas Hayden Church touching and sympathetic as human and less-than. Both of these guys are interesting and intriguing enough to merit a sequel of their own. In fact, it’s too much - three ongoing villains, a love story, a battle for self-knowledge and self-control.
Aside from the actors, who are very big pluses and make the film much less tedious than it might have been, are the special effects supervised by Scott Stokdyk, which are, to put it mildly, great. It’s impossible not to be impressed by, for instance, Sandman’s dissolving and reformations and those more-impressive-than-ever Spider-Man swings through the canyons of New York. And for making the city, real or imagined, and everything else look so good, a tip of the hat to cinematographer Bill Pope. Finally, “nice job” for exciting and effective editing (critical in an action film) to Bob Murawski.
Sam Raimi, in his capacity as director, actually has an embarrassment of riches (talent-wise and story-wise). Less would’ve been more, definitely. That it’s possible to sit through the movie without overly squirming is a compliment to Raimi’s ability. Though, to be honest, even being a fan of Spidey or the two previous films, some seat shifting is inevitable. After all, we’re talking a running time of 140 minutes. And, what the heck, if you miss this one, await the next. Given the expected box office – it’s inevitable. Review by Charles Zio
| MPAA Rating PG (on appeal for sequences of terror and violence and some sensuality) Thriller Runtime 104 minutes
4 stars out of 5 |
You don’t have to know “Rear Window” to appreciate “Disturbia” and, wisely, neither the director, D. J. Caruso, supplying the story, nor the writers, Christopher Landon and Carl Ellsworth, try to imitate one of Hitchcock’s best. Instead, Caruso cleanly and efficiently moves the story along and, even with familiar script elements, the result is an entertaining movie with some thrills and chills.
First off, the title, a melding of “disturb” and “suburbia,” immediately informs of “what” (upset and agitation, both internal and external) and “where” (the supposedly safe area beyond the city limits). “When” is the present day (kudos to Tom Southwell, production designer, for authentic sets and, in particular, an over the top messy bedroom). “Who” is Kale (Shia LaBeouf), an angry kid (understandably), he’s acted out (punched a teacher), and is under house arrest restricted by an ankle bracelet. Shia, a promising young actor (with an expressive face) gives a topnotch and believable performance as a nervous, brave, shy, overconfident, curious, rebellious, and aggressive teenager. Convincing, too, are Sarah Roemer as Ashley, the newly arrived (and initially spied upon) sassy/gutsy/dream girl next door, Aaron Yoo as the loyal/silly/distracted best friend, Ronnie, and Carrie-Ann Moss as Kale’s firm/loving/worried mother.
Passing the time with a pair of binoculars, Kale is at first casually suspicious and then increasingly persuaded his solitary neighbor, Mr. Turner (David Morse, effectively icy and menacing) is a serial murderer mentioned in the media and his tidy home a house of horrors. “How” Turner is unmasked (with electronics and the assistance of Ashley and, more than once, Ronnie), momentarily escapes (fooling police and Kale’s mother), and is brought to justice (in an extended, and secret revealing, confrontation) is delivered by director Caruso (assisted by editor Jim Page) in a swiftly paced and sufficient 104 minutes (if only other movies also knew when to quit). This is true even as the picture transitions from an idyllic father-son bonding, to tragedy, to suburban ennui, and concluding in a slasher flick (however bloodless). Surprisingly, it works, which is a compliment to all involved.
“Disturbia” is meant to pass the time (which it does nicely) and, therefore, one overlooks its failings – some plot holes and, most annoying, the use of a muffled/desperate voice in the climatic sequence. Still, there’s a good time to be had in the humor, snapshot of alienated suburban teens, the genuine scares, and violence that is, for a change, non-graphic. If you remember “Rear Window,” this is, at most, “Son Of.” If you haven’t ever seen it, go rent it someday. In the meantime, “Disturbia” stands, very ably, on its own. Review by Charles Zio
WENDALL BAKER STORY |
MPAA Rating R (for sexual content and some language) Comedy/Drama/Romance Runtime 113 minutes
3½ stars out of 5 |
You can’t help rooting for Wendell Baker when you meet him at the start of this movie nor cheering him at the end. The trouble is what comes between those two points.
Wendell’s appeal is centered in his portrayal by Luke Wilson who presents him as generous, sincere, sweet, and kind. For instance, when he’s caught forging Texas driver’s licenses with his buddy Reyes (Jacob Varga, low key and convincing) he asks his lawyer to insure he alone goes to prison. If Wendell has a failing it’s his inability to commit to the woman he loves, Doreen (Eva Mendes, in a lovely, warm performance), who he loses to a grocery owner (Will Ferrell, refreshingly not over the top). Upon release, Baker goes to work at Shady Grove, a retirement home where the head nurse Neil King and his accomplice McTeague (respectively Owen Wilson and Eddie Griffin equally sleazy and disreputable) run a Medicare scam. Though Neil tries to recruit him Wendell is on the side of the residents, lead by the delightfully sarcastic and horny duo of Skip Summers (Harry Dean Stanton) and Boyd Fullbright (Seymour Cassels), not to mention Kris Kristofferson as L.R. Nasher who abounds in wisdom and, it turns out, money. Everything, and that is “everything,” comes out for the best in the end and you do feel the better for it.
“The Wendell Baker Story” is a Wilson Brothers production – directed by Andrew and Luke, written and starring Luke, with Owen in a featured role. With this concentration of family involvement it’s understandable there’s a lack of objectivity to caution against jaggedly stringing together a series of scenes which, though interesting and/or effective individually, do not flow smoothly from one to another. However, there’s enough here to bring smiles, even if not grins, to the viewer’s face. The promise is here that, next time, the Wilson's will do even better. Review by Charles Zio
| MPAA Rating R (for sexual content and some language) Comedy/Drama/Romance Runtime 113 minutes
3½ stars out of 5 |
Some movies are like a pot of stew – random ingredients thrown together with the hope they’ll mix and yield a satisfying meal. Usually, because the combination is imposed rather than organically unified, the result is in the range of adequate instead of inspired. In this instance, “Georgia Rule” is a better than average, but only average nonetheless, movie.
Georgia of the title is Jane Fonda, a no-nonsense Idaho widow and mother to alcoholic Lilly (Felicity Huffman) in turn mother of rebellious Rachel (Lindsay Lohan). Here we have three generations of mother-daughter conflicts/secrets/erupting emotions/unspoken feelings. You know, the familiar subject matter to be found on any “woman’s television channel.” Luckily, the actresses are top of the line and each makes the very most of her moments (and there are many). Huffman excels at incorporating her emotional states into physical reality. Lohan is effective in her gamut of obnoxious/seductive/vulnerable personas. Fonda? She is a complete pro who can do anything. And, having made a few lesser films announcing her comeback, will some smart producers now please give her the serious roles she, and we viewers, deserve?
Needless to say, given the nature of this movie, there’s a few guys around. Simon (Dermot Mulroney, ever reliable) is the kind, sensitive veterinarian and Harlan (Garrett Hedlund, trying his best) is devout, hardworking, and the obligatory young hunk. Lilly’s rich, smooth lawyer husband Arnold (Cary Elwes, believable throughout) plays the villain. Problem is the men are less characters than interludes meant to inform a coming insight or crisis for one or more of the women.
But let’s get to the script by Mark Andrus. The basic fault of a Pot Of Stew Movie is its lapses of logic because there’s been no discernment exercised in the choice of elements. To cite an example (and one either consciously, or if written in advance then prophetic) Rachel has made her availability clear to Harlan. He has a girlfriend and no interest. Yet, with no prelude, they pop up alone in a boat on a lake. Rachel proceeds to flash Harlan and despite being a virginal and devout Mormon he promptly surrenders to her unbuttoning his pants. But wait, there is no consummation. Huh? Soon after, Harlan declares he and Rachel must marry (why?) which she rebuffs by minimizing the act they did commit (needlessly naming it in front of Georgia, though Fonda’s reaction is a gem) followed (again for no adequate reason) by her accompanying Harlan to his girlfriend’s college where she backs his lie they only kissed.
And so on. To sum up, scenes fail to track, characters can be inconsistent, and the insertion of unnecessary elements (like cute kids or a Fourth of July celebration) are distractions reducing the film, at best, to a glossy acting exercise. A+ to Jane, Felicity, and Lindsay. Not so for director Garry Marshall. The movie is not a disaster but in no way as entertaining or involving as it should have been. Better luck to all next time. Review by Charles Zio
| MPAA Rating PG-13 (for crude and sexual humor Action/Adventure/Comedy Runtime 90 minutes
1½ stars out of 5 |
This broad “farce” consists mostly of redneck stereotypes, adolescent humor, and bad homophobic jokes. Three dim-witted army reservists get assigned to Iraq, but get ejected from the plane in a humvee—-in Mexico. They think they’ve been dropped in the middle of the Iraqi desert. Their hard-as-nails sergeant has been dropped from the plane with them. Thinking he’s dead, they bury him in the sand and go in search of the nearest battle to fight the enemy.
They end up in a small isolated town called La Miranda (where it seems to take forever before finally realizing they are in Mexico) fighting a Mexican gang who’s leader is Carlos Santana—no, not the singer (a lame bit that recurs throughout the movie) while trying to decide what to do.
Larry the Cable Guy, D.J. Qualls, and Bill Engvall play the three dense reservists/soldiers (Larry, Everett, and Bill) as though they’re having fun; more fun than I’m having watching them. Keith David who plays the tough Sgt. Kilgore seems wasted in his role as does Marisol Nichols who plays Larry’s love interest, Maria, with at least some class. Danny Tiejo as Carlos Santana (the crime lord, not the singer) is usually cast as a hardcore convict type, but here his performance is the highlight of this crude, silly film. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| MPAA Rating PG-13 Comedy/Romance Runtime 92 minutes
2 stars out of 5
|
Zach Braff has created an abundance of good will with his character on “Scrubs” but that good will is sorely tested in this comedy. He plays Tom Reilly, a bumbling job-challenged young husband and father who must move out of New York to take a job with his father-in-law (Charles Grodin in his typical grouchy/spacy performance) in Ohio. Tom’s smart, accomplished lawyer wife, Sofia, (an always watchable Amanda Peet) wants to stay home with their new baby, so her father brings Tom into the ad agency where he works. There Tom finds his nemesis Chip (Jason Bateman), the paraplegic ad wizard of the agency.
Amanda and Chip were cheerleaders (?) together in high school and had one night of sex, even with his disability, making him, well, sort of, “The Ex.” Chip is the supposedly good/but really bad, bad guy who sets Tom up time and again as the dupe for everything that goes wrong on the job, and at home. This quickly gets tiresome. Tom even goes through physical injuries like accidents, falls, and punches that are no where near funny. The character of Chip as a disabled person is so one dimensional it’s insulting, although somehow Jason Bateman comes close to pulling it off. The rest of the characters fare no better.
In fact, there’s little subtlety in the writing or directing of this contrived concoction. It feels like a “Meet the Parents” wanna be that went very wrong. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
DAY NIGHT |
Foreign Film Canada Not Rated Drama Runtime 94 minutes
3 stars out of 5 |
It has been noted that terrorists, willing to sacrifice themselves in spilling the blood of innocent people, often make elementary errors leading to the failure of their plots. Fortunately. One reason might be the carelessness caused by the methodical tedium of carrying out an attack, illustrated by this movie that runs twice as long, it seems, as it does in reality.
The film begins with Luisa Williams landing at a New York airport. Her character is nameless, appropriate since, despite a few hints, little is revealed about her, including the very reason she is willing to become a bomber. But let’s be honest, no matter how much we might know of a terrorist’s background it’s impossible to ever truly fathom their disregard for human life. At the airport, Luisa is signaled by cell phone (a first call followed by actual connection with a second) and she follows instructions to a car and then a motel room. The people orchestrating the planned attack are masked and as inscrutable as Luisa. But this is a large part of the horror – visually there’s nothing to distinguish the murderers from their victims as is evident when Luisa eventually reaches Times Square, the site of her intended bombing, where she mingles easily amid crowded streets and diners. No matter what, she draws scant attention. It’s truly scary how vulnerable we are.
“Day Night Day Night” seems, most often, to occur in real time. At the beginning the camera tracks Luisa to the airport terminal then watches her turning round and round awaiting direction. As in the rest of the movie, there are extended takes and this editing choice illustrates the caution/soberness that are, of necessity, prelude to the detonation itself. On the other hand, the terrorist’s lengthy efforts to avoid discovery and insure success also can lead to boredom and monotony that might then be the source of mistakes. Was this a point the writer/director, Julia Loktev, was trying to make? Or the effect of carrying out the act on the young woman? Or the suspense of whether she would follow through? It’s not clear as the sluggish pace and repetition serves to undermine viewer attention.
It must be acknowledged, and to Loktev’s credit, that the subject matter of the film is inherently gripping and highly relevant in today’s world and for casting Luisa Williams whose face is capable of transmitting volumes (essential for a primarily silent character). The pacing, however, is slow and, because of missing background and detail, there is a lack of overall impact (“Paradise Now” from several years ago got it right). Final say on “Day Night Day Night” - Yes, Yes, No, No. Review by Charles Zio
| MPAA Rating PG-13 (for some language and sexual humor) Comedy/Drama Runtime 124 minutes
3 stars out of 5 |
High stakes poker players are a breed apart, but there’s not much enlightening here about why that’s so. Eric Bana plays Huck Cheever, a gambler who scrambles to find money to play in the big tournament in Las Vegas. A romance starts when he meets Billie Offer (Drew Barrymore) the younger naïve sister of his one-time girlfriend, Suzanne, (Debra Messing). But the driving force behind the action is the estranged relationship Huck has with his father, and poker legend, L.C. Cheever (Robert Duvall).
It seems Huck keeps shooting himself in the foot when it comes to making big scores. L. C. sums it up when he says, “You got it backwards kid. You play cards the way you should lead your life. And you lead your life the way you should play cards.” He should talk. He was an English professor before he got desperate enough to sell his wife’s wedding ring to gamble. Huck can’t quite forgive him, or get past it.
The “romance” is not compelling at all. Bana and Barrymore have no chemistry. There are more sparks between Bana and Messing, and she’s more intriguing. Aside from a few funny lines and bits, I’m not sure why this is listed as a comedy/drama? In fact, the film doesn’t have a coherent center. We get a scene with Robert Downey, Jr. and others which could have easily been cut. There are shots of big time poker players, but you have to look closely or miss them. The later games themselves are somewhat interesting as Huck sizes up his opponents, and plays with discipline, not as a “blaster” as he usually does, but it’s not captivating enough to build a movie around.
Bana is watchable and a good actor. He tries to build a consistent character out of what’s given to him, but it’s not entirely convincing. As always, Duvall’s portrait is on target. He’s an actor not afraid to play someone with enough misplaced ego to dye what little is left of his hair. The scenes between father and son provide the only tension and are the better ones. What can I say about Barrymore? I can see she’s trying, and that’s the problem. Her mannered performances start to wear thin. (She seems better matched with actors like Adam Sandler in actual comedies.)
When the tournament gets under way, it’s not exactly a nail-biter. When the final showdown takes place, it’s anticlimactic. The film just stops rather than having an ending. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| MPAA Rating R (violent content including some graphic images, and some language) Comedy/Action/Crime Runtime 121 minutes
4 stars out of 5 |
This film is a delightfully bizarre comedy/action/crime take-off on those genres, and it’s one fun, entertaining ride. Sergeant Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg, also one of the writers along with the director Edgar Wright who brought “Shaun of the Dead” to life) has outshone his fellow police officers in London so often they send him to Sandford, a small seemingly tranquil country town with very little crime. He’s paired with the police inspector’s head-in-the-clouds son, Danny Butterman (Nick Frost) who develops a bit of hero worship.
Angel suffers one humiliation after another, even having to find a missing swan, but then mysterious “accidents” begin to happen. He knows these are more than accidents, but the police and townspeople think he’s the daft one.
The movie is filled with characters so clichéd, so over the top, that it will be difficult to keep up with all the references to other movies. Simon Pegg is first-rate in his role. The more seriously understated he plays it, the funnier it becomes. Nick Frost, too, gives a cheerfully clever performance as his sidekick, and they play well off each other. The large cast of actors, too, seem to be enjoying themselves; often playing caricatures of roles (they may have done) in other movies.
This film is long at two hours and it takes a while to get into the action, but when it starts, look out. You won’t be able to take your eyes off the screen. Just go with it and have a jolly good time. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| MPAA Rating R (for pervasive strong brutal violence, and language) Suspense/Thriller Runtime 113 minutes
3 stars out of 5 |
There is little complexity in this film. There is no question about who the good guys are, and who the bad guys are, but the testosterone-challenged might have difficulty even though the lines are clearly delineated.
A rich producer, Ian Breckel, (a suitably scummy Robert Mammone) sets up camp on a remote island where he can video ten condemned murderers trying to kill each other. He’s brought them there from all over the globe hoping to get a huge paying internet audience who want to see people hunt and kill each other live. (Unfortunately, this is not as far-fetched as it sounds.) The difference here is that the producer doesn’t hide who he is and justifies the violence by saying he’s giving people what they want (even as he and some of his crew get off on the massacre, too).
Steve Austin plays a bad guy, who’s really a good guy, who can do bad things to people who get him very, very mad. His character here is like early Swartzenegger, or the more recent Dwayne (the Rock) Johnson. They have to look mean and formidable, but really they are heroes who take terrible abuse while remaining stoic. In the end, of course, we’re supposed to admire that he will remain unflappable while giving his all for the cause, like a John Wayne on steroids.
Vinnie Jones as the villain Ewan McStarley brings some credibility as the most evil of the murderers. There are two women murderers out of the ten and physical assault is a factor here as the men try to overpower them. (I can only guess why this choice was made, but I found it unnecessary and disturbing.)
The sets and the overall look of the film are well done. There are more explosions than spurting blood. Although you can see the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) influence in some of the fight sequences, it’s not overdone, and some of the killings are mercifully short.
Whether all the blood and gore is justifiable so that you know that good will triumph over evil in the end depends on if you can convince yourself you need to be told that message in this manner, yet again. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| MPAA Rating PG-13 (for intense sequences of violent action, and some language Action/Sci-Fi/Thriller Runtime 96 minutes
4 stars out of 5 |
“Next” is a movie you don’t want to end, but to tell you why would spoil the fun. It’s enough to say a good time will be had from the opening credits (bits of clocks suggesting bits of time) to those closing the film (nope, won’t spoil that final trick either by telling you).
Nicholas Cage is Cris Johnson a small time magician in Las Vegas, under the name Frank Cadillac, whose true talent (though ignored as evidenced by an almost empty house) is the ability to foretell the future. Wait, let’s be accurate, Cris, in voice over, tells us he can only foretell events two minutes in the future of which he, himself, is a part. A demonstration, and an effective one it is, follows of winning black jack, foreseeing/foiling a murderous robbery, and a futile pursuit by a posse of casino security guards. Convinced of his talent are Callie Ferris (Julianne Moore) a tough, no-nonsense, job-above-all FBI agent and the gang she is pursuing who’ve smuggled a nuclear device into Las Angeles. For his part, Cris is waiting for a woman he’s pictured meeting far beyond his two minute threshold thereby implying she will be the love of his life. And, in the person of Liz Cooper (Jessica Biel), she is. They head out to Flagstaff (her destination) with Ferris and the terrorists close behind even though it’s been repeatedly made clear that with his ability it will be near impossible for Cris to be captured.
Okay, a pause here. “Next” is a mixture of action/science fiction meaning, usually, logic and plot holes will likely, to a greater or lesser extent, be present. However, given the nature of the film – who cares? Does it matter why Liz is going to Flagstaff? Or that Cris for no good reason can’t foresee her capture? Or his own? Again, does any of this matter? After all, it’s the playing out of the premise for which you’ve paid your money and in that regard, “Next” consistently delivers. Director Lee Tamahori expertly leads the charge of David Tattersall, cinematographer, Christian Wagner, editing, William Sandell, production designer, and all the skilled special effects troops.
By the way, Nicolas Cage is one of the producers and, along with his fellows, he wisely cast himself in the lead role. Perfect, as Cage has the slightly off-kilter demeanor making Cris both believable and sympathetic as a man besieged by an ability he possesses but can’t explain or escape. Jessica Biel is not just a lovely paramour, she’s also got some grit (to defy the FBI as an example). As to Julianne Moore, she seems ready to take over the FBI. They’re a terrific threesome and it’d be good to seem them again. In a sequel? There’s a hint in the twist mentioned in the opening above (which still won’t be revealed) and additionally in Cris’ statement he doesn’t want to become a prisoner of the good guys because of his ability. If this is the start of a franchise, and it’s near as entertaining as this one, then by all means please proceed. I can see the title already – “Next II”? Review by Charles Zio
| MPAA Rating PG-13 (for violence criminality, sensuality and language all involving teens) Drama/Fantasy/Mystery/Thriller Runtime 97 minutes
3½ stars out of 5 |
A high school senior golden boy, Nick Powell, (played believably by Justin Chatwin) has a run in with the high school troublemaker, Annie Newton (played sullenly by Margarita Levievaz). After she accidentally kills him, she and her “gang” hide his body in a storm drain. Nick wanders out of the woods the next day and goes to class as usual, but realizes he’s “invisible” since he’s now dead.
Nick aimlessly follows his cowardly best friend, Pete, (well-played by Chris Marquette), his mother (Marcia Gay Harden in a controlled performance), and Annie trying to figure out how he ended up in a nether land limbo, until he realizes he’s not dead – yet, but someone has to find him before time runs out. The rest of the movie is Nick trying to communicate with the living about his predicament.
The contrast between Nick’s privileged, but constrained life, and Annie’s abusive, hard-luck one provides a social context. The parallels show them both “invisible” in different ways. I get it. Where a novel has time to fully develop an idea like that, the film starts to get lost with subplots trying to explain too much. The visual novelty of Nick caught between life and death, and numerous scenes explaining Annie’s back story, begins to drag the film down. After a while it doesn’t illuminate character anymore, it becomes repetitive, losing its initial shocking power.
Life can be harsh and unforgiving for those born into the wrong circumstances, but can lead those with privilege down the wrong road, too. Yet, there is a spark of goodness even in the worst of us, and selfishness even in the best of us. It’s too bad this film took so long to get to the point. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| Foreign Film UK/Canada USA - not rated Drama Runtime 112 minutes
3½ stars out of 5 |
Briefly, Rickman is Alex Hughes an unhappy man driving to Winnipeg who picks up a hitchhiker, Vivienne (an appealing Emily Hampshire). After she dies in a traffic accident, he feels compelled to visit the young woman’s autistic, though functional and articulate, mother, Linda (Weaver). Reluctantly moving in, Alex’s stay results, thanks to help from a sexy neighbor Maggie (a warm Carrie-Anne Moss), in him “finding his way” and resuming his drive. This synopsis may sound uninteresting, yet, if the script hadn’t gone astray, it would have been compelling. Angela Pell, the writer, respects her characters, giving them depth, and slowly unravels Alex’s secrets. But there’s a shift of focus sabotaging the impact.
Alan Rickman – It’s difficult to think of an actor currently in the business who conveys world-weariness (through a filter of boredom edged with anger) half as well while, at the same time, arousing either sympathy at his inner sadness or curiosity as to its cause. Here, Alex doesn’t want to share his feelings or reveal his past, but when he is ready to do so, he expects an attentive ear, not including Linda, in her own world and dismissive of outside intrusions. Sigourney Weaver, when first seen, is momentarily startling – she’s not, as usual, strong and determined. Instead, tossing aside ego and theatrical tricks, Weaver is believable as a blunt spoken woman living (as her daughter wrote in a scrapbook) neither in past or future but fully, except once, in the present (as exemplified, title-wise, in the supreme pleasure of eating snow). There is chemistry and honesty to Alan and Sigourney’s scenes together and one anticipates that, by tossing the unexpected, each of the characters will be the better for it. Which is why, when Alex turns to Maggie for more than physical relief the movie’s direction goes askew. Despite her understated performance, Moss seems an intrusion, the viewer wants Sigourney back on screen. It’s a mistake from which the movie fails to recover.
On the other hand, writer Pell avoids familiar clichés – Alex and Linda do not fall into bed, Vivienne’s dog is cute but not a carrier of life lessons, her funeral is not an extended romp in pity, and so on. Marc Evans, director, does a commendable job by keeping the movie firmly rooted in its small town atmosphere with events flowing in the low-key fashion one would expect in such an environment. Ultimately, though, the verdict on “Snow Cake” has to be one of disappointment. Review by Charles Zio
| MPAA Rating R (for some strong violence, graphic nudity, sexuality, and language) Drama/War Runtime 145 minutes
3½ stars out of 5 |
It’s doubtful you’ve seen the plight of the Jews and the Resistance in World War II as Paul Verhoeven, director, presents them in “Black Book,” coauthored with Gerard Soeteman in subtitled Dutch, German, English, and Hebrew. Horror and death are ever near but their portrayal is at a remove. That is, the violence seems familiar/overdone/mostly unreal, like something from a low budget old serial or formulaic television movie. In counterbalance, and the reason for the Nazi defeat, is the unceasing bravery and spirit symbolized by an ever-resourceful heroine. Still, if you’d prefer a serious and sober approach to the issues, despite its being based on true events, pass this movie by.
It’s Holland, 1944, and Carice van Houten plays Rachel Stein who adopts the name Ellis after being forced from her hiding place (a farm), her family (fleeing on a barge) are killed by the Gestapo, and she joins the Resistance. Carice gives a strong and stirring performance as a former singer who retains a sense of performance to the extent that, careening from one menace to another, she never loses her head or cool. And dangers there are – ambushes, escapes, playing a dead typhoid victim, sneaking radio equipment through a train search, seducing a Nazi commandant, eavesdropping, and so on. Surrounding Ellis is a skilled supporting cast – Resistance members, fearless Hans Akkermans (Thom Hoffman) and the older, de facto leader Gerben Kuipers (Derek de Lint); relentlessly evil Gestapo leader Gunther Franken (Waldemar Kobus), the collaborator Ronnie (Halina Rejn), and Ludwig Muntze (Sebastian Koch) as the Nazi who the heroine comes to love. Though Ellis is warned against trusting, the deceit and betrayal inherent in wartime cannot be avoided, with the villain revealed, via the titled Black Book, near the film’s end.
The production values (photography, editing, historic design) are high, but it’s Verhoeven’s treatment of the subject matter that is unexpected. For instance, while the violence isn’t minimized, for Ellis it is self-protectively kept at a distance (she remarks on her inability to cry for her family), but then breaks down for her Nazi lover, who is portrayed as a sensitive victim. Ronnie, the seemingly mindless and loose woman at headquarters turns out to be resourceful and a true friend. Ellis, for her part, is quite free sexually and drops her clothes without any hesitation. When liberation comes, some of the legendarily fair and tolerant Dutch behave with hardened brutality. All of which is not to say “Black Book” does not have its faults (as examples – to long a string of perils for Ellis, too many false endings). But, from first to last, if should you be inclined to think anew about subjects you consider familiar, this just might be the movie. Review by Charles Zio
| MPAA Rating PG-13 (for some suggestive language) Drama Runtime 97 minutes
3½ stars out of 5 |
Peggy’s life has a dull sameness as she thinks she has to please people by being a doormat: bringing donuts for her co-workers, gifts for her brother’s kids every time she sees them, listening intently to her boring boss and her outsize co-worker played with finesse by Regina King.
Peggy’s downward spiral begins when her beloved dog, Pencil, dies unexpectedly. John C. Reilly (in a good turn) as her neighbor, Al, tries to be helpful, even asking her out on a date. But no one seems to understand the depth of her grief except Newt, a worker at the vet’s office, played wonderfully by Peter Saarsgard. He talks Peggy into taking a troubled dog that would otherwise be euthanized. That she ignores that the dog is not a suitable pet shows how desperate her alienation has become, and how strained her hold on reality.
This is a drama but there are moments of dry humor, mostly as superficial, self-centered people in Peggy’s life talk at her, rather than to her, exposing their flaws. Shannon plays it serious, not showing us any of her outlandish characters from Saturday Night Live.
The straight-on camera shots begin to wear thin and feel claustrophobic. Likewise, Peggy’s flat affect and speech make me want to see something more lively and interesting.
Okay, so the people in her life are not perfect, neither is Peggy. People let each other down all the time, it's called l-i-f-e. While I start out feeling sympathy for Peggy and her heartfelt love of dogs, I tire of her persona before it's over. The slow pace doesn't help. The justifications for some of her actions later in the movie are weak. Animal rights are important, but when does a committed, fully invested animal lover cross the line to intrude on the rights of human beings? Slipping into an animals-only world to avoid real issues one needs to address as an individual, is not a solution. Can someone get this woman some therapy? Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| MPAA Rating PG-13 (for sexual contact, thematic elements and language) Comedy/Drama/Romance Runtime 97 minutes
3½ stars out of 5 |
Since Cater is a writer I suppose it’s not too surprising that there are many earnest conversations. His girlfriend in LA has dumped him and broken his heart, so Carter decides to go to Michigan and stay with his grandmother who isn’t doing too well on her own. He becomes involved with the women who live across the street. Meg Ryan plays the mother Sarah, and Kristin Stewart is her daughter Lucy. There begins a tangle of friendship, support, hurt feelings, jealousies, anger, and misunderstandings.
The illness portrayed in the film is handled sensitively and realistically, and brings some needed focus to the storyline. Although it’s not difficult to figure out where the script is going, the film shows potential as an interesting early effort by the young writer/director. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
PRIVATE PLACES |
FOREIGN FILM France/Italy Drama Runtime 120 minutes
3½ stars out of 5 |
It’s not a profound insight to say it’s a cold world for the lonely. The director Alain Resnais makes that point literal in “Private Fears in Public Places” with snow falling on Paris and, further, as a transitional motif between scenes. The delicacy of the flakes echoes the melancholy of the characters in the script by Jean-Michel Ribes (in French, English subtitles) based on a play by Alan Ayckbourn. It’s a bittersweet world, and often sad, but one can, and must, keep trying to bond with another.
The need to connect, and our inter-relatedness, is presented through the stories of six Parisians (six degrees of separation?). The film opens with Nicole (Laura Morante), chic and confident, describing an apartment as “tiny” (the world of this film is small) to her real estate agent Thierry (André Dussollier), older and eager to please, who himself lives with his sister Gaelle (Isabelle Carre), a young woman going out night after night (a red flower on her lapel) hoping to meet Prince Charming. Nicole repeats to Thierry the requirement for a study for her fiancée Dan (Lambert Wilson) who, resentful of an army discharge for dereliction of duty, avoids searching for a job by passing most of his time drinking at a hotel bar. Listening to his woes is the bartender Lionel (Pierre Arditi), patient and somber and burdened by his cantankerous bed ridden father who is being difficult to a religiously prim substitute care giver, Charlotte (Sabine Azéma), who is Thierry’s assistant at the real estate firm.
Though the settings, starting with the overhead shots of snow covered streets and buildings, are sterile (the real estate office), impersonal (the cold hotel bar/restaurant), or barren (the empty apartments), all of the characters are warm and appealing. You’re rooting for links to be made. But, as in life, the inability to reveal one’s inner self (private fears) openly (public places) leads to missed opportunities in linking with others. Nicole and Dan, already a couple, can’t maintain their relationship. Dan meets Gaelle and the early promise is lost to misunderstanding. Thierry’s crush on Charlotte isn’t reciprocated and hers on Lionel is misplaced. How can we not watch with regret at the missed chances? And applause to the ensemble of actors who beautifully capture the humanity, decency (yes, even risqué Charlotte), and worthiness of their characters.
Alain Resnais gives us a movie that’s a pleasure to look at and a pleasure to contemplate. Like the world around us, the movie follows its own rhythm, but one you might be willing to share. As a poet once said, the saddest words are “it might have been.” Still, as Charlotte avers, struggles are meant to be overcome and there is the belief these characters, despite failed attempts, are not ready to give up yet. Review by Charles Zio
| MPAA Rating R (for language and some violent content) Thriller Runtime 112 minutes
3½ stars out of 5 |
Some pictures are enjoyable overall while being less than memorable specifically. That is, there are movies like “Fracture” which get all the elements right and yet, while being recalled later as enjoyable, will be hard to cite in much detail. But, hey, it’s okay. You’ve still gotten your money’s worth.
The opening credits of “Fracture” are a clue. The visual is of an elaborate contraption composed of numerous ramps and circles down which metal balls roll. Right, the shiny and obvious is composed of twists and turns. Further, the names of cast and crew “bleed” and separate to indicate appearances will break apart and truth will out. Epitomizing the cold, clever, and devious as hinted in the opening sequence is Ted Crawford (Anthony Hopkins with his skillfully patented blend of supremely amused confidence and devilish menace), a rich aeronautical engineer who shoots his straying wife, not dead but into a coma. Crawford devises for the body to be discovered by Detective Rob Nunally (Billy Burke convincing as the anguished, bewildered adulterer) and, with his confession, it seems an open and shut case. Enter Willy Beachum (Ryan Gosling believably ambitious/callous/arrogant) as an assistant DA handed the case, his last, as he prepares to leave for a financially lucrative and socially upscale corporate law firm. Willy, pleased with his success and distracted by his new boss Rosamund Pike (Nikki Gardner, suitably brittle and predatory) who beds him almost immediately, doesn’t take Crawford (defending himself) seriously and is promptly outsmarted and the guilty man walks free. Does Willy have a conscience? Will he sell out? Does he listen to the wisdom offered by the good guys? Does justice promise to triumph? Yeah, no, yeah, yeah.
Greg Hoblit, the director, has delivered a polished, professional, and entertaining movie competently written by Daniel Pyne (based on his own story) and Glenn Gers, with clean photography by Karmer Morgenthau, efficient editing by David Rosenbloom, and slick production design by Paul Eads. The acting, as mentioned, is a pleasure. Hopkins, with his sense of one-upmanship, and Gosling, whose slickness initially trumps his smarts, are fun to watch as they spar and switch attitudes. Both are most ably supported by Rob Nunally (touching as a man overwhelmed by loss), David Strathairn (dedicated DA), Cliff Curtis (hard working detective), and Fiona Shaw (capable judge). All in all, “Fracture” is like a fine meal – you’ll remember it tasted good even if you can’t recollect every bite. Review by Charles Zio
| MPAA Rating R (for brutal violence and terror, brief nudity and language) Horror/Thriller Runtime 85 minutes
3 stars out of 5 |
The only reason to jump out of your seat at this movie is to leave the theater. It sure ain’t because it’s scary.
Luke Wilson and Kate Beckinsale are an unhappy married couple planning on getting divorced (unconvincing reference is made to a lost son) who are driving somewhere in California (presumed from their license plate), along an unlit deserted mountainous road at night. It’s supposed to be a shortcut. The car develops trouble. They stop at a gas station, catching the attendant before he’s leaving, who says they should be able to reach the next town. What’s that visible in the background? Yes, it’s a motel, the “Pinewood” by name, and the couple returns to it after their car inevitably comes to a halt down the road. The slightly creepy manager, played by Frank Whaley, informs them the nearest garage won’t open till the next morning and suggests they take a room. No surprise, the motel hasn’t any other guests as its seedy and dirty. Plus the television doesn’t receive any stations. There are, though, some videos atop the set laden with scenes of two masked men murdering men and women in, GASP, the very room in which Luke and Kate have become guests! Throw in door poundings, attempted escapes, near misses, crying, panic, close calls, false heroes, dead rescuers – you know, all of the stuff you’ve already seen in other, much better, movies (however, to its credit, the violence in this film is not graphic).
Needless to say, credibility is strained throughout, take an encounter with an assemblage of rats in an underground tunnel. Rather than menacing, the rodents are clean and well behaved, neither running nor attacking, as the couple supposedly crawls through them (the rats now being out of sight on the screen). Only a bit more preposterous is the stabbing victim who survives for hours even though his stomach has been cut open.
It must be said Wilson and Beckinsale do their best and Whaley adds some juice as he grows progressively more insane. It isn’t that the director, Nimrod Antal, does a bad job (the tech - design/editing/photography, even music, are competent and professional). It’s far worse. Minus any thrills and chills, it’s plain old mediocre. Review by Charles Zio
| MPAA Rating R (for strong, graphic, bloody violence and gore, pervasive language, some sexuality) Action/Crime/Horror/Sci-Fi/Thriller Runtime 191 minutes
4 stars out of 5 |
There was a time, decades ago, when seedy theaters or drive-ins featured exploitation films – low budget, technically shaky, amateurishly plotted, sex and violence prone, literally titled movies with virtually no redeeming value. Don’t snicker and dismiss too quickly. Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino’s film wouldn’t be successful if many elements of the old genre hadn’t been incorporated, and become familiar, in movies fans line up for today. Plus, if you’re a willing passenger, “Grindhouse” is an affectionate nod and, also, a clever, entertaining ride.
From the start, an effort is made to duplicate the viewing experience of a disreputable double feature. The opening frames display the grainy, lined texture of a reel played too often and carelessly and threatening to snap or melt at any moment, which in fact will happen. The preview of a coming attraction “Machete,” with over-the-top prose, ominously voiced, and its promise of unrelenting violence accurately hints at the mayhem to come. And come it does, full on with little pause, in Robert Rodriguez’s “Planet Terror,” an inane zombie movie. Of course, there’s sex, lead by Rose McGowan (named Cherry Darling which indicates the mind set) pole dancing through the opening credits and mostly half dressed thereafter but, due again to (fabricated) technical difficulties, the film never even graduates to soft core. The same restraint does not apply to the violence of which there is an ample, ceaseless, and gleeful amount courtesy of mindless creatures and their good guy adversaries lead by Freddie “I Never Miss” Rodriquez and a seemingly endless arsenal of guns and knives. And yet, you won’t be squirming in your seat as part of the fun is the pizza-ingredients-gone-wild makeup of the infected and their demise in outrageously unreal can-you-top-that spurts of blood and guts. To be sure, there’s one cameo sequence with Tarantino that’ll elicit a reaction, but you’re likely to find yourself chuckling afterward at how well you’ve been manipulated. Already mentioned, McGowan and Rodriquez are dandy as reluctant heroine and fearless hero admirably matched by a lineup of actors (A and B list) skillfully sincere amid the raging absurdity and explosions.
Following more bogus (and humorous) previews, the second feature, “Death Proof” by Tarantino, arrives focusing on two assortments of attractive women engaged in conversations sexually suggestive and/or explicit. While the dialogue in the two films, typical of the genre, is replete with wit, insults, rejoinders, asides, and the occasionally obvious or dumb line (often funny for lack of embarrassment at being so), there’s no denying Quentin’s is the better written (of course). Though going on a bit long, his dialogue manages to arouse Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike (whose recitation of his credits to several young girls unfamiliar with the actors/movies/television shows he mentions is a pointed commentary on celebrity and age). Being a professional, Kurt has equipped his car to be impervious to destruction and for use as a weapon of revenge. Precisely why he’s impelled in this direction is left unexplored, but in this type of film characters are clearly and simply good or bad and one-dimensional. Why let Russell’s prominent facial scar pretend to serve any purpose beyond marking him as a villain when more important matters await? Like, a car chase, an exploitation favorite. “Death Proof” has two and though it takes awhile getting to both and the first is a set up, the second is a doozy – an extended, car wrecking, table turning, violent finale. The acting is fine by all, especially Kurt Russell who nails his role (there’s no doubt he savors ever minute setting up and following through on his rampage) and Rosario Dawson and Sydney Tamilia Poitier are intriguing and appealing along with their fellow actual and would-be victims.
What makes “Grindhouse” commendable is Rodriguez and Tarantino’s faithful reproduction of the genre’s technical lapses (sloppy editing, sound glitches, etc.) and ignoring film basics (plot, continuity, character, etc.) while still retaining its good-natured spirit. “Grindhouse” is worth a visit for raising the tacky, cheap, irrational and, yes, the exploitative, to a level of appreciation lacking in the early days of Samuel Arkoff at AIP and the rightly hailed Roger Corman. And a tip of the hat to the technicians for pulling it off – photography by Messrs. Rodriguez and Tarantino (in addition to writing and directing!); editing by Rodriguez (yet more!) and Sally Menke; production design by Steve Joyner and Caylah Eddlebutte. You can count the ways, and members of Hollywood (say, Jack Nicholson), in which this once disdained format has influenced and contributed to the evolution of movies as we know them today, but leave that to ponder, if you care to, for another day. For now, pretend it’s a Saturday, you’ve ducked inside a tacky theater, and taken a seat in the dark. A clicking sound and projected on the screen are frames looking much the worse for wear. Who cares? Just enjoy. Review by Charles Zio
| MPAA Rating R (for strong violence and gore, language and some sexuality/nudity) Horror/Sci-Fi/Thriller Runtime 99 minutes
4 stars out of 5 |
Viruses are not the only thing that can turn people into monsters. The sequel to “28 Days Later” gives us something to think about as fear of the “rage” virus not only infects people in seconds and turns them into flesh-eating creatures, but gives us a vision of a dark world where husband abandons wife, diseased fathers try to chomp on their children.
The opening to the film is tense and somber, but quiet, as a group of survivors are boarded up in a countryside home. Of course, this doesn’t last as the “infecteds” find the group and crave their flesh. Dan (well-played by Robert Carlyle) a seemingly caring man, leaves his wife to a grisly death to save himself. When he is reunited with his children Tammy (Imogen Poots) and Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton) he lies to them about her fate. The consequences that come out of that one desperate, terrible act bring down the city of London, even as the United States army occupies what is left of the ravaged city.
The Green Zone is supposedly free of infection and there are strict rules about where people can travel, but Tammy and Andy break the rules putting everyone else in danger. Two soldiers break ranks, too, to try and save the two children who may hold the key to the virus: Scarlet (earnestly played Rose Byrne) and Doyle (played with star quality by Jeremy Renner).
There is plenty of violence, blood and gore, along with shooting, killing, explosions, and good special effects. But the human story behind the destruction is what drives the film. The screenplay by Rowan Joffe, Jesus Olmo, E. L. Lavigne, and the director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, has more to say than is typical for the genre, but, you may find the ideas behind this bleak revelation of survival at all costs more than a little disturbing. Review by Ann Marie Oliva