| MR. LONELY Foreign Film - UK IFC - Independent Film Channel Content Advisory for Parents Comedy/Drama 112 minutes 
3½ stars |
There’s something appealing and whimsical in the idea of a haven for celebrity impersonators nestled in the Scottish Highlands as featured in Mister Lonely which boasts lovely/lively/heartfelt moments. Overall, unfortunately, the effectiveness of the fantasy, rising and falling as it interweaves with reality and despite a cumulative impact at the end, is not sustained throughout. On the other hand, the parts, and fanciful ones they are, just might offer sufficient satisfaction to the amenable.
The movie’s title song (a Bobby Vinton tune surely familiar to Boomers) is the lament of a lonely soldier stationed away from home. Not an obvious match to a visual of Michael Jackson on a mini motorcycle with a toy monkey trailing behind. Then again, this is a tale, isn’t it, of a solitary guy soldiering on through life? And that fellow is not the tabloid Jacko, but an impersonator (Diego Luna, truly interesting/intriguing from start to finish) who is ever sympathetic in his gentleness and innocence. He meets Marilyn Monroe (Samantha Morton, believable/pitch perfect) who invites him to join an enclave of fellow would-bes. Enchanted by her, Michael agrees and accompanies her to a rural greenery wherein dwells her husband, Charlie Chaplin (Denis Lavant, convincingly callous), her daughter Shirley Temple (Esme Creed-Miles, cute/natural), as well as The Pope (James Fox, magisterial) and Abraham Lincoln (Richard Strange, imposing), among others, all engaged in contributing to the running of the commune while planning to put on a show for the locals. Almost idyllic. Yet, life intrudes. The sweet/vulnerable Monroe is bullied by her hubby Chaplain (who also tries to boss the others), Lincoln curses up a storm, there’s sleeping around, and thanks to some disease the entire herd of sheep must meet their demise (at the hands of the Three Stooges).
The great strength of the group is the camaraderie (Jackson is accepted immediately/unconditionally on arrival) and support of those living as someone else. And the charm for the viewer is summed up by The Queen (Anita Pallenberg, regal and down to earth): “There’s no truer souls than those souls who impersonate for we live through others in order to keep the spirit of wonder alive.” She utters those words after the show, whose highlights are one of the delightful moments in which the film abounds.
Oh yes, the flying nuns. In parallel, another story is told of an unusual order of sisters (e.g., they sneak out for smokes and play volley ball minus the ball) running an orphanage (South America?) and one wonders if, perhaps, Michael was raised there. Tenuous but it would at least confer a link between the two tales and, aside from Marilyn who says she met Chaplain on a ship, there’s no personal history offered for any of the impersonators, as if their existence lay in their adopted personas (aha!). At any rate, the nuns are under the supervision of Father Umbrillo (Werner Herzog, sincere/strong willed) who drops food provisions onto jungle settlements. On one mission, a nun falls out the open door of the small plane and fervently prays to God to be spared death upon landing. And so it comes to pass. After which the other nuns follow her example of devotion and begin skydiving without parachutes. When the Vatican extends a call to the nuns to meet the Pope (the real one), Umbrillo is thrilled and off he, and several of them, fly.
The end of “Mister Lonely” offers a number of surprises, twists, tragedies, and touches of melancholy. It isn’t easy to grow up, but sooner or later there’s no choice (“life comes and gets you” Michael says). On the other hand, there’s something to be said for sensitivity (like Michael’s farewell to his room that’s captivatingly naïve) and make believe (as in the song rendered by Michael’s painted doll heads). Director Harmony Korine ably achieves fine/touching moments as penned with his co-writer Avi Korine. He’s capably assisted, too, by Marcel Zyskind (photography), Paul Zucker and Valdis Oskarsdottir (editing), Richard Campling (production designer), and of course given the needs of the impersonators, Judy Shresbury (costumes) and Jo Allen (hair and makeup). All in all, not a wipeout, but not a triumph either.
Mister Lonely – Nice guy, at times memorable, but not always/or enough. Review by Charles Zio
| THE FORBIDDEN KINGDOM Rated PG-13 for sequences of martial arts action and some violence. Action/Adventure/ Fantasy/Comedy 113 minutes
3½ stars |
Jackie Chan and Jet Li deliver the goods, martial arts-wise, which is good enough if you like this kind of movie. The story itself is mostly fantasy with twists and turns that justify the exciting martial arts sequences. A high school student, Jason Tripitikas (Michael Angarano) obsessed with kung fu heads for the south side of Boston to rent movies from an old man. A group of thugs decide to rob Old Hop and force Michael to join in. Helpless to stop the robbery he gets injured, falls, and magically lands in another time/space.
He is thought to be “the one” who will save the Monkey King from the prison where he has been confined for thousands of years. So the adventures begin. Michael meets Lu Yan (Jackie Chan) an immortal with a drinking problem and a corny sense of humor. Along the way they meet The Silent Monk (Jet Li), and Golden Sparrow (Yifei Liu) who are also trying to save the Monkey King and destroy his nemesis, the Jade Emperor (Deshun Wang). However, Michael turns out to be very bad at kung fu, and time must be spent teaching him to be up to the level of the others. Even Golden Sparrow is an expert. She and Michael develop something of a romance although it is very chaste. The student/teacher set up brings humor and a reminder of other movies where the student must be taught then tested on his own.
Jackie Chan spends the entire movie in a bad wig cracking typical Jackie Chan jokes. As might be expected, Jet Li is more subdued. When these two go at each other, though, even with the help of special effects, it’s masterful. Michael Angarano is earnest and shows promise in his acting. Yifei Liu is compelling as Golden Sparrow. The villains are equally entertaining, as is Jet Li as the Monkey King. Of course, there must be death so that wrongs can be avenged and set right.
Screenwriter John Fusco has crafted a wily story and director Rob Minkoff has put together a movie that kung fu lovers will appreciate. The cinematography by Peter Pau deserves special mention as does the art direction by Eric Lam, and the production design by Bill Brzeski, as well as all the technical folks who make the look of the film interesting. If you want to enjoy a few hours of fantasy and martial arts mastery you won’t go wrong with The Forbidden Kingdom. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| BABY MAMA Rated PG-13 for crude and sexual humor, language and a drug reference. Comedy 96 minutes
3 stars |
Ah, baby hunger. I suspect many career-oriented women know the feeling as maternity is delayed well into their 30s. Let me say upfront that Tina Fey is an appealing and engaging leading lady and well able to carry a movie and Amy Poehler is delightful in that “kooky, not educated, but bright gal” kind of way we all know. But they are sabotaged by a narrative that starts off with promise but ends up flat. There are some funny lines and situations, and overall the acting is good, but it’s more like mildly amusing and predictable rather than incisive or above average comedy.
Kate (Tina Fey) is a highly paid executive at Round Earth, an organic food chain, but at 37 is not married and really wants to have a child. She decides on in-vitro fertilization, but her doctor says he “doesn’t like her uterus” and gives her a one in a million chance to have her own baby. Sure that’s funny, but what woman isn’t going to get a second opinion? Any woman that successful would know enough to do that. (OK, already it’s straining credulity for me, but I’m willing to go with it.) Adoption would take years. Now Kate’s only option is to have a surrogate carry her baby. We move on to Chaffee Bicknell (the ever entertaining Sigourney Weaver), who has an agency that provides surrogates for a mere $100,000. No problem. For this amount of money she gets a thoroughly checked out woman (sure), Angie (amusing Amy Poehler) from the poor side of town to carry her child, along with her ignorant common-law husband Carl (Dax Shepherd) helping push her into it. No problem. Carl and Angie break up and Amy comes to live with Kate. This is when things should pick up, but when Kate catches Angie sticking her gum (with other wads of gum already there) under Kate’s expensive coffee table it’s not exactly side splitting.
There are plenty of supporting characters who give, at least, some dimension to the story in the form of an acquired boyfriend (a likable Greg Kinnear), a crazy rich boss (an under control Steve Martin with a long gray ponytail), the typical know-it-all doorman (a refreshing, if stereotypical Romany Malco), and two other actors I find especially watchable but who don’t have enough to do as Kate’s mother and sister; Holland Taylor and Maura Tierney.
I wanted to like this film because the subject is topical; pregnancy is interesting to women, and finally we have a comedy with potential that has female leads. I’ve been pregnant and a parent, so I can relate; that’s why I’m disappointed by too many missed opportunities at real humor in this film. The audience seemed to enjoy the movie, but I suspect it’s more about the charm of the actors. I wouldn’t count on it being a classic. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| YOUNG@HEART Rated PG for some mild language and thematic elements. Documentary/Drama/Music 107 minutes
4½ stars |
This documentary about the two dozen or so members of the Young at Heart Chorus, average age 81, is a must see film. It is funny, sad, poignant and uplifting all at the same time. Because we don’t have many chances to see realistic portrayals of our elders, we tend to think of them only as stereotypical “old” folks. Here they are real people---with lots of living behind them, and lots of personality. That’s one of the things that is so enjoyable. They are the “grandparents” you may have or remember, the customer you serve, your neighbor. They are good people who have lived honorable, hard-working lives and are filling their “golden years” with music and friendship. What’s clear is that they deserve our honor and respect.
Bob Cilman, a youngster in his 50s, is the chorus director and treats his chorus members with the right mix of prompting and expectation. He doesn’t demand, but he does ask them to push themselves, especially when he picks songs of other, younger generations like Lou Reed, The Rolling Stones, The Ramones, Coldplay, Sonic Youth, The Clash, and OutKast that tend to be tongue twisters for them, or they just frankly don’t understand. Some of the chorus members prefer classical music or songs from stage musicals, so it says volumes that they’re willing to try new, difficult material. The rehearsals turn out to be the majority of the film. It’s fun to see them befuddled at first, then start to warm up to songs like, “Schizophrenia,” “Yes, We Can Can,” “I Wanna Be Sedated,” “I Feel Good,” and “Fix You” which turns out to be a highlight of the film (and online it turns out), because the words take on a different meaning when sung by the chorus. It also proves that good music can be adapted and has staying power.
British director Stephen Walker spent seven weeks with the chorus and gives the audience the realities that life giveth and taketh away when death intrudes and two members die within a week of each other right before a local performance in Northampton, Massachusetts where they live. Yet, none of the seniors are self-pitying. They know their day is coming sooner for them than the rest of us, and remain vital and loving to each other. They and their families were also generous with their time and even allowed the filmmakers to be there during some medical procedures, although it never felt intrusive or disrespectful.
Another fun/interesting part of the movie are the music videos that pop up here and there, proving that at any age you can be an artist, love music, be a star. So here’s to Bob, Joe, Eileen, Jim, Stan, Helen, Elaine, Dora, and all the members of the Young at Heart Chorus. Thanks for the memories! Review by Ann Marie Oliva
SARAH MARSHALL |
FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL Rated R for language, brief teen alcohol and drug use and for some sexuality. Comedy/Drama 95 minutes
4 stars |
Very early on in Forgetting Sarah Marshall we get full frontal nudity of the main character, Peter Bretter (an engaging Jason Segel), dropping his towel in panic because his girlfriend is breaking up with him. Is it necessary? No. Is it funny? Yes. That’s often what you get from producer Judd Apatow’s movies---a mix of comedy and crudity. This movie is no different; but it works. Aside from playing the schlumpy main character, Mr. Segel also wrote the screenplay, and did a good job. He gives us a beginning, middle, end and some character arcs. He also gives the audience a reverse of the woman who’s dumped, and makes a fool of herself trying to cope. (Mr. Apatow should be careful, though, because it's all starting to feel familiar.)
Sarah Marshall (suitably pretty/believable that a guy would be gaga over, Kristen Bell), a crime show TV actress leaves Peter who immediately falls apart. It seems Peter writes the music for the show so it’s difficult to get away from Sarah’s presence. (Caution about getting involved with co-workers?) He doesn’t get much help from his brother Brian (in a good supporting performance by Bill Hader). He’s encouraged to take a trip and decides to go to, where else, Hawaii? Unfortunately for him, fortunate for us, Sarah Marshall is there with her new boyfriend, rock star Aldous Snow (a hilarious Russell Brand). Can poor Peter get any lower? The sympathetic desk clerk gives him a break on a suite, but it’s right next door to---you guessed it, Sarah and Aldous. Hey, it’s a comedy.
Peter also tries to forget Sarah by meeting other people: a stoned out surfing dude, Chuck (the ever reliable Paul Rudd), a newly married guy with some performance problems, some of the Hawaiian hotel workers, and Matthew the waiter (Apatow regular Jonah Hill). Nothing works in the beginning. When your heart is broken is takes a while to fix, but Segel, and director Nicholas Stoller, et al, make it a fun journey.
Peter is sincere, but it’s clear he’s not without fault. He gets into the “couples rut,” taking Sarah for granted and not listening to her about her needs. He gets too comfortable being lazy rather than being dynamic about his life and his work. After he messes everything up, he finds redemption and renewal in one of the best ending sequences I’ve seen this year. I’m not giving anything away here. It’s a romantic comedy offering some chance for self-examination, amusing dialogue, clever twists, a touch of angst and a splash of charm. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| ANAMORPH IFC - Independent Film Channel Content Advisory for Parents Rated R for disturbing grisly images, some violence and language. Thriller 103 minutes
3 stars |
The artistic references (starting with the title) are meant to elevate Anamorph above its kin in the serial killer genre. No luck. If anything, they’re an attempt to explicate the reasoning behind elaborate and gruesome crime scenes. Still, no luck. Despite the carnage, and the effort to be suspenseful, the viewing experience is tedious and unsatisfying.
To begin with the unusual title - Anamorphosis is an image which appears distorted unless viewed properly by angle or device and, too, it can entail a secondary image in a painting (again viewed at the correct angle) bearing a contradictory message from the main subject matter. Or, something to that effect. But then grasping the particulars is not very critical since, by the time the term is defined (late in the film), the viewer is indifferent and primarily awaiting the unsuspenseful conclusion.
As to the film’s particulars, Stan Aubray (Willem Dafoe, convincingly unemotional) is a cold and pale (almost to the point of cadaverous) detective assigned a serial killer case primarily, it seems, as five years previously he had solved a similar one (that culprit referred to as “Uncle Eddie”). Stan is a bit obsessive/compulsive, lives in a barely furnished, ugly apartment, and is haunted by the memory of a prostitute who died at the hands of the previous mad man (one facet of whose m.o. was writing “dead” on his victims). The current killer is given to “artistic” carving and presentation of his victims. Is he a copycat? Or Uncle Eddie returned? Unfortunately, there’s scarcely any reason to care. Stan’s newly promoted partner, Carl Uffner (Scott Speedman, capable and able in a role lacking substance) is smart, professional and frustrated by the lack of cooperation from the distracted, if not bizarre, Aubray. Also on hand is Chief Brainard (James Rebhorm, believable as usual) with little to do but bark an occasional order or caution and Sandy Strickland (Clea Duvall, displaying the talent to be more than a token victim) as a blood- donating, reformed addict and friend of the girl who haunts Stan (none of which seems more than plot device). As for a strange character, that honor goes to Peter Stormare as Blair Collet, who seems to be some sort of freelance antiques salesman to Stan (who apparently has a thing for upright chairs) with an uncanny knowledge/instinct about art and crime. (For those who’ve heard or seen that Deborah Harry appears in the film, be advised hers is a cameo, and brief - a matter of seconds.)
Anamorph is directed by H.S. Miller. It’s his first feature and, though it doesn’t succeed, there is enough promise to indicate better will follow. He additionally co-write the script with Tom Phelan and one hopes next time, first and foremost, they’ll supply a protagonist the viewer will root for (Dafoe nails his character but that character is highly unsympathetic). The photographer, Fred Murphy, does an able job capturing the New York locations/shadowy crime scenes/and overlit flashbacks while production designer Jackson De Govia did a first rate job. In the end, in this instance, more warmth and less pretension might have done the trick which good intentions and admirable effort could not.
Anamorph – Despite the would-be artistic touches, a too familiar picture. Review by Charles Zio
| 88 MINUTES Rated R for disturbing violent content, brief nudity and language. Drama/Crime/Thriller 108 minutes
2 stars |
These days movie crime dramas are having to work harder to draw the audience into the story. The main reason is that crime television, with its proliferation of shows with similar themes, dominates the schedule. Many of the shows are just as complex/bloody/violent/disturbing as anything you can see in film. That brings us to 88 Minutes. True, it has Al Pacino, which ordinary television couldn’t get, but after seeing this film I’m not sure that’s as big an advantage as it sounds. Mr. Pacino has his own particular style and rhythm, and at least as far as this crime story goes, he seems out of synch with the rest of the cast. When an almost legendary actor gets to a certain age and status, all the young actors/directors/producers want to work with him like it’s going to be a big master class. And in his younger days, no one could out-act Pacino, but then he was more suited for those wonderful parts, written by those wonderful writers in the 1970s before corporations took over the movies and started to give everything a sameness that lacks originality.
Mr. Pacino plays Dr. Jack Gramm, an esteemed professor in Seattle, Washington, who testifies as a forensic psychiatrist in serial murder cases. His testimony helps convict Jon Foster for murdering a young woman in a most gruesome manner. On the day of Foster’s execution, Jack gets a phone call telling him he has 88 minutes to live. “Tick tock.” Jack has to figure out who’s trying to kill him and why. Tick tock. He knows it’s Foster, he just doesn’t know how to prove it. Tick tock. He has pretty women who are all in some state of awe of/in love with him: his assistant Shelly Barnes (Amy Brenneman), his students Kim Cummings (Alicia Witt), Lauren Douglas (Leelee Sobieski), adminstrator Carol Johnson (Deborah Kara Unger), a beautiful woman he sleeps named Sara Pollard (Leah Cairns). The men are of less importance except for plot twists: student sleuth Mike Stempt (Benjamin McKenzie), and his FBI associate Special Agent Frank Parks (William Forsythe). All of these performers do a credible job.
Director Jon Avnet does what he can with the eerie music, guarded looks, quick cuts, unnecessarily grisly crime scene murders; but there’s little to be done if the screenplay/story is flawed. Al and company run around evading harm and looking for clues, but loud noises, bullets, exploding cars, bloody noses, screams, can’t make up for a movie thriller that lacks thrills. Tick tock indeed. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| SMART PEOPLE Rated R for language, brief teen alcohol and drug use and for some sexuality. Comedy/Drama 95 minutes
4 stars |
Intelligence will get you far – in academia, in publishing, in snappy retorts – but it’s of limited help in the department of emotions. Smart People centers on some likable eggheads (and one shrewd rather than schooled) successfully getting in touch with their inner/better natures (despite the fact they’d scoff at such an idea) via a low-key/winning journey of alteration (each of the main characters has changed by movie’s end).
The head of the Wetherhold (as in a stationary/static/stagnant pattern) household is Lawrence, a literature professor exhausted and bored (and not hiding it) who is fully realized in every respect by a pitch perfect Dennis Quaid (physically - bent and with a limp; emotionally – shut down to feeling; mentally – impatient and dismissive of others). Following in Lawrence’s footsteps is his daughter Vanessa (Ellen Page, charmingly appealing) a super bright teen with a case of sarcasm and a lack of maturity. The son, James (Ashton Holmes, able/sincere), is not fully thought out and primarily appears when called for by a plot device. Completing the family circle is Lawrences’s adopted (no explanation given) brother Chuck (Thomas Hayden Church, impressive, as usual, with both comedy and drama), a ne’er-do-well, down-to-earth antithesis of his brother, yet at the same time far more astute and sensible than the others around him. In other words, he’s a spark of life and the voice of reason.
The cause of Lawrence’s ennui isn’t hidden – it’s the death and loss of Caroline, his wife and mother to Vanessa and James (she’s seen only in snapshots). But then, a new woman enters, namely Janet Hartigan (Sarah Jessica Parker, in a believably naturalistic/non-quirky/non-mannered performance) as a former student (not that Lawrence remembers any, even from semester to semester) with a long ago crush. Now a doctor, she treats Lawrence after an accident and they become romantically involved, proving that the old professor ain’t a total dummy in the heart department. Still, they don’t have an easy time of it since there’s much miscommunication (naturally, as Lawrence is only used to hearing, and heeding, his own voice). At the same time, Chuck tries to help Vanessa ease up/have some fun/be less of a robot (she’s a brainy show off) that she sadly misinterprets to the discomfort of both herself and her uncle. For his part, which isn’t much, James is writing poetry in his dorm room, having a fling with a co-ed, and when home, engages in to/fro sibling barbs with Vanessa.
Thanks (Yes!) to director Noam Murro and his realization of the excellent script by Mark Jude Poirier there are no fireworks in Smart People – no screaming matches, exploding action sequences, loud/crisis-laden emotional breakdowns, etc. Instead, the viewer is treated to the refreshing, and realistic, presentation of basically average (if very bright) individuals navigating the perplexing and tricky road to emotional fulfillment. From start to finish, the main characters change, logically and sympathetically and, if you’re open to the small victories of life, to the viewer’s genuine satisfaction. (And don’t rush out at the start of the end credits. There are some nice, final touches to be seen.)
Smart People – Quietly wise and meaningful. Review by Charles Zio
| STREET KINGS Rated R for strong violence and pervasive language. Drama/Crime/thriller 117 minutes
3 stars |
There’s plenty of blood and violence in Street Kings, but not much suspense about who the bad guys are---it’s everyone. This deeply cynical (though probably accurate, at some point, portrait) of the Los Angeles Police Department shows just how cheap life can be. Criminals and police die violent deaths with equal accompanying gore. The reason some writers want to show us just how bad things can be is because, ironically, they are idealists at heart. This may be the case of James Ellroy, the man with the story idea and co-writer of this script. He’s best known in the film world for LA Confidential, which is more clever and masterful than Street Kings. Why would a writer continue to mine the same subject? Maybe he can’t get over the fact that police, meant to protect citizens, become criminals, or more simply he’s fascinated by the dark side of the soul. He has plenty of company with co-writers Kurt Wimmers and Jamie Ross, not to mention director David Ayers who has written crime drama himself.
Detective Tom Ludlow (Keanu Reeves) is one of Captain Jack Wander’s (Forest Whitaker) boys. Jack loves Tom and protects him because he makes him look good by killing the bad guys at will, then changing facts to suit his purpose. Captain James Biggs (Hugh Laurie) has been on to them for some time. Why can’t he get them? You’ll find out, although it’s no big surprise revelation. Tom’s former partner is killed; Tom is there so though the heat is on, he decides to find the killers himself. There are all kinds of plot twists, murders, right turns, double & triple crosses; so many that the whole shebang begins to lose its ability to shock the viewer. Instead, you can pretty much say, “Here it comes.” Yeah, even the good guys are dirty cops. Now what?
Having said all the above I have to say that this film is not without merit. I like the casting starting with Keanu Reeves. He is a surprise choice, but his understated “style” works here. Tom is supposed to be in a fog since the death of his wife, and he drinks too much. If a more reactive actor was used, the viewer would be worn out half way through. He is growing into these parts; and more believable than he used to be as a world weary hero. Forest Whitaker always adds depth, although this is not my favorite part of his. Hugh Laurie, the English actor from House is just plain good. He’s not in the film all that much, but he brings an interesting energy to every scene he’s in. Other good performances: Chris Evans, Martha Higareda, Cedric the Entertainer, Terry Crews and Naomie Harris.
If you like this film genre, Street Kings will not be at the top of your list for best police action dramas, but it won’t be at the bottom either. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
THE ROAD TO BROADWAY |
SHOW BUSINESS: THE ROAD TO BROADWAY Advisory Content for Parents Rated PG for language and some sexual situations. Documnetary 102 minutes (Not Rated) |
I wish I could say that I loved watching this documentary film about the making of four Broadway musicals ( Wicked; Avenue Q; Caroline, or Change; and Taboo), all of which were nominated for the 2004 Tony Award for Best Musical. Instead what I did was to empathetically suffer through it, and here is why: although we are shown brief flashes of exultation, as when the Avenue Q creative team unexpectedly sweeps the Tonys, we are mainly shown scenario after scenario of exhausted, struggling artists of all types trying to create something great in the hothouse environment of stress and fear that heralds the start of every new Broadway season.
To be fair, we are warned several times, by many of the artists who are interviewed throughout the film, that a whole lot of hurt is ultimately at the center of any deeply passionate creative process. Or, as director George C. Wolfe observes in a voice filled with deep emotional conflict, to make a good show into a great one takes an ability to cope with a relentless, never-ending “sea of details”. So it was probably inequitable of me to keep stubbornly hoping I would be “entertained” by this slice of real-life Broadway.
I guess I just wanted to believe that what the audience sees when the curtain of a Great White Way musical goes up (that is, the ease of execution, the sparkle, the joy) also exists backstage during the process leading up to that point. But now my eyes have been opened. I have seen that the character Elphaba in the original Wicked cast is not really green, but actually the very talented, very real, very painstakingly spray-painted actress Idina Menzel, and for me, Oz will never be the same. Review by Jorja Ursin
| LEATHERHEADS Rated PG-13 for brief strong language. Comedy/Drama/Romance/Sport 114 minutes
3 stars |
You won’t believe it, but George Clooney looks exactly like my Uncle Alphonso (Al). I have a picture of Uncle Al when he’s young in a Navy uniform. He’s tilted forward with his head almost to the frame. His hair is very dark and slicked back in the style of the time. He has a slight, enigmatic smile. I never got to ask him what he was thinking. The photo looks like it could be a Hollywood glossy, but I know it isn’t, yet he’s so handsome. He was my godfather and one of my favorite uncles. He had a wonderful wit and was a “swell” guy. I say all this to make the point that George Clooney is someone I admire, because after all, we’re told over and over what a “swell” guy he is, and he reminds me so much of Uncle Al. So it troubles me to say that Leatherheads has more than a few problems.
One thing that seems true about Mr. Clooney is that he takes his work, but not himself seriously. Here he is director/actor, and supposedly did some writing on the script. Obviously, this is a difficult feat to pull off because unless you are a true minimalist like Clint Eastwood, and you’re doing a madcap comedy, it demands very precise timing. Actors need directors for, among other things, the simple reason that they can’t see themselves when they’re acting. As a director Mr. Clooney normally has the strength of knowing and understanding actors and what they need from a director. But if you’re so distracted with other matters can you really do it justice? He does get his cast to do an overall pretty good job and they have a good rapport. Where the movie seems to go astray is the wildly uneven tone. The movie takes place in 1925 when there is no formal national football league. Clooney plays the lovable rogue again. He dreams up a scheme to get fans to the seats, there’s a brittle female reporter trying to get to the bottom of a football star’s lies about his military service. There is a climactic football game. That sloppy in-the-mud game is a metaphor for the movie itself. It’s all over the place. Renée Zelleweger seems to be the only one to look and talk consistently like someone in the 1920s, although some of the lines she has to say are just not believable. John Krasinski does a good job with his part as the possible tainted war hero/star football player. This is not to say the movie is terrible; it does have some fine comic moments, but not enough to characterize it as “madcap” like the old movies that were so much fun. (On the upside it was mostly filmed just outside Charlotte and the local folks seem tickled by the whole experience.)
When a “big star” is as swell as Mr. Clooney, there is the tendency towards much fawning to curry his favor. He might have been better served by some honesty. Although people always say they want the truth, I tend to agree with playwright/screenwriter Aaron Sorkin who gave Jack Nicholson the famous line, “You can’t handle the truth!” But I believe a swell guy like George can tell the difference between a sincere comment and a dagger.
There are, of course, different styles of reviewers and critics who live by various philosophies from, “I’m gonna get you, you SOB because you’re too rich, handsome, popular…fill-in-the-blank," all the way to, “May I wipe your fill-in-the-blank, Mr. Clooney?” My approach is simple: call it as I see it without being overly personal or unnecessarily cruel and respect everyone who tries to make magic. How else do you keep your credibility with the audience, assuming you care? Uncle Al would be proud. It’s a tough, heartless business and folks who make movies do the best they can. So I know George will understand when I say, with all due respect, better luck next time. Keep trying George, because we need swell guys like you to keep the faith. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| SHINE A LIGHT PG-13 for brief strong language, drug references and smoking. Documentary/Music 122 minutes
3½ stars |
He prances, he pouts, he swaggers, he struts, he shakes his hips, he hops and bops, he pouts. In short, he’s Mick Jagger doing what Mick Jagger has been doing for over forty years, along with Keith Richard, Charlie Watts, and Ronnie Wood. The documentary Shine a Light shows the audience two hours of a benefit concert that the Rolling Stones did in fall 2006 at the Beacon Theater in New York. Before the concert when director Martin Scorsese makes contact with Mick about the film, then tries to find out the first song they’ll be playing so he can set up the camera shots, is the funniest part of the documentary. Mr. Scorsese knows how to deliver those ironically droll comments of frustration that those who deal with the Stones must recognize. Even up until show time no one is quite sure what song they’re going to sing first (Jumping Jack Flash, sometimes inaudible). This must have been difficult for the precise Mr. Scorsese, but then, that’s the Stones.
Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton show up to greet the guys. There is a short period of time when everyone has to wait for Mrs. Clinton’s mother, but Mick, Keith, Charlie and Ronnie are very gracious when she gets there. Bill Clinton introduces the band to the crowd, and when Mick comes out on stage the performance takes over, because it is pure performance. Don’t expect to see a glimpse into anyone’s soul. No one works a crowd or works harder for a crowd than Mick. There are a few flashbacks here and there when the young Stones are interviewed which starkly points out that these men have plenty of miles on them. Sometimes it’s a bit of a shock when we come back to present day to remember they started out so young.
The band does quite a few songs; more than expected. Some work better than others. They also have some guests that liven things up including Jack White, Christina Aguilera, and especially Buddy Guy. They and the back-up singers, bass guitarist Darryl Jones, the other musicians in the horn section, on keyboard, on stage are uniformly good.
The other star of the film is the cinematography headed by Director of Photography, Robert Richardson. The constantly moving camera and some of the shots have lots of the wow factor. He and his crew, and all the technical folks do an outstanding job getting closer than we ever would be even standing up against the stage. David Tedeschi, the editor, also deserves credit for shaping the amazing visuals.
There is, at times though, a sense that Mick’s jumping and grinding is almost rote; that he’s done it so many times he could close his eyes and keep going. People who have seen the Stones in concert say they are incredible, and that live spark is almost impossible to capture on film. The movie is also too long by at least fifteen to twenty minutes which could be cut with no loss to the overall effect. There is a nice quiet moment when Mick is offstage and Keith sings “Silver” with a poignancy and nod to passing time, but then he sings another song which doesn’t need to be included. It’s obvious these rock and rollers have a deep affection for each other. They are in their 60s now, how long can they keep going? It’s good they are captured at this moment in time, and even though they’ve been filmed before, they are after all, The Rolling Stones. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
THE RED BALLOON |
THE FLIGHT OF THE RED BALLOON IFC - Independent Film Channel Not Rated Action/Adventure/Drama/Family 114 minutes
3 stars |
It isn’t easy to be a foreign film director since you’re work is not widely distributed/seen. Nor generally appreciated, except, primarily, by critics and film aficionados. Flight of the Red Balloon is an example – if you’re a fan of Hou Hsiao-hsien, the Taiwanese director, you’ll likely be more or less pleased with your viewing experience. For most, though, restlessness will predominate. And let’s get it out of the way upfront, the connection to the French short The Red Balloon from 1956 is, at best, loose.
A young boy in Paris, Simon (Simon Iteanu, natural and likable), starts the film pleading with a red balloon to come home with him on the Metro. In response, somehow seeming in possession of a mind, it follows along the tracks and soars over roofs before disappearing. Pacing nervously on the street below is Song (Song Fang, effectively reserved), Simon’s new nanny. A Chinese student continuing her film studies, she often has a camera in hand and not only specifically mentions The Red Balloon, but, further states she’s making a film with a similar subject. Still, she’s a competent and confident woman assuming her duties easily with nary a hesitation at Simon’s unusual living arrangements – his piano lessons are taken in the downstairs apartment of Marc (Hippolyte Girardo, believably sneaky) a con man of sorts who exudes good will who hasn’t paid his rent in a year. Marc’s landlady is Simon’s mother, Suzanne (Juliette Binoche, attractive and appealing), who veers from competence (she’s a principal member, as well as the puppet voices, in a children’s theater company) and a frazzled single mother trying to make ends meet. As her anger increases with Marc (also his friend Pierre, Simon’s absent father, via phone as he’s off novel-writing in Montreal), she takes legal action that seems to have no affect/elicits little reaction from Simon or Song, who seem absent emotionally. This might be Simon’s method of coping with a broken family and a high-strung, needy mother (Suzanne repeatedly asks her son for hugs, to look at her, etc.). In terms of Song, she’s making her way in a different, distant land in addition to being a moviemaker and, thus, an observer. Maybe, in fact, the title refers to her – “Flight” since she is away from her native country, “red” associated with Chinese communism, and “balloon” to symbolize a mind set free to explore and enjoy the myriad possibilities of freedom? One last point, mention is made (along with brief glimpses) of Suzanne’s daughter Louise from a former husband (Simon calls her “sister” knowing there is no biological relation).
In directing The Flight of the Red Balloon Hue repeatedly demonstrates a fondness for long takes – e.g., Simon’s piano lesson, Marc’s coming to cook vegetables in Suzanne’s apartment, piano tuning/game playing/ neighbors argument near the end. Unfortunately, the actions spotlighted are mundane and do not gain impact by being relayed in real time. Then again, Hue’s fans might hail them as original and noteworthy (admittedly most American films tend to quick cuts). Another directorial technique Hue favors here – shots/reflections, out of/into/or off of glass indicating, it seems, the separation and detachment of reality and the intimate and distant. In closing, it’s evident that Hue has a distinctive artistic voice. Whether a viewer heeds its call will remain a personal choice.
The Flight of the Red Balloon – To some, soaring; to others, doesn’t fly. Review by Charles Zio
| NIM'S ISLAND Rated PG for mild adventure action and brief language. Adventure/Comedy/Family 96 minutes
3½ stars |
Nim’s Island, adapted from the children's book by Wendy Orr, will appeal to middle school age girls (maybe boys). It certainly entertained the two young girls sitting next to me (no relation). Nim Rusoe (an appealing Abigail Breslin) lives on an island in the South Pacific with her marine biologist father Jack (Gerard Butler, also appealing). Nim’s mother is not present since, we’re shown in animation, that she was swallowed by a whale on a work outing in the ocean when Nim was a baby. So Jack is mother and father, although he’s rather distracted by wanting to find some certain kind of plankton. For her part, Nim is happy with her life and “friends” a sea lion, iguana, and sea turtle. She is home schooled, they get supplies every few months, and she has contact with the outside world through a satellite phone and email. Her idyllic life is full of healthy island adventure of her own since Nim has learned to be unafraid of most things that would ordinarily scare an 11 year old.
Nim’s favorite author is Alex Rover, an adventurer on the order of Indiana Jones, who always manages to escape extreme danger. The problem is Alex Rover is really Alexandria, the agoraphobic writer of the adventure tales (a tightly wound Jodie Foster, maybe trying a bit too hard). When Jack goes off without Nim, at her insistence, to gather the rare plankton, she is alone on the island.
When Alex contacts Jack about an article he wrote about the volcano they live under, Nim answers. She hurts her leg trying to answer Alex’s questions. A storm traps Jack at sea. Nim is alone and scared during the storm, worrying about her father. In the meantime, Australian tourists make themselves at home on the beach of Nim’s Island causing her to send lizards flying into their beach party to get rid of them. Still thinking Alex is a brave male adventurer, Nim asks her for help.
The main thing to remember is the genre; this is a family movie and something parents can see with their children. The tag line, “Be the hero of your own story,” about self-reliance and courage is a good message for kids, especially girls, entering an uncertain, trying period of their lives. The mixture of reality and fantasy is fun if not overly original, and the outcome is not in doubt. Abigail Breslin is a natural, down-to-earth heroine. She and Gerard Butler have a good rapport, as she does with Jodie Foster, although they don’t have many scenes together. Nim’s Island is a sweet, earnest family movie that kids, like the girls next to me, will enjoy. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| STOP-LOSS Rated R for graphic violence and pervasive language. Drama/War 112 minutes
3½ stars |
Given the current climate it’s not certain audiences will want to see Stop-Loss; that’s too bad because this is a balanced film, neither pro-war nor anti-war. What it’s about is the effects of war on the soldiers who do the best they can to serve and protect their country, yet are undeniably changed by the experience. The opening scenes take place in Iraq as a squad of soldiers are led into an ambush and several are injured or die in a bloody shoot out. The story continues as the group comes back to their small Texas hometown to a “parade.” The squad leader, Brandon King (an earnest and believable Ryan Phillipe), is honored with a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. His proud parents Ida and Roy King (Linda Edmond and Ciarán Hinds) are relieved he’s home. Hints begin to emerge that although all are happy to be home, adjustment is another matter as they are told not to drink and drive, sleep with underage girls, keep their temper under control and not beat anybody up. Easier said than done.
Brandon and his best friend, Steve Shriver (Channing Tatum) can finish each other’s sentences. Steve’s fiancée Michelle (Abbie Cornish) is a friend of Brandon’s since third grade, is close to his parents. Brandon seems the reasonable, common sense leader as Tommy Burgess (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) loses it at a party and beats up a guy who asks his new wife to dance. She kicks him out until he can get his head together. The same night Steve gets so drunk he digs a trench in Michelle’s front yard and sleeps in it with a gun. Yet, when Brandon is expecting to be discharged soon after these incidents, he finds that he can’t get out because he’s been put on a “stop loss” which means he has to go back to war. Brandon freaks out, goes AWOL (absent without leave), and takes off with Michelle trying to get to Washington to see a senator who promised to help him with anything he needs.
Brandon meets other soldiers on the run and finds he has no one who will help him except a lawyer who can arrange to get him out of the country—for a price. A tragedy takes place back in Texas and Brandon has some hard choices about serving again or losing his past.
Of course, the plot has been arranged to serve the story and is a bit too convenient. My cousin, a colonel in the Army National Guard, tells me stop-loss is always a part of the contract enlisted men sign saying something to the effect, “In the event of a national emergency your term of service is extended for the duration plus six months.” The young men and women who enlist either ignore or don’t understand this, so stop-loss seems a shock when it happens. In reality, there is sometimes several months where the soldier can make a decision to get out of the service before being sent back unless he/she is “alerted” then he/she must to go. In the film, there is no such extended time period. It happens within the span of a week. This time pressure gives added tension to the situation as we find out later the real reason Brandon doesn’t want to go back to war. But the film is balanced in showing that when soldiers serve together they are family. If one is lost, through death or by attrition and new soldiers have to be brought in and trained it affects the men who are left behind; make them less safe. Trust and brotherhood get them through the dangerous times. Iraqis are not shown to be monsters either, but rather faceless fighters with a mission or helpless bystanders trying to defend their homes the only way they know.
The acting is uniformly well done with special note of Ryan Phillipe's growth as an actor. Stop-Loss will stay with you and make you think about the patriotism that drives regular, ordinary, decent men and women to become soldiers in a foreign war. The film shows their commitment to each other is what keeps the soldiers going, but the burden and the sacrifice of that experience is what they have to live with forever after. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| RUN FATBOY RUN PG-13 for some rude and sexual behavior, nudity, language and smoking. UK/USA Comedy 100 minutes
2½ stars |
If you like your comedy raunchy and crude, Run Fatboy Run will be right up your ally. It has that certain Brit sensibility about comedy, although American David Schwimmer is the director. The story about an out of shape security guard in a lingerie store has some amusing moments, although not necessarily hilarious ones. Dennis, played by Simon Pegg, while not a Mr. Universe candidate, is certainly not fat by any stretch of the imagination even with a bit of a tummy. He takes off running away from his fiancée, Libby (Thandie Newton), on his wedding day when she is very pregnant, and his life goes downhill from there. Dennis is best friends with Gordon (Dylan Moran), Libby’s cousin, a lazy gambling sot, who makes every situation he’s involved in worse than it should be.
Five years after Dennis runs out on Libby, he’s running after a transsexual who tries to steal underwear from the store he guards, lives in a dumpy basement apartment, hangs around with Gordon. His saving grace is that he’s a good father to his son who idolizes him. He and Libby have a cordial relationship because of the child, but Dennis gets jealous when an American named Whit (Hank Azaria) shows up on the scene. A seemingly perfect physical specimen as well as a nice guy, Dennis automatically dislikes him and the two get into a contest of wills. When Whit challenges Dennis by telling him he’s a runner, Dennis decides to run the same marathon to win back Libby. He trains with Gordon’s help as well as his landlord, Mr. Ghoshdashtidar (Harish Patel).
Dennis is supposed to train in several weeks for a marathon? For anyone so out of shape, who smokes, drinks and is generally lazy that could be a catastrophe. Since Dennis starts things and never finishes, this is a real challenge to his love for Libby and their son. Not particularly original, the screenplay doesn’t leave much doubt what will happen, but the movie has as much suspense as it can put together.
Hank Azaria is a good actor and adds much needed spice to the movie. Dylan Moran is fun as an unapologetic degenerate. Simon Pegg is a likable actor. He’s sort of the sadly comedic “everyman” who overcomes adversity in many of his roles, and while Dennis causes his own problems from the beginning, Mr. Pegg is able to make Dennis more sympathetic than he has a right to be for running out on the pregnant Libby. Does Dennis redeem himself in the end? Mr. Pegg is co-writer of the screenplay. What do you think? Review by Ann Marie Oliva| 21 PG-13 for some violence, and sexual content including partial nudity. Drama/Crime 122 minutes
3½ stars |
Gambling is gambling, no matter if you are a young genius, belong to a savvy team, have a smart leader, or have a “system” because gambling is ultimately about the gambler not being able to keep emotions under control. Every one of them thinks he/she can beat the house. Every one of them is wrong. Here we have 21, an interesting story based on a book about a group (actually several groups) of MIT students who are so mathematically gifted; their instructor decides he can put them together to count cards. They devise verbal and physical cues to tip off their fellow team members when a 21 table is hot or what the count is when betting the big money.
That instructor is Mickey Rosa (Kevin Spacey playing yet another smarmy character), who wants to make big scores in Las Vegas. He notices a genius in his class named Ben Campbell (an earnest Jim Sturgess looking like a young Paul McCartney with the same kind of soft features), who has a 4.0 grade point average at MIT, but needs money for Harvard Medical School. His single working class mother apparently has sacrificed for him since his father died. Although he initially resists, he is drawn into the group by the promise of med school money, saying once he makes $300,000 thousand he’s out. We all know better, don’t we? The enigmatic beauty that he’s hooked on, Jill Taylor (a well-cast Kate Bosworth), is also on the team and this gives him more reason to go for it.
The team is a good mixture of “types” although the above mentioned young actors (Sturgess and Bosworth) plus Liza Lapira, Jacob Pitts, and especially Aaron Yoo, make them believable. Of course, Ben has to blow off his likeable best friends, Miles and Cam (Josh Gad & Sam Golzari) who are counting on him to help with a special project. His values become messed up and it all starts to go wrong after hundreds of thousands have been made through their scheme. A smart casino security man, Cole Williams (the pitch perfect Laurence Fishburne) who’s job is being outdated by facial recognition software, is on to the team and the consequences are dire for Ben. There is a transition that is not necessarily handled in the smoothest way so that there is a tip off to one of several switches at the end.
The movie is more enjoyable than I expected, although the Las Vegas scenes showing the kids enjoying the hedonistic lifestyle go on too long. That is the gist of the story, though, the easy money, all the glamour and exciting razzle dazzle around gambling is very seductive. Sure, you can win, even big here and there, but most people aren’t smart enough to get in and get out. Gambling is a huge business with books, and websites supposedly telling how to beat the system, or having online games. Those websites and the casinos won’t have to worry about staying in business, the gambler’s mentality--always trying to make the next big score, will keep gamblers making suckers’ bets. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
A BANK |
HOW TO ROB A BANK Advisory for Parents IFC - Independent Film Channel Comedy/Crime/Thriller 81 minutes
4½ stars |
The fun of a caper movie is watching the planning, execution, and success/failure of burglarizing/robbing a wealthy owner, casino, bank, museum, whatever, usually by a group of experienced criminals. How To Rob A Bank is different in that the protagonist is an average guy who stumbles into, and becomes trapped in, a bank heist. The twist, and it’s clever and most entertaining, is indicated by the film’s subtitle “And 10 Tips To Actually Get Away With It.’
Jinx (short for Jason, and ironic) is an average guy (called a “nobody” by the police) who works in a coffee shop, living paycheck to paycheck, who starts the film sounding off about the nickel and dimeing afflicting us all, such as his experience trying to withdraw $20 from an ATM only to be informed that with a balance of $20.27 and a $1.50 surcharge he had insufficient funds. Enraged, Jinx finds a branch of his bank, Grant Liberty (another ironic name), and storms in to demand what he feels are his rightful funds. Unfortunately, a heist is in progress and to escape he runs into the large, open safe which now, tripped by an alarm, closes behind him. In addition, the nature of the robbery itself remains something of a mystery. Interesting set up, right? And a great deal of enjoyment comes from watching precisely how Jinx reacts, bluffs, outsmarts, outmaneuvers, and masters the situation. Especially as he is trapped with murderous robbers outside the door, an accomplice inside with him, an offsite mastermind, and nothing more substantial in hand than a few cell phones (which are crucial and integral to the action).
Perfect in the role of Jinx is Nick Stahl who is engaging/effective/sincere throughout as a regular fellow who progresses from a put upon consumer to a sly/clever bandit. Playing Jessica, his adversary and then ally in the safe, is Erika Christiensen, appealing whether feisty/scheming/or softening toward her inadvertent captor. Gavin Rossdale is menacing and deadly as Simon, the impatient, pill-popping leader of the robbers. Terry Crews is mostly convincing, if at times a bit too frustrated, as the police officer. And Nick, the brains of the operation, is heard (effectively) on a cell phone until his appearance at the end (no spoiler here and you just might recognize the voice).
The director of this intelligent and engaging film is Andrew Jenkins, who also penned the fine script. Assisted by cinematographer Joseph Meade and editors M. Scott Shith and Dennis M. Hill, Jenkins fully realizes the potential of the little man, through grit and native smarts, emerging triumphant while keeping the viewer guessing (with indirection, cuts, and the unexpected). The directorial hand is so sure that even the sequential screen listing of the 10 tips themselves are not a distraction or annoyance but witty additions/clues.
How To Rob A Bank – Missing this dandy caper movie would be a crime. Review by Charles Zio
THE X-RAY EYES |
THE MAN WITH THE X-RAY EYES Parental Advisory Science Fiction/Thriller 80 minutes |
X or as it’s better known, The Man with the X-Ray Eyes, was the opening film at the NoDa (North Davidson) Film Festival. It’s in the “arty” part of town where interesting events like this one are more likely to be found. The “B” movie from 1963 was shown with the legendary rock band Pere Ubu, which helped launch punk rock, underscoring it live. The music and sound effects the band provided added more dimension and increased appreciation, and laughs big time. Yet, there is a serious side to this particular/peculiar movie as it represents the science fiction genre of “man over-reaching.” Ray Milland plays Dr. James Xavier who wants to be able to perceive more than the ten percent of the spectrum he claims humans can only see.
To this end he puts special drops in a monkey’s eyes to prove the effect allows the animal to see through objects. Unfortunately, the monkey dies immediately afterwards. Seeking funding for his work, he appeals to a foundation, which refuses his request for money. So Dr. Xavier experiments on himself. There is a very amusing scene where he attends a party (where all are dressed up and do the twist) and sees through everyone’s clothes, including that of Dr. Diane Fairfax (Diana Van der Vlis) his “love interest.” At first elated over his newfound ability, he finds his good intentions run into calamity when he accidentally causes the death of his friend Dr. Sam Brant (Harold J. Stone) and goes on the run. He ends up in a carnival as the freak he has become. Dr. Fairfax catches up to him, but he is unable to control his powers, leading to an ending with religious overtones, that some feel is abrupt. Apparently, there was another ending that was not used that showed him in a better “light.”
Thanks to the dignity and acting skill of Ray Milland, The Man with the X-Ray Eyes, remains one of producer/director Roger Corman’s best B movie efforts. Those cheesy special effects and the corny/sincere acting by the rest of the cast add this film to the list of the best of B. As for Pere Ubu, David Thomas read some notes before the movie, which were clever and funny. I had to leave before they played a set after the movie, but the admirable thing about Pere Ubu is that they are true to themselves, they imitate no one. Dr. Xavier may have had x-ray vision, but Pere Ubu has vision of another kind.
If you get a chance to go to the Festival over the next two days, do it!
Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| DRILLBIT TAYLOR PG-13 for crude sexual references throughout, strong bullying, language, drug references and partial nudity. Comedy 102 minutes
2 stars |
There is a story there, not an original one, but the tone of Drillbit Taylor is what is uneven and worn around the edges. Teens will recognize what the young “heroes” of the movie are going through, they’ve either seen it or lived through it. Wade, Ryan, and Emmit (Nate Hartley, Troy Gentile, and David Dorfman) are the nerdiest freshman on the first day of high school, perfect for the school bullies, Filkins and Ronnie (Alex Frost and Josh Peck) to harass. The three try to avoid the bullies, but keep getting kicked around. When they get desperate enough they decide to hire a bodyguard. The short montage of the guys interviewing bodyguards is somewhat amusing, if clichéd, although nowhere near hilarious.
Because they are low on funds, they have to settle for the marked-down bodyguard, Drillbit Taylor (Owen Wilson) who is actually a homeless veteran claiming he was in special ops and specially equipped to handle the situation. It’s a comedy, so multiple complications ensue. First there are his homeless buddies trying to talk him into taking advantage of the kids, and then there are the kids’ families thinking everything is going well. A girl that Nate likes seems thrown into the stew. When Drillbit isn’t living up to his part of the bargain, he tells them he has to infiltrate the school to scope out the situation. He meets a pretty teacher, Lisa (Leslie Mann). This distraction keeps him pretending to be a substitute teacher as the relationship gets absurdly hot and heavy, straining credulity. Meanwhile, the three kids are still getting beat up. You can guess what’s going to happen next.
Bullying is, in reality, a tough subject and there have been many teen stories that center on it, but there is a balance between humor and sensitivity. Yes it can be funny, but why, because the misfortunes of others are funny, or because we identify with the nerds? We know no one will be seriously hurt and there will probably be a “happy” ending, but enough already. Judd Apatow certainly finds the most unusual looking boys and guys for his movies; actors you wouldn’t normally see. (That’s a good thing.) Does he think the audience will keep identifying with them? Maybe. I’m not a male so I can’t answer that, but it’s getting to be the same thing over and over. What felt fresh once is beginning to feel very tired. Show us something that changes the discussion. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| LOVE SONGS Foreign Film - France IFC Films Content Advisory for Parents Musical 100 minutes
3½ stars |
There’s nothing extraordinary about Love Songs. Also, nothing terrible. A musical. Various sexual pairings. A death. In French (subtitled). Everything done well (acting, directing, photography, art design, etc.), but no reason to cheer. All in all, a pleasant movie. That’s it, more or less.
Set in Paris, Ismael (Louis Garrel, charming and appealing throughout) is living with his girlfriend, Julie (Ludivine Sagnier, interestingly intriguing and attractively sulky), and his co-worker at a local newspaper, Alice (Clotide Hesme, increasingly warm and sympathetic), who claims more interest in the female side of the equation. Tension manifests in shifting jealousies. Julie wants more attention and declarations, and demonstrations, of love from Ismael, who is ever smooth and convincing (even to her family) although self-involved and immature. One night, at a club, Julie picks up Gwendal (Yannick Renier, believable) in reaction to her bedmates embracing. Part One of the movie is titled “The Departure” for the eventually obvious reason that someone dies at its conclusion. Hate to give it away. On the other hand, there’s a lot of movie left after the demise. Okay, it’s Julie. Part Two, “The Absence,” focuses on the reactions to the surprise death. Ismael drifts about mostly wanting to be left alone. He goes to dinner with Julie’s family, refuses the money she has left (primarily in an insurance policy) and avoids grief by joking with a napkin puppet on his hand. Even further he is not receptive to the offer from the bereaved sister, Jeanne (Chiara Mastroianni, movingly tender and kind) to share their grief. Nor is he interested in rekindling his relationship with Alice (even if she were available). She does bring him home and it is there he meets Gwendal’s brother, Erwanna (Grègoire Leprince-Ringuet, skillfully portraying eager and determined) who pursues Ismael, to his amusement and growing approval. Part Three, “The Return,” brings resolution as Ismael (most of all) comes to terms with both his feelings and their acceptance.
About the songs – they seem to be intelligently interspersed and meant to define/expand/explicate/move the story along (as wisely inserted songs in musicals are meant to do). However, the songs by Alex Beaupain, in a French pop style, while easy to listen to fail to be as effective as possible or register as memorable due to their unfamiliar form. And maybe, too, something is lost in translation (when was the last time you heard a song that mentions “saliva”).
The director, Christophe Honorè, has done a professional job coordinating the technical elements. (However, by now, shouldn’t all but independent directors be aware, and avoid, tracking shots with spectators turning to watch the camera go by?) Paris is alluringly photographed (as it ever seems to be) by Rèmy Chevrin. Honorè’s script is capable and has its moments of grace and/or the unexpected. Yes, let’s credit him with assembling a musical that isn’t embarrassing or annoying or a waste of talent, as many prior efforts have proved to be.
Love Songs – Not on the hit parade, but an honorable miss. Review by Charles Zio
BACK DOWN |
NEVER BACK DOWN Rated PG-13 for mature thematic material involving intense sequences of fighting/violence, some sexuality, partying and language - all involving teens. Action / Drama / Sport 110 minutes
2½ stars |
If you’re into mixed martial arts, and not too concerned about plot, acting, or artistic merit, you may enjoy Never Back Down. It appears the screenwriter, Chris Hauty, and director Jeff Wadlow, have built a story around the fighting and then tried to make the elements fit. The fit is a stretch.
A rebellious teen/angry young man Jake Tyler (Tom Cruise look-alike Sean Faris) and his family move to Orlando, Florida after his father’s death so that his younger brother, Charlie (a winning Wyatt Smith) can play tennis at a competitive level. Their weary waitress mother, Margo (Leslie Hope), and Jake argue over just about everything, especially his penchant for beating guys up at the mere mention of his father.
In his first few days at the new school he meets a beauty named Baja Miller, that’s right, Baja (Amber Heard), who invites him to a party. He sees someone beating up an apparent willing victim, Max Cooperman (Evan Peters, okay as the nerdy sidekick) who later explains he’s learning to fight. Jake blows off that remark, and looks forward to the party. He doesn’t realize that Baja has been put up to inviting him by her boyfriend Ryan McCarthy (Cam Gigandet, suitably nasty), who is the mixed martial arts champ in their area. They saw Jake beat on some football player on an internet site and Ryan wants to see what he’s got. Jake doesn’t want to fight, but then, of course, he does because we wouldn’t have a movie otherwise.
When he’s quickly knocked out, he decides to study with a guy Max works out with, Jean Roqua (Djimon Hounsou, doing what he can to give some little bit of weight to the movie). Naturally, Jake is a gifted athlete who has a will of steel and wants to skip the baby stuff and work with the advanced guys. Since he has to be shown to work hard, he is weak and unskilled at first. As his strength builds, he is anxious to take down the obnoxious Ryan. Baja breaks up with him, so Ryan has ill will against Jake. This set up leads to the big grudge match.
There are subplots and motivations thrown in about the dead alcoholic father, the mother trying to survive her bad fate, the admiring younger brother who also has talent, the high school social scene with plenty of beautiful bodies and rich kids who have nothing better to do. Fighting is “bad” and not a way to resolve problems, but really, this movie is all about glorifying this style of fighting. I always wonder why they don’t show someone getting broken bones or hurt badly. When Jake is repeatedly kicked in the ribs, how is that he goes to training the next day with little apparent damage? The fighting is meant to look exciting, and kids seem really into it, but no matter what way you cut it, it’s violent. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
HEARS A WHO! |
HORTON HEARS A WHO! Rated G Animation/Adventure/Family 88 minutes
3½ stars |
Great animation. Skillful CGI. A hit parade of voices. A lesson laden story (with familiar elements). Children who know the book and are Dr. Seuss fans will enjoy. Accompanying adults will have a few laughs. Lots of money for the producers. Is everybody happy?
Horton (voiced deftly by Jim Carrey) is a kindly, sweet tempered elephant who seems popular with his fellow jungle denizens, especially his best friend the mouse Morton (Seth Rogen, underutilized). One day the uninhibited pachyderm hears a voice on a passing speck (captured after a mad chase and attached to a flower) and learns of the existence of Whoville. Though he can’t make the trip to this tiny world, the viewer can and is introduced to the Mayor (Steve Carell, earnest/eager), his wife (Amy Poehler, understanding/sincere), Dr. Mary Lou LaRue (Isla Fisher, smart/ alarmist), and, thankfully, just a few of the Mayor’s 97 children. (On the other hand, the only boy, Jo-Jo, featured in a subplot about father-son estrangement, emerges heroic at the end. Be assured, it’s as clichéd in every respect as it sounds.) Although it’s said the tiny town is perfect/ happy/trouble-free, there’s no escaping politics and, thus, the head Councilman (Dan Fogler, arrogant/scheming) opposes the Mayor’s caution of imminent danger from the outside.
In the meantime, Horton wants to deliver the speck to the safety of a mountain top cave. Aside from the danger of the trip (a way too long sequence on a rickety slat-boarded bridge), the main impediment is Kangaroo (Carol Burnett, tough/uncompromising) who rules the jungle (no lions here) through rules and regulations and opposes Horton’s corruption of the young (how Socratic) and does everything in her power to stop him, such as recruiting the vulture, Vlad (Will Arnett, arrogant/ relentless) and, later, every animal within sight, led by a pack of teeth-baring apes.
Can Horton be stopped in his trek? Can the Whos, led by the Mayor, make enough noise to prove their existence to those of lesser ear size who can’t hear them? Will Kangaroo prevail? Will the villains repent, be forgiven, and reconcile with the hero? Will there finally be, at the end, a heart-felt sing-along? Gosh, I wonder.
While all the usual moral-conveying, life-affirming points are being made (none with subtlety), notice the dandy/clever/beautiful animation and CGI effects. These, along with an occasional funny bit or line, are the saving graces. Yeah, the film’s well done, but originality and enchantment are lacking. You can watch, but it’s doubtful you’ll be drawn into either Horton’s world or the Whoville universe. Though it tries, the movie just plain fails to “take you away.”
Horton Hears A Who! – An eyeful more than an ear-full. Review by Charles Zio
| PARANOID PARK FRANCE/USA Rated R for some disturbing images, language and sexual content. Drama 90 minutes
3½ stars |
Director Gus Van Sant, in Paranoid Park, initially leads the viewer to think he’s focusing on an inarticulate/high school fringe/skateboarder. Then again, things are not always what they appear to be. Instead, as the movie progresses, we’re given insight into the mind/emotions/actions of a basically decent young man who has inadvertently committed a crime. The mystery presented is mostly insightful, entertaining, and worthy.
Alex (Gabe Nevins, a non-actor who is, nonetheless, spot on) first appears sitting in his father’s home writing in a school booklet. What unfurls is a mixture of real time, nocturnal sleep, and daydreams of his current and recent life and older and newer memories. Occasionally this results in the repetition of images/scenes (to be expected of a freely wandering mind). Alex is quiet, reticent rather than surly, and this forces attention to the visual in order to glean the story (yet more animation from the character would definitely have been welcome). On the opposite end, quick with advice or reprimand are Alex’s restless, encouraging best friend Jared (Jake Miller, lively and believable) and his selfish cheerleader girlfriend Jennifer (Taylor Momsen, nicely mixing sweetness/tartness). Neither of them notice that “something” is bothering Alex, nor do his separated (soon to be divorced) parents or younger brother, not even, though it’s his business, does Detective Richard Lu (Dan Liu, effective as the “good cop”) on the prowl to solve a murder (graphically portrayed). The only one who has some insight into Alex (that is, who he can’t fool because she truly cares for him) is his neighbor Macy (Lauren McKinney, appealingly wise and clever) and it is she who offers a suggestion, though she doesn’t know the cause of Alex’s distraction.
The solution, as seen earlier and thereafter, is to write down what he saw and felt, what transpired, how, when, and why (both in real time and in the past), though not necessarily in exact sequence (he didn’t do well in creative writing he says). A prominent aspect is Alex’s abiding affection for skateboarding captured in seductive, soft focus, runs and airborne flights, especially in East Side Park (aka Paranoid Park, the best skate area in Portland, Oregon, created and inhabited by its older, tougher denizens). In addition are the contents of his dreams (sleeping and waking) of learning, along with childhood friends, the fine points of the sport and moving side-to-side through a long tunnel ending in an exhaust fan. What is eventually evident is that Alex is like most kids – not angry, or disturbed, or revengeful, or violent, or psychotic – just a teenager trying to be himself and go his own way who runs into trouble. By accident as so often happens.
Expertly capturing the varying visuals (clear, bright, dark, misty, etc.) are Christopher Doyle and Rain Kathy Li with fine art direction by John Pearson-Denning. But back to Gus Van Sant who further ably wrote the script (based on a novel by Blake Nelson) and is responsible for the editing (effective, however and infrequently, an image was held a tad longer than might have been necessary). Van Sant’s focus on boys/young men on the social periphery (Drug Store Cowboy, My Own Private Idaho, Elephant) has been a recurring concern, but the protagonist here is mainstream, with a familiar teenage demeanor and an interest in an increasingly respectable sport, and precisely for these reasons, Alex is accessible and sympathetic. Therefore, we root for him.
Paranoid Park – Inner/outer/accidental life of average teen (slow version). Review by Charles Zio
| DOOMSDAY Rated R for strong bloody violence, language and some sexual content/nudity. Action/Sci-Fi/Thriller 105 minutes
2 stars |
If you’ve seen apocalyptic films like Mad Max, 28 Weeks, 28 Weeks Later, and I Am Legend that take place in a bleak futuristic world, you will recognize part of them all in Doomsday. It seems a virulent virus has hit the UK in 2007. The power brokers decide that the only way to save those not infected is to isolate those that are in the northern half of the country. They build a wall to keep those people out who have pustules all over and vomit up yellow gunk. This doesn’t stop the infected from trying to get back in, and there is much killing of these poor unfortunates by soldiers. One mother begs soldiers in a helicopter to take her small daughter, who has lost an eye in the frenzy, which they do, leaving the mother to her fate.
Fast forward thirty years, and that little girl is Major Eden Sinclair (Rhona Mitra) who is a military fighting machine. Yet she carries the last note her mother wrote for the soldiers to take and identify Eden. The soldier who saved her life, Bill Nelson (Bob Hoskins), now a government official, remains her mentor. He doesn’t baby her, though, there’s no time for that. London is over-crowded and trying to deal with horrid living conditions. Unfortunately, the virus breaks out again causing chaos and Eden is in charge of a mission to find the doctor who may have a cure by the Prime Minister (Alexander Sidding), and his smarmy #1 Michael Canaris (David O’Hare). What this means is that Eden and her crack team have to go into the “hot zone” to find him. The team includes Norton (Adrian Lester), her top soldier. They take two military-style tanks and head for Glasgow.
When they get to the hospital that Dr. Kane was known to be working at on the virus cure, they are mercilessly attacked by groups of marauding punk-like, cannibalistic barbarians, who capture Eden and another soldier (the others having escaped or been killed). They torture Eden to find out where she came from; she escapes to try and find Kane (Malcolm McDowell) with the help of another prisoner Cally (MyAnna Buring), and what’s left of her soldiers. They do find the bitter Kane, and his evil lawlessness is no better than the punks.
Rhona Mitra, playing the hero is suitably buff and daring, and cries on cue. The mother-daughter storyline gives her motivation, but little else so she has to come up with nerves of steel on her own. Malcolm McDowell plays a familiar type, but his skill keeps him in check. Alexander Sidding brings some layering to the perplexed leader watching his country fall apart. MyAnna Buring is watchable as the prisoner Eden saves. As always, Bob Hoskins is the everyman whose basic good sense prevails. Adrian Lester makes the most to his part as the steady, resolute soldier ready to kill/die for the cause.
Writer/director Neil Marshall gives us a derivative storyline, with all the unnecessary expected violence, and shocking accompaniments. What is the fascination of writers and filmmakers with these depressing, futuristic stories? The lesson seems to be that in the face of annihilation, it will be man against man, with the strong/powerful controlling/killing the weak, and in fact, there will be few heroes who actually care about helping/saving others. Sad to say, that probably accurately reflects human nature. The vast majority of people are not exceptional, having not evolved yet to a higher level of self-sacrifice when their existence is threatened….except the mother, Eden’s mother, who by saving her daughter, saves the children of the apocalypse. Yes motherhood, maligned so many times, is the real hero of the story. These movies seem to suggest that as long as a few good/heroic people survive, the human race will go on, even if in an ugly, vicious, unforgiving world. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| THE BANK JOB Foreign Film – United Kingdom Rated R (parent advisory for sex and nudity) Thriller/Drama 110 minutes
4 stars |
This all English cast made me a believer. The Bank Job, based on an infamous robbery in London in 1971 delivers the goods. You have to hang in there, though, because there are several plots going on at once, and it tends to be confusing at first. If you stay with it, you won’t be disappointed.
Terry Leather (a watchable Jason Stratham) is a small time car dealer and crook. Early on it’s obvious he’s a decent guy because he’s good to his pals and loves his wife and two young daughters. An old childhood friend, Martine Love (the striking Saffron Burrows) comes back into Terry’s life with a foolproof scheme to rob a bank without getting caught. She has a special “in” and says there is little risk. Terry decides he’ll be slaving away the rest of his life if he doesn’t jump at the chance so he enlists two other childhood friends, Kevin Swain (well-cast Steven Campbell Moore), and Dave Shilling (an excellent Daniel Mays). Two others are added for their expertise, and the gang is complete.
Of course, Terry suspects, but doesn’t know the extent of Martine’s involvement with “others.” Because she has always had a thing for him, he trusts her more than he should. (At this point I’d like to add that the line, “It was always you,” should to be crossed out in future scripts. It’s nice and succinct, but getting stale.) Hold on because there are subplots involving the Royal family, MI 5 (the counter intelligence and security agency, Military Intelligence, Section 5), a sleazy porn king, a Malcolm X wanna be named Michael X, and a double agent. There are even glimpses of Lord Mountbatten, Lord Drysdale, and John Lennon.
What starts out as a sure thing becomes like a large vacuum that sucks up everything in its path. It’s a bit slow to set up and introduce all the players, but once the group gets working on the bank break in it becomes tense enough to make the audience squirm. Robbing a room full of safety deposit boxes is only half of the story. There are things more valuable than all the money and jewelry they take from the bank, and finding them comes at a terrible cost.
Director Roger Donaldson, screenwriters Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais deserve much of the credit for this high level, complicated, involving film. It definitely has the feel of reality because not everything is wrapped up nicely. I wouldn't mind seeing it again to catch what I missed. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
LIVES FOR A DAY |
MISS PETTIGREW LIVES FOR A DAY Rated PG-13 for some partial nudity and innuendo. Comedy/Drama 92 minutes
3½ stars |
The book, Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day, published in 1938, proved a bit daring for its time. Winifred Watson’s publisher wouldn’t print it until she wrote another novel like her previous ones first. Ms. Watson said she knew it would be a hit, and she was right. What’s fun about that, and the movie is that it proves, conclusively, that sex and scandal can be fun in any age. Even as the main character, the middle-aged Guinevere Pettigrew (the wonderfully expressive Frances Mc Dormand), the daughter of a clergyman, tries to pass judgment on her employer, she actually ends up loosening her rigid views of right and wrong. That’s not to say she doesn’t remain solid and wise, she just learns to not be so absolute about everything.
It seems Miss Pettigrew keeps getting fired from her nanny jobs, probably because of her self-righteousness. Desperate when her agency will not send her out to any more assignments, she swipes the business card of someone looking for an employee. Not realizing the position is not for a nanny, she goes to the address on the card. When she arrives she finds the scattered Delysia Lafosse (Amy Adams in yet another engaging performance), trying to get rid of one lover because another will be showing up soon enough. Miss Pettigrew doesn’t approve, of course, but seeing as she has slept in the train station, has not eaten, and has only the clothes on her back, she is not in a position to refuse employment as a “social secretary.” This is how the “day” of the title begins. Miss Pettigrew finds herself now in high society circles where she is out of her element. She grows very fond (a quaint word that might have been used at the time) of her beautiful young boss Delysia, who is a predicament herself trying to juggle all her lovers and wrestling with her conscience.
The director, Bharat Nalluri, and the screenwriters, David Magee and Simon Beaufoy have created an atmosphere for the actors to give the story as much depth as possible. The production design by Sarah Greenwood, art direction by Nick Gottschalk and Niall Moroney, set decoration by Katie Spencer, costume design by Michael O’Connor all add to the lush look of the film aided by the able cinematography of John de Borman.
Although there is nothing especially deep in this romantic comedy, it is charming, and there are some tender moments between Guinevere and Delysia, and Guinevere and Joe (Ciarán Hinds proving he can be attractive as a romantic interest in addition to all the brutal characters he mostly plays), a man of morals who has become successful designing the armor-like lingerie of the times. Miss Pettigrew is delightful; a lovely change of pace from most films out there right now, if wrapped up a bit too conveniently. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| 10,000 BC Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense action and violence. Adventure/Drama 109 minutes
3½ stars |
For what it is, 10,000 BC isn’t bad, though it isn’t as stirring, exciting, or gripping as it’s probably meant to be. The tipoff is “BC,” lacking periods indicating an abbreviation (“Before Christ”) though the designation has more recently been updated to B.C.E. (“Before the Common Era”). The point is history, in addition to believability, have been checked at the opening credits. Instead get prepared for a fairly passable, would-be epic of humankind’s supposedly early days. Remember, in general, the lower the expectation (I do mean low), the higher the satisfaction (but not very).
The lay of the land, as it were, is revealed at the get-go when a portentous voiceover (Omar Sharif!) intones that time teaches us what is truth and what is legend. Malarkey, of course, but thoroughly in tune with a long-haired/mud-painted/rattily-dressed tribe presided over by a prophecy spouting, witch doctor/shaman/spiritualist (call her what you will) who proclaims the last hunt is coming and that a blue-eyed personage will arrive and along with the tribe’s leading hunter will lead the way to the future. Quickly, the father of the soon-to-be hero (once he grows up) leaves the encampment (on a secret mission of tribal rescue), a girl with the promised correctly hued eyes (sole survivor of a massacre) appears, and mastadons (the tribe’s food source) become scarce.
Time passes. Our hero, D’Leh, as in “delay” (real prehistoric, isn’t it) (Steven Strait, a merely adequate actor likely chosen pectorally) has become an adult and long ago bonded with the lovely Evolet (Camilla Belle, not much range so stay with the acting lessons). D’Leh falsely wins the contest (to bring down a mastodon with a spear, yeah sure) to gain the white stick of leadership but owns up (conscience vs. self-interest, how noble) thereby losing Evolet. No matter, however, as the four-legged demons (you did guess it was men on horseback, right) attack the village, taking slaves among them Evolet, to whom their leader has taken an instant fancy. Fortunately, the “Old Mother” has been spared and a good thing, too, as she will follow, in dreams and trances, D’Leh as he pursues his fellow tribesman. Accompanying him, most importantly, is the older, wiser yet bearing the silliest name, Tic’Tic (Cliff Curtis, a pat on the back for being convincing in a role that strains credulity).
Adventure follows. But still absurd. D’Leh saves a saber tooth tiger from drowning. The feline later acknowledges him leading another tribe to declare him the warrior leader they have been awaiting. His mission: to unite all the tribes to free them from the yoke of the horse raiders. But let’s skip to the chase. Evolet and the rest of the captives arrive at the makings of a fantasy city peopled by hundreds of forced laborers, driven by whip crazed foremen, working among lines of mastodons (completely tamed, what?) primarily involved in constructing some sort of golden pyramid topped edifice. Why? Well they are being directed by a group of obsequious, seemingly alien beings (they are identified as originating in the stars or an island that sank - gulp, E.T.s or Atlanteans) under the direction of some thinly fabriced covered being referred to as, get ready, “The Almighty.”
More? D’Leh leads a successful rebellion, spears the Almighty dead, Evolet, feisty as ever, stabs her protector attempting to kidnap her who shoots her in the back with an arrow, but the Old Mother trades her life to save the heroine since, as she herself gave the prophesy, Evolet will help lead the tribe into the future. And what is that future? Merely the necessary transition from hunter/gather to farmer (how fast the seeds he has been banqueted by his father grow, D’Leh tells Evolet) and, thus, the various stages of civilization leading, inevitably, to our glorious 22nd century selves.
One kudo for 10,000 BC is that it looks good (thanks, Ueli Steiger), the production design by Jean-Vincent Puzos has its moments, and the special effects are well done. Director Roland Emmerich has the experience to move things along, though here none of the battle and action scenes are more build up than fulfilling payoff. If there’s any fun to be had it’s not in the tame unfolding of the crazy quilt plot, it’s in the historically/ spiriturally/incongruously ridiculous script by Emmerich and Harald Kloser. It’s hard not to get a kick out of its straight-faced nuttiness.
10,000 BC – Not an epic for the ages, past/present/or future. Review by Charles Zio
| COLLEGE ROAD TRIP Rated G Comedy 83 minutes
1½ stars |
I’ll state up front that when it comes to comedy I’m not a fan of too much mugging, slapstick humor, corny overly sentimental humor, or easy laughs with a “cute” animal that show little effort or imagination. Unfortunately, College Road Trip has all of these in abundance. Chief James Porter (Martin Lawrence) is worried about his daughter Melanie’s (Raven-Symoné) safety. Although I’m sure that many fathers lose sleep when their little girls start growing up, the extent of his obsession is uncomfortable. His wife, Michelle (Kym E. Whitley doing the best she can, showing some grace at finding herself in this movie) tries to calm him down with little results. They have another child, a young son named Trey (Eshaya Draper, very natural and deserving better) who seems ignored by his father throughout most of the movie.
James wants Melanie to attend Northwestern University because it is very close to their home in Illinois, but Melanie dreams of going to Georgetown University in Washington, DC to study pre-law. James’ over-protection rises to ridiculous heights when Melanie is asked to go to look at colleges with some friends. James decides to go himself with Melanie, and has made an itinerary that will get them to Washington with a stop at Northwestern. (One can only imagine what these two colleges, especially Northwestern, think of all this. I suppose some may think that any marketing is helpful.)
After his police van falls down a ravine (you don’t want to know), James, Melanie, and Trey who has stowed away in the van with his pet pig, are offered a ride by Doug Greenhut (a surprisingly funny Donny Osmond) and his daughter Wendy (Molly Ephraim, who has a good singing voice, but so high-pitched it hurts your ears at times). This is when there is another “road trip” cliché of the folks driving singing show tunes to the irritation of those being offered the ride as they are a captive audience. Enough already.
Martin Lawrence is so over the top that it is “cringe-inducing,” which itself is becoming an overused phrase of late, but is used because it’s so appropriate in certain circumstances, and this is one of them. Where was the director, Roger Kumble? It is up to him to work with the actors. The same kind of thing can be said of the talented Raven-Symoné. Making faces is not acting. Both she and Lawrence are best in the quieter moments between father and daughter. Their mania and wild swings in mood don’t do anything helpful to elevate the movie. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| JAR CITY Foreign Film - Iceland/Germany/Denmark Content Advisory for Parents Crime/Drama/Thriller 93 minutes
4 stars |
Iceland, according to Jar City, is consistently overcast, damp, and monotonous. Whether true or not those somber atmospherics aptly compliment a murder mystery originating in a past that refuses (at times literally) to stay buried. Unraveling, and linking, the threads make for a journey interesting, watchable, and entertaining.
The setup is unoriginal - a middle-aged man has been found murdered and a low-key/laconic/dedicated detective, Inspector Erlendur (Ingvar E. Sigurdsson, steadily effective and affecting) has been assigned the case. It turns out that thirty years ago the victim was accused of rape, resulting in a child who died young, and was blackmailed, along with two other thugs, by a corrupt local policeman. In the present, the dead man was a porno pursuing low life living in a smelly basement (attributed to being built over a marsh), a second thug is a violent criminal, the other has long since disappeared, and the disgraced cop is a janitor. Being that Iceland is a country with a small population, everyone in the case appears to be acquainted (personally or by reputation) with all the others. Complicating, or at least distracting, Erlendur’s methodical investigation is his daughter, Eva, newly pregnant and with an ongoing drug problem.
A parallel story involves Orn (Atli Rafn Sigurdarson, believably obsessed and intense) working for, and manipulating, Icelandic Genetic Research, Inc. in hopes of helping his young daughter suffering from an inherited disease. His efforts fail and he eventually drives his wife away and tries his parents' patience with questions about their past in order to find answers to his girl’s demise.
And, yes, there’s a connection between the two disparate stories. And, no, I will not be giving clues/hints/or suggestive comments. A large measure of this movie’s pleasure is the unraveling, and ultimately the meshing, of the separate parts into a logical, coherent, unified whole.
Also adding to one’s enjoyment is the skilled direction of Baltasar Kormakur (who additionally wrote the script based on a popular novel by Arnaldur Indridason) and marshaled the production team’s efforts (and a uniformally excellent and naturalistic cast) to relay a recognizable story within the context of another culture (e.g., the detectives do not carry guns). But do not assume that life in Iceland, seemingly, and as the cliché has it, is mostly cool/calm/and collected. As the viewer discovers, there’s plenty of emotion under the surface (note how much is generated in relation to children). Well done, Iceland.
Jar City – Tasty, and if you’ve more at least as good, send ‘em over. Review by Charles Zio
| GOOD TIME MAX Independent Film World Premiere at Tribeca Film Festival Advisory Content for Parents Drama 85 minutes
3½ stars |
James Franco pulls it off – satisfying the urge certain actors have to put together some combination of writing/staring in/directing their own projects. Good Time Max, while a familiar story, is a professional and enjoyable production and holds promise for Mr. Franco’s future efforts.
The opening credits serve as a prologue presenting young Max Verbinski and his older brother Adam (Bailey Hughes and Tyler Chase, respectively impish and earnest) establishing their personalities - Max, for whom everything comes easy, is the free-spirited/play the angles/opportunist, while Adam is the sincere/by-the-rules/lackluster achiever. It follows, then, as the adult siblings come into view that Max (James Franco, charming with underlying sensitivity) is dealing cocaine (and scamming a buyer) while Adam (Matt Bell, sympathetic and kindly throughout) is in pre-med at Columbia. After barely avoiding death at the hands of the dealer he cheated (not by his own heroics, by the way), Max persuades Adam, who is headed for his medical internship in California, to take him along. The pattern becomes clear – Max screws up and Adam rescues. The separated parents (divorced?) are of no help as they are also split on their sons with mother favoring Adam and father a fan of Max.The road trip is a bonding experience and Max does go straight for a while. But his office mate, in a software engineering firm, introduces him to crystal meth and before long its use spreads through the office and Max is hooked. He also is befriended by his boss, Vince (Dan Mooney, convincing as a supervisor and pal) who gives him the option of going to rehab which Max spurns leading him, once again, to dealing and partying. Adam, now a doctor, throws his brother out (understandably) and Max continues sinking until he is arrested for shoplifting. In prison, Adam offers to take in Max when he has served his six-month term. As Max emerges and turns his life around, Adam stumbles (being an empathetic, caring surgeon) with what seems to be a family weakness for drugs. In the end (with a bit of symbolism, running and rabbits, tossed in) there’s an agreeable conclusion.
Compliments, as mentioned above, to James Franco for his polished and assured direction and to co-author (with him) Merriwether Williams, David Klein for photography, editing by Sven Pape and Dave Rack, Scott Thomas for the apt original songs, and the fine acting by the entire cast. I’m looking forward to your next project.
Good Time Max – Mr. Franco’s worthy/respectable independent debut. Review by Charles Zio
| PUFFBALL Independent Film UK/Ireland/Canada Advisory Content for Parents Drama/Fantasy/Mystery 120 minutes
2 stars |
It doesn’t take long before the viewer gives up any attempt to fathom what the heck is going on in Puffball (including the significance of the title) which describes itself as an “erotic thriller,” though the eroticism is confined to a bit of female nudity and a few simulations of rough sex while the only thrill is the sight of the end credits (signaling the worst is over). Who would have expected such disappointment from Nicolas Roeg (with decades of cinematography and directing credits under his belt)? If the title hadn’t already been taken, this movie could have been more truly called, Dazed and Confused.
The story (and this is at best a rough attempt to discern one) revolves around Liffey (Kelly Reilly, better than her nonsensical role), an architect who has left her job (no reason given why) to restore an “old cottage” she has purchased in Ireland with the assistance of a group of Polish workmen (huh?) and the support of her boyfriend Richard (Oscar Pearce, earnestly sincere). The family next door consists of a spying mother, Molly (Rita Tushingham, in a performance less scary than stiff), her boisterous yet supposedly yearning daughter Mabs (Miranda Richardson, talent wasted), lusty, handy son-in-law Tucker (William Houston, mostly confused as to the direction of his role), and the ominously silent/staring grand daughter Audrey (Leona Igoe, who appears to understand the convoluted plot but unfortunately keeps it to herself). Two other personages are Molly’s daughter/Mabs’ sister, the sneaky, tart tongued Carol (Tina Kellaher, one dimensional) and Liffey’s boss, Lars (Donald Sutherland, fine as usual but his part seems to belong to another picture altogether).
Uniting this cast of mostly uninteresting/less than compelling characters is the question of fertility. Yes, fertility. Mabs desperately wants a son (she has twin girls in addition to Audrey) but the town doctor says there’s nothing to be done at her age. However, ready to help is her mother, Molly, who possesses all sorts of arcane knowledge and practices. She also hears a child speaking, as does the viewer, though she additionally sees the baby (apparently a male) – there’s a brief shot implying a boy died in the cottage years ago (an attempt to explain Molly’s actions? Make her sane? Explain the little shoes in the wall?). At any rate there’s lots of esoteric/mystical/mythological/whatever mumbo jumbo thrown in – straw hex dolls, a Norse stone with a hole supposedly viewing heaven, bottles of spiked wine, a foul smelling plant root, a large/white/egg-like thingamabob occasionally translucent and prophetic, and bouts of crazed sexual congress, not to mention much murderous intent. In the mix, and key, too, is Liffey’s pregnancy (despite being a careful practitioner of safe sex) whereby she miscarries but discovers the survival of an undetected twin. Not enough? Then add inserts of star laden skies (astrology?) and internal human reproductive processes.
To repeat, how could Nicolas Roeg have gone so astray? Of course, Dan Weldon’s script, based on a Fay Weldon novel (given the similar name, is he a relation), is no model of clarity. Still, when even a film’s subtitle, in this case The Devil’s Eyeball, only adds further confusion, there’s little hope of coherence or enjoyment.
Puffball – No praise (“puff”) for a movie that misses the mark (“ball”) debut. Review by Charles Zio
| PENELOPE Rated PG for thematic elements, some innuendo and language. (foreign cut) Comedy/Fantasy 102 minutes
3½ stars |
This unevenly-paced “fairytale” does have some charm thanks to actors Christina Ricci and James McAvoy. It also has some badly needed humorous moments from Catherine O’Hara. The story itself is very elementary. It seems a rich family, the Wilhelms, have a family curse placed on them by a witch. The first daughter in the family will have a pig’s snout instead of a nose. Only if she finds true love can the curse be lifted. After several generations, Penelope (Christina Ricci) is the unlucky girl who is pretty and normal in every way except for her “nose.” The make-up is well done because although it is in no way natural, it is not grotesque either, but you wouldn’t know that from the reaction of all the wealthy young men who would rather jump through a second story window than look at her. Still, mom Jessica Wilhelm (Catherine O’Hara) keeps bringing young rich men to the house through a matchmaker.
Of course, Penelope is a smart, thoughtful young woman who is reminded at every turn that she is different and therefore “ugly.” She goes along with Mom because she doesn’t know what else to do. When Penelope is a baby, a journalist named Lemon (Peter Dinklage in a good turn) tries to take her picture by hiding in a cupboard, (he fits because he is a dwarf.) Mom whacks him with a fly swatter and he loses an eye so he vows to get a picture of Penelope and splatter it across the newspapers. To accomplish this he gets in cahoots with a selfish titled guy name Edward Vanderman, Jr., (Simon Woods, well-cast). They hatch a plan and get a well-born but broke gambler named Max (James McAvoy) to woo her and then take her picture.
The scheme never quite works out because Penelope and Max establish a bond and he has an attack of conscience. Penelope decides to take off and has a few adventures of her own before getting famous and deciding to get married to try and dispel the curse. I won’t reveal what happens, and I suppose the fairytale has a lesson for all those who have ever felt or been different than their peers. The idea itself is not original. The execution of the idea is awkward. Christina Ricci has become an accomplished actor so that there is empathy for her character. James McAvoy brings energy every time he’s on screen, and he and Ms. Ricci make an earnest pair. Reese Witherspoon, one of the producers, plays against type as the flaky Annie, who develops a friendship with Penelope. Yep, it’s a fantasy; sadly, it reminds us that looks seem to count more than ever. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
BOLEYN GIRL |
THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL Rated PG-13 for mature thematic elements, sexual content and some violent images. Drama/History/Romance 115 minutes
3 stars |
Based on Phillipa Gregory’s novel of the same name, The Other Boleyn Girl has its challenges, the most prevalent of which is whether historical accuracy is important to you. She chose to focus her book on the little known Mary Boleyn, sister of the famous (or infamous if you believe Ms. Gregory), Anne Boleyn. Apparently, Ms. Gregory’s book has been criticized for what some see as “filling in the blanks” but others see as outright fabrication. Since we are talking about events from centuries ago, it’s often difficult to know the truth with a high degree of certainty. But then the screenplay by Peter Morgan seems to take the truth-bending even further. In the film, Anne is the oldest of the three Boleyn children, but the facts suggest that Mary was actually the oldest. This is important because she is presented in the movie as a shy, young wife, when she had apparently already been the mistress of the French King.
Back to this film, though. Its lush photography, costumes, and set design were obviously created with care; the production values are high. The story also relates well that it was a time when Kings, in this case Henry VIII (Eric Bana), ruled absolutely. Everyone courted the King’s favor because it meant their very survival, but some courted it more feverishly. Anne and Mary’s father, Sir Thomas Boleyn (Mark Rylance) is as ambitious as his brother-in-law, the Duke of Norfolk (David Morrissey). Sir Thomas’s wife, Lady Elizabeth Boleyn (Kristin Scott Thomas) objects to using her children, especially her daughters, Mary (Scarlet Johansson) and Anne (Natalie Portman) as bait for the lusty king to further their own status. The only son, George (Jim Sturgess) is close to both sisters.
The Duke of Norfolk conspires with Sir Thomas to set up Anne as mistress to Henry, whose long-time wife Catherine has been unable to give him a male heir. Whoever wins the favor of the King will enhance her family’s status. In a twist, Henry becomes enamored of the newly married, pretty, but unambitious Mary. Out of loyalty to her family, she agrees to go along and she and Henry become lovers, much to the fury of Anne who feels betrayed. From here we have all the plots and subplots and intrigues of court life, but the film starts to get bogged down under all this weight in the second half.
As presented in the movie, Anne has no redeeming qualities, and is the instrument of her own doom, as well as that of her family. Mary, though, is shown as practically a saint. Both Natalie Portman and Scarlet Johansson acquit themselves well. Eric Bana seems too young and good looking for Henry, although he does try to give him some doubts along the way. Once freed from the Pope’s power, though, he has no one to rein him in.
If you like historical pieces, you may find this view sufficient to see the Anne Boleyn story anew, if not (by some accounts) entirely accurate in all ways. Whether adding Mary to the mix is interesting enough on its own or really informs the truth about those fanatical, out of control royals, is up to you. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
OF LANGEAIS |
THE DUCHESS OF LANGEAIS Foreign Film - France/Italy Advisory for Parents Drama/Romance 137 minutes
3½ stars |
Appropriately, since we are about to be served a war-like, tennis-like match of love, The Duchess Of Langeais opens on the newly liberated island of Cadiz where a French general unexpectedly discovers his long lost love to be a member of the resident Carmelite Sisters. The how/why of this state of affairs is set forth, via flashback, in a detailed, leisurely portrayal of the doings of “opposites who attract.” Being that the setting is the rigid, socially codified, 1820s upper class, there will be no meeting “cute”/witty repartee/screwball elements. If a portrait of a past time, place, and battle for supremacy between a determined man and woman holds appeal, there are pleasures to be gleaned here.
After the opening, the movie moves back five years to identify the cloistered nun as Antoinette de Langeais (Jeanne Balibar, just about perfect), the titled duchess (through marriage) who’s popular/savvy/flirty and a fixture of the upper echelon. Attending one more in a series of nightly balls she spots General Armand de Montriveau (Guillaume Depardieu, managing to be sympathetic despite appearing charmless) a dull though renowned war hero. For some reason (boredom, amusement, challenge, curiosity), Antoinette engages the General in conversation (his harrowing experiences in Africa) and invites him to visit her at home. Since she is everything he is not (polished, sophisticated, clever, worldly) he is captivated at once and calls on her the next evening. (Note that this is an era when husbands and wives at the top of the social ladder could live together while leading virtually separate lives.) Thus begins a cat and mouse game of increasing intensity and reversals. Antoinette teases with hints of affection and future surrender alternating with her claims of chastity/modesty/faithfulness to her husband. Armand is obedient and subservient accompanied by outbursts of distrust and resentment at being mislead. The result is an assortment of verbal tactics and strategy used by each to gain the upper hand.
Of course, there is a limit to everything and Antoinette finally overplays her hand convincing Armand she does not love him, he’s a fool, etc. The General’s anger knows no bounds and he kidnaps her with a threat of bodily harm (akin to a “Scarlet Letter”) but relents as she declares her newly realized love for him. Too late as another of Armand’s attributes is a rock solid, unshakeable, stubbornness. Over the course of months, the rueful/regretful Antoinette beseeches (sending long, daily letters) and the stubbornly vengeful Armand refuses any contact whatsoever. Obviously, given the first scenes of the film, there’s a last chance that fails. And then, at the very end, a final twist.
Director Jacques Rivette is a fixture of French cinema and The Duchess of Lengeais is intelligent and polished throughout – as exemplified in its literate, well-sculpted script (from a Balzac short story) by Pascal Bonitzer and Christine Laurent and the cinematography of William Lubtchansky. Rivette may take his time telling the story but it’s not for a lack of know-how or entertainment value for those so inclined to go with the rhythm.
The Dutchess of Langeais – A courtly look at ill-fated love way back when. Review by Charles Zio
| BE KIND REWIND Rated PG-13 for some sexual references Comedy 101 minutes
4 stars |
Writer/director Michel Gondry’s reputation precedes him, and remains intact. If you like creative, imaginative but messy work, you’re going to really like Be Kind Rewind. Most of the story is intentionally over the top. It takes place in Passaic, New Jersey which has seen better times. The owner of a video shop, Mr. Fletcher (Danny Glover) is about to lose his store and his building to the city for an upgrade. Desperate to save his failing business, he decides to take a trip to see how other video stores are managing to thrive. He leaves his clerk Mike (Mos Def) in charge, but at the last minute tries to tell him to keep Jerry (Jack Black) the guy down the street who works in a junk yard, out of the store since he seems to destroy everything in his path.
Jerry decides he’s going to protest against the power company one night and an accident leaves him magnetized. When he comes to the shop to visit Mike, he touches the VHS videos and erases them all. Mike and Jerry are in a panic as customers show up and want their money back because of the blank tapes. This is when they hatch the plan to re-shoot all the videos that have been erased. What follows is very crazy and funny as they shoot their version of Ghostbusters, etc. Although, after they shoot the initial couple of films it becomes a weakness of the movie as it goes on a bit too long. It’s from this middle part that at least ten to twenty minutes can be cut.
Danny Glover is sympathetic as the aging owner whose life has been his store. Jack Black is…Jack Black. You’ve seen this manic character before. Actually, I’d have rather seen less Jack Black and more Mos Def who has turned into quite an actor and proves it over and over. His clerk, Mike, hero worships Mr. Fletcher because he thinks Fats Waller was born in the store and that connection is tied up with Mike’s identity. Melonie Diaz is terrific as the, at first naive actress, Alma, who then really gets into the spirit of the filmmaking/business process and then keeps the guys going. Even Mia Farrow as Mr. Fletcher’s friend adds a certain interesting tang to the movie.
What I like about the film besides the bizarre, “hey kids, let’s put on a show” take, is that it’s really about the magic of filmmaking. No matter how small, imperfect, wacky the premise, for people who love films, making films for the love of it, either being in them or producing them, they're masterpieces. You can’t buy that kind of feeling. It’s one of the biggest rushes anywhere. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| CHARLIE BARTLETT Rated R for language, drug content and brief nudity. Comedy/Drama 97 minutes
4 stars |
If Charlie Bartlett (Anton Yelchin) was a literary character, would he be a modern day Holden Caulfield? That classic book about teenage angst, The Catcher in the Rye certainly comes to mind when watching this movie. There are a few parallels between the two. Charlie, like Holden, keeps getting kicked out of fancy private schools. His view of the adult world is cynical. He’s isolated from his peers; he’s bright if more than a bit narcissistic. Like Holden Caulfield, he’s lonely, but uses his contempt (though in a milder form), and his rebellious behavior as a shield to protect himself. Both are dealing with an underlying depression. Where Holden wore a red hunter’s cap to make himself stand out, Charlie wears a jacket and tie his first day at the public high school, thereby calling attention to himself. There are differences, though. Charlie wants to belong, he wants friends, he wants to connect more than Holden, and he’s not quite as fragile.
There are hints in the beginning about Charlie’s anger/disappointment with his father, who we never meet, and we don’t find out until later the source of the problem. His mother, Marilyn Bartlett (Hope Davis) seems quirky in the way she relates to Charlie, and again the reasons become evident toward the end of the film. She is more preoccupied and worried than we realize. When Charlie gets battered enough as the new kid at high school, self preservation kicks in and he changes his tactics and decides if he can’t beat ‘em, he’ll pimp for them---drugs that is. Charlie sets ups up a “therapy/store” in the boys’ bathroom where he hears their problems, then goes to his psychiatrist and regurgitates it. This brings him scads of prescriptions which he then dispenses with some practical advice. The changes from kids using street drugs to prescription drugs is sadly too real.
The acting is well done across the board with Anton Yelchin especially believable, and Robert Downey, Jr., especially sharp as the alcoholic principal trying to deal with Charlie and his antics, as well as Charlie dating his daughter Susan, Kat Dennings in a good turn. Also fun to watch is Tyler Hilton as the bully Murphy Bivens, who becomes Charlie’s friend and business partner.
There are many comic moments, but there is also biting commentary about the way teenagers cling together against the corrupt adult world they see before them. What’s poignant about this is that the idealism of youth is trashed so early now. There isn’t much time for childhood innocence before kids get the picture of what adulthood turns out to be. The reality is not lost on teenagers. Adults say compromise is needed to survive in the world, but as Holden Caulfield complained incessantly, most people are “phony.” It’s a tough lesson. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| VANTAGE POINT Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense violence and action, some disturbing images and brief strong language. Drama/Thriller 90 minutes
3 stars |
It’s possible for a movie to strain credulity and waste the talent of its actors and somehow manage to be entertaining. Vantage Point is not an entry in that category. Despite an effort to be topical (terrorists threats) and ominous (a presidential assassination) there’s little suspense (because the viewer isn’t engaged enough to care). Even if your interest is body counts (thanks to brutal fanatics) or an extended car chase (weaving through clogged streets and near misses) it’s doubtful they will be enough to keep you entertained through the unraveling of the plot.
The scenic setting is a crowded, enclosed plaza in Salamanca, Spain, where European and Arab leaders, along with the U.S. President have assembled to sign an anti-terrorism agreement. Naturally, a plethora of cameras/reporters are on hand, one network supervised by producer Rex Brooks (Sigourney Weaver, capable as usual but wasted in a part barely above a cameo). Guarding the president are senior secret service agents Barnes (Dennis Quaid, suitably intense and determined) and Taylor (Matthew Fox, suitably cast as the ideal good guy). Barnes, we are told (and shown) is back on duty after saving the president from a previous attempt on his life, so, of course, he’s skittish and panicky. Being the wise and cautious hero, it quickly turns out he has good cause as the president is shot and a bomb set off.
And thus begins a series (one after another after another after another, etc.) of flashbacks each addressing (with bits of detail) who did it, how, why, and so on. In other words, there isn’t a straight narrative, which is a device that can work (chose your own example, like, say, Memento), but only if the material is interesting enough and the viewer is willing to take the ride. Here the feeling is more akin to “get the heck on with it and tell us what happened already.” Yes, the villains Javier (Edgar Ramirez, coolly enjoying his evil) and Veronica (Ayelet Zurer, an unhesitating liar) are clever enough to mostly outmaneuver the Secret Service. And there’s an American tourist, Howard Lewis (Forest Whitaker, an actor skilled enough to elevate, but barely, a sentimentally larded role), who, via his hand held video camera manages to capture critical footage (the horde of camera people seemingly having disappeared) and, through a lost child (cue the syrup), becomes intimately involved in the film’s doings.
Yes, there are twists and turns in the script by Barry L. Levy, courtesy of coincidences (like that little girl bumping earlier into Whitaker), a turncoat (go ahead, guess who), and meant as the biggest switch (though if you saw the trailer, you knew) a double for President Ashton (not as in Kusher, but in the person of William Hurt, forceful and righteous and at the same time annoying and irksome). Unfortunately, the flashbacks become tedious and any sense of continuing anticipation is lost. Levy is talented and next time, when he concentrates more on the story than proving his cleverness, he’s likely to achieve success.
The clean/clear photography by Amir Mokri, editing by Stuart Baird (acquitting himself nicely), and capable production design by Brigitte Broch are commendable. Director Pete Travis could not have asked for more from them (or his cast) and it should be noted that the fact this movie is not a total loss (it’s watchable though increasingly tiresome) bodes favorably for what he might do in the future.
Vantage Point – From any angle, not worth an hour and a half investment. Review by Charles Zio
| IN BRUGES Rated R for strong bloody violence, pervasive language and some drug use. Action/Comedy/Drama 107 minutes
4 stars |
Black comedy is not easy to pull off, but writer/director Martin McDonagh is skilled at this particular genre being a noted playwright who has been both criticized and celebrated for his dark, violent plays. Film allows the story to “open up” and be less static then theatre, although you can still see evidence of his stage sensibility in some of the scenes between two hit men, Ken and Ray, played excellently by both Brendan Gleeson and Colin Farrell.
Ken and Ray are sent to Bruges, Belgium, a picturesque Medieval town full of art treasures, by their boss, Harry, played with relish by Ralph Fiennes. There is no explanation in the beginning as to why they are there. Ken, being the older and worldlier of the two is interested in the history of the town and tries to make the best of the situation by sight-seeing. Ray, like an overgrown adolescent with raging ADHD and conduct disorder hates the city and wants to get out of there as soon as possible.
Slowly, and skillfully, it becomes clear why the two are sent to Bruges. Ray is a hit man, but in his first “hit” he botched the job, and the consequences of that mess are what the movie is about. Neither Ken nor Ray turns out to be what you would expect as hit men. In contrast to many cold-blooded psychopaths in recent movies, they are by turns comic, philosophical, and appalling. One of the “explanations” about killers is how they live by a certain “code” of behavior, as if to make what they do seem more professional and less grotesque. Ken even mentions that most of the people he’s killed are not good people, thereby implying they might deserve what they get. There are secondary themes about religion (of course), guilt, judgment, and payment for sins woven into the narrative, but in an amusing, ironic way.
As director, McDonagh draws good performances from his actors. Brendan Gleeson is believable as the solid, supportive, scolding but forgiving almost would-be uncle to Ray’s bad boy. This is one of Colin Farrell’s best performances to date. His comic timing, concrete-thinking childlike persona, makes Ray engaging and interesting to watch. Supporting performances are good as well from: Ralph Fiennes as the ruthless boss calling the shots; Jordan Prentice as an irritable dwarf; Thekla Reuten as the pregnant hotel owner trying to make sense of the craziness. Clémence Poésy as Chloë is more problematic as the drug dealing romantic interest. For most scenes with Farrell she has a half-smile no matter what he does (as if that’s acting), that doesn’t really pass for character development, and is the weakest part of the movie.
But, for the most part, In Bruges works because of a cleverly crafted storyline, good acting, and the ability to bring it all together. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
2 DAYS |
4 MONTHS, 3 WEEKS, 2 DAYS Foreign film - Romania Parental Content Advisory Drama 113 minutes
4½ stars |
Although abortion is the central event of this movie, the focus remains on the human costs (emotional/physical/psychological), rather than pro or con advocacy (though one can draw support for either position). The story of one girl’s journey, with the support of her friend, is engrossing, moving, and supplies much to ponder afterward.
It’s 1987, in Communist Romania; a dictatorship governed by oppressive laws (e.g., the requirement to carry government issued identification) enforced by a few (such as hotel clerks and bus monitors) who feed on the petty power it gives them whereas the majority of the populace conspire to outwit the powers that be by manipulating the legalities or avoiding them altogether (exemplified by a number of thriving black markets). Though illegal, arranging an abortion is only another circumvention of the system. And so it is that Gabita (Laura Vasiliu, skillfully enigmatic), a college student has agreed, via telephone, to meet and terminate her pregnancy through the services of a man recommended by an earlier customer. Gabita is nervous/frightened/worried. Luckily her calmer, wiser dorm mate Otilia (Anamaria Marinca, believably strong yet vulnerable) has agreed to accompany her (though she has to promise her own boyfriend she will, somehow, attend his mother’s birthday party).
The plans go quickly wrong as Gabita didn’t make the reservation at the specified hotel in person and Otilia has to hurry to find another (there’s a gathering in town taking every available bed) where the procedure can take place. Even more unhappy is the abortionist, Mr. Bebe (Vlad Ivanov, capturing the essence of the proverbial used car salesman). Once the three have assembled in the room, he expresses his disappointment and disbelief in Gabita’s words and actions, first in reasonable tones and then in shouts and threats. Otilia has similar reservations and what may have appeared initially to be absent-mindedness, if not a quirky dizziness, on Gabita’s part instead reveals itself to be a snaky self-centerdness. The prime illustration: her claim of being two months along when, in reality, the truth is to be found in the title of the movie.
Mr. Bebe almost walks out (the criminal risk attached to a more advanced pregnancy demands a higher fee than previously agreed), however Otilia manages to persuade him otherwise (among the regrets she will harbor, this one is immediate). After his departure (the scene of him inserting the “probe” is disturbing), Otilia also leaves to keep her promise to her boyfriend, but now she has come to question whether she hasn’t been manipulated (for all her well meaning good intentions) by just about everyone (for their own purposes). Still, to the end, she’s responsible (which adds several unnecessary minutes to the running time) and left wondering, as dependable and accommodating as she is, who is there to listen and support her?
Cristian Mungiu, the director, has done an excellent job in coordinating the production elements (good work by the tech people), especially in portraying the bleakness of the surroundings and the menace of dark streets (with shadows and random voices). Even more is the tension he creates among the characters and his ability to supply nuggets of truth slowly, quietly, and without warning. With the three above named actors (as mentioned, excellent) and the fine performances from the others (all uniformly convincing), the viewer will be drawn into this thoughtful and absorbing tale.
4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days – Worth every minute. Review by Charles Zio
| DEFINITELY, MAYBE PG-13 for sexual content, including some frank dialogue language, and smoking Comedy/Romance 105 minutes
4 stars |
This romantic comedy has a lot going for it, not the least of which is the work of writer/ director Adam Brooks, as well as the acting. A 30-something father, Will Hayes (Ryan Reynolds), tells his daughter, Maya (Abigail Breslin), about his love life before marriage. Will and his wife are getting divorced and Maya is needy and wants to know about her parents, so Will tells her about the women in his life. This is the setup as the stories are told in flashback.
It all begins in Wisconsin where Will and his squeaky clean girlfriend, Emily (Elizabeth Banks) are parting for the first time. She’s insecure and afraid if he goes to New York, he won’t come back. He arrives to work on Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign, which provides much of the good humor. As starry-eyed as he is, he starts by getting coffee and putting out toilet paper. Emily has given him a diary to give back to her friend Summer (Rachel Weisz). He also meets April (Isler Fisher) who chides him about politics and becomes his friend and sounding-board. These three women each represent different longings in Will. The truth is they are all beautiful; not a loser among them, but probably what the movie shows best is that timing, and circumstance can help make or break a relationship. That is, like most relationships, they don’t go smoothly in a straight line from A to B. There are detours along the way that cause people to miss opportunities they should have taken. It’s all earnest, makes sense, and is satisfying as Will searches for the ever-elusive “happy ending.”
Ryan Reynolds is handsome and engaging, but steady and modulated so nothing seems forced. He has a good rapport with Abigail Breslin who remains natural and appealing as the “kid.” All three of Will’s girlfriends/ lovers have their moments to shine. Elizabeth Banks looks fresh scrubbed, but not in a fake way. Rachel Weisz is believable as the journalist who is ambitious if a bit kooky. But Isla Fisher really breaks out here as the loveable April, who when we meet her, is ambivalent about her future and her life. There’s even Kevin Klein in a good turn as an intellectual, ego-driven, alcoholic professor; a New York type for sure.
Speaking of New York, the city is beautifully photographed from Central Park to Brooklyn, thanks to DP, Florian Ballhaus. Especially captivating are the scenes at dusk and evening, showing a softer, more thoughtful mood, rather then the stereotypical hectic pace of the city.
Definitely, Maybe is encouraging as the genre goes. This is a good romantic comedy; there’s no “maybe” about it. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| SPIDERWICK Rated PG for scary creature action and violence, peril and some thematic elements. Adventure / Drama / Family / Fantasy 97 minutes
4 stars |
Made from the popular series of books, The Spiderwick Chronicles works as a stand-alone movie. Not everything is explained or implicitly understood, but director Mark Waters and writers Karey Kirkpatrick, David Berenbaum, and John Sayles (John Sayles no less!), give the audience enough to get the point across. A mother, Helen Grace (Mary Louise Parker), takes her children, a 13 year old girl, Mallory (Sarah Bolger), and her twin 9 year old sons, Simon and Jared, (both played by Freddie Highmore) and moves from New York to an old broken-down Victorian house owned by her family. No one has lived there for decades. The parents have broken up and Jared is angry because he feels that he’s being taken away from his father.
The movie doesn’t waste any time and gets right into the story. Jared finds a secret room where he opens a trunk that contains the work of his great uncle Arthur Spiderwick (David Strathairn) called, The Field Guide. It contains secrets of nature that if stolen by the monster Mulgarath would destroy human existence. The fairy, Thumbletack is supposed to be guarding the book, but the enterprising Jared reads some of it anyway. At first, Mallory and Simon don’t believe Jared, but after a series of events, they are forced to deal with fairies, goblins, monsters, griffins, and elves. Once the Field Guide is out of the house and not in the “circle” of protection, the kids have more and more difficult challenges to face. They are very enterprising and even find their 86 year old Aunt Lucinda (Joan Plowright). Just when all looks lost, they find a way to survive.
The CGI for the film is high-quality. The fairies, elves, etc., are well done, but not over done, although it could be a bit too scary for younger children. The acting, especially by Freddie Highmore is very good. He is totally believable as the angry kid who acts out for everyone in the family. Mary Louise Parker seems to be making mothers the mainstay of her acting career, but it’s easy to see why. She’s natural and relates well to the young actors playing her children. Other good performances: Sarah Bolger, David Strathairn, and Joan Plowright. Even Nick Nolte shows up as the human form of Mulgarath.
There’s plenty of action; the kids won’t be bored. The snappy dialogue helps, too. This is something of an allegory. There are some lessons about self-reliance. Fathers don’t come off particularly well, as they are absent and/or leave their children feeling deserted, but for children who face challenges, the rewards are substantial. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| JUMPER Rated PG-13 for sequences of intenseaction violence, some language and brief sexuality. Adventure / Drama / Sci-Fi / Thriller 88 minutes
2 stars |
The premise for the movie, that someone can physically transport himself to another place/location just by thinking it, is interesting. The execution leaves something to be desired. David Rice (Hayden Christensen) is the nerd in love with Millie (Rachel Bilson), the popular girl in high school. He buys her a snow globe one day, but a bully throws it out on the lake. David decides to retrieve it and falls through thin ice. We think there’s no way he can survive as the current sweeps him away, but suddenly he’s in the aisle of a library soaking wet.
It doesn’t take David long to use his power to make himself rich by stealing money from banks and living a fantasy life in a swank New York apartment. This proves his undoing as a “Paladin” named Roland (Samuel L. Jackson), and his men track him down and try to kill him. The reason? “You all go wrong in the end.” Really? How so? There is no evidence to back that up, so the audience is left wondering why the “good guy” seems evil, and we’re rooting for the “bad guy.” Yet David misses Millie, and thinking he got away from Roland, he finds her tending bar and with promises of seeing the world takes Millie where she’s always wanted to go—Rome. Another jumper, Griffin (Jamie Bell) shows up in Rome as both are targeted, and also to explain this all to David. Griffin does seem more than a little crazy, and hell bent on killing Roland who has been tracking him as well.
Hayden Christensen is okay, just not passionate enough to warrant his predicament. He and Rachel Bilson don’t produce much heat, either, despite how often he says she’s the one. Samuel L. Jackson is wasted as Roland. First, he’s wearing a ridiculous white wig that’s so cheap in one scene you can see the seam of it on the back of his neck. He’s good at playing bad, but the material is limiting. Diane Lane plays David’s mother with an idea that’s so ludicrous, it makes you shake your head.
David had been a jumper for years. Why didn’t he know what was out there? Why didn’t he run into other jumpers before this point? Are there any female jumpers? If you are thinking about this, you’re distracted from the movie, and that’s not a good thing. The plot holes are big; big enough to easily transport someone through. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| STEP UP 2 the STREETS Rated PG-13 for language, some suggestive material and brief violence. Drama 98 minutes
2½ stars |
Dance movies have become formulaic, but still, the dancing is often amazing. This hold true for Step Up 2 the Streets. Maybe it’s a generational issue. Step dancing has become what rebellious teenagers do to prove they are cool and let them feel they belong. Here we have Andie (Brianna Evigan), a rebellious teen living whose mother has died. She is living with her mother’s friend Sarah, (Sonia Sohn), who has had it with her unruly ways. Andie is about to be shipped off to her aunt’s house in Texas when, wait, she meets up with a dance legend who suggests she gets into the Maryland School of the Arts for dance. OK, we know Andie is good because we’ve seen her dance with her “crew” but it’s astonishing how she manages to get into the school with relatively little trouble.
Of course, there are problems for the new girl. Others resent her, the teacher doesn’t think she’s disciplined enough, the hot guy in school, Chase (Robert Hoffman), takes a liking to her and her wild dance ways. She is befriended by a geek, Moose (Adam G. Servani) who tells her what’s what and who’s who. Once she’s dumped by her crew boss, Tuck (Black Thomas), she and Chase decide to start their own crew, get an impressive group together and start practicing. Naturally, their first outing is a disaster, because how else to show fortitude? Since Chase’s family is legend at the Maryland School of the Arts, his brother Blake (Will Kemp) is head of the dance program and totally opposed to step dancing, forbidding involvement of his students. You can probably guess what happens from there.
The acting is not stellar. Brianna Evigan is engaging, but not convincing as Andie. Robert Hoffman fares a bit better, but not by much. Sonia Sohn is good as the frustrated guardian. Black Thomas is suitably intense, and some of the supporting actors play “characters” rather than the parts. That’s not to say that many of these young actors don’t have potential, but it seems obvious that most of the energy went into the dancing sequences. The choreography is excellent. You can’t help but admire it. And the dancing does what dancing is supposed to do: it grabs you. No one could put that much work and effort into it if they didn’t love it. Now if these movies can only get a story and some good acting… Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| FOOL'S GOLD Rated PG-13 for some action violence, some sex material, brief nudity and language. Comedy/Action/Adventure/Romance 113 minutes
1 star |
Here we have a film that literally shoots itself in the foot, that is, Matthew McConaughey as the character Ben “Finn” Finnegan, shoots another character in the foot, but it’s a good metaphor. The look of the film is expensive all the way: there are yachts, sea planes, islands, beautiful bodies, etc. And more supporting characters than necessary, which means none of them are very well developed. What the movie doesn’t have is coherence, an even tone, and good comedy. You will laugh here and there, but the plot that’s strung together out of recycled romantic comedies, and “action/adventures” is not going to stay with you long.
Kate Hudson plays Tess Finnegan, the adult in her marriage to the man-boy Finn. As the film opens they are getting divorced because he is irresponsible in his chase after lost treasure. As appealing as Kate Hudson is, she can’t save this lame storyline. As for McConaughey, he’s in danger of being recycled too much himself. Yes, he’s good looking, and in fine shape, now can we see some acting please? Incredibly, Donald Sutherland is aboard as the zillionaire, Nigel Honeycutt, who unknowingly gets the two back together when Tess is serving him dinner, and there is Finn, who saved his daughter Gemma’s hat from going into the ocean. What a clever twist. Mr. Sutherland tries to bring whatever dignity he can muster to his role, but it isn’t easy given some of the lines he has to say. Sometimes the lines are tongue in cheek, other times over the top. There’s that inconsistency again as though too many writers are trying to punch up the script, each with his own idea of madcap comedy. Alexis Dziena plays Gemma, the ditzy daughter, with a certain energy that ironically, Goldie Hawn (Kate’s mother) might have played in her heyday.
When they sit down and tell Nigel they know how to find a fantastic treasure off the coast, well of course, he automatically funds their hunt. Then we have the chase with others to see who can figure out exactly where it is and become richer than rich. It’s odd at times because there is more violence than necessary; the mentioned shooting, people being hit in the head with objects, pulling people out of planes, blood mixed with water shooting up through the rocks. It can’t make up its mind; it’s either cartoon violence or it isn’t. The movie is good to look at: it tries to distract you from that fact that there’s no treasure there, lost or otherwise. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
ON DEATH ROW |
LOVE LIVED ON DEATH ROW Documentary - Independent Film Not Rated 84 minutes |
The Light Factory continues to screen socially conscious films for Charlotte audiences with the documentary Love Lived On Death Row. The film is less about the death penalty, though, and more about the story of the four children of a condemned man, Elias Syriani, who in 1990 stabbed their mother, Teresa, in a rage 28 times with a screwdriver in Charlotte.
The filmmaker, Linda Booker, saw an article about the murder. She was interested in the story of Rose, John, and Janet Syriani and Sarah Barberi, and was able to make contact with them when they appeared in Chapel Hill, North Carolina to talk about their father’s case. Initially the children, the oldest who was 13 at the time of the killing, refused to see Elias Syriani, not even being able to call him ”father.” When Sarah married she began to think of making contact with him again after over a decade. Rose, Janet and John were thinking the same thing, and so began their incredible journey of forgiveness for the man who killed their mother.
The siblings are all intelligent, attractive, and articulate so that they are able to explain and express what they are feeling, especially Sarah who becomes the emotional center of the film. Part of their understanding comes from learning about his traumatic childhood depravation as an Assyrian Christian (Catholic) in Jerusalem. Meg Eggleston, who was Elias’ spiritual advisor on Death Row, forges a bond with the children and offers support to not only Elias, but to his children as well.
As if forgiveness is not enough, the children become pro-active and seek clemency from Governor Mike Easley with the help of strong advocates in the persons of Henderson Hill, Elias Syriani’s lawyer, and Russell Sizemore, the sibling’s lawyer. They argue, with supportive experts, that sparing his life would continue to help them heal from the murder, and create new memories. There was no opposition to the clemency, but for reasons that remain unclear, Easley decided to not spare his life. The film raises the questions that if his children could forgive him, why not the state? After all, they were the victims of the murder, too. Isn’t justice supposed to be tempered with mercy? The result is that Rose, Sarah, John, and Janet are left abandoned again.
This is Ms. Booker’s second film, and first full-length documentary. Technically, she keeps things simple, and that works with the subject matter. Her editing style included a number of jump cuts during some of the interviews that were mildly distracting. But her instincts are sound in correctly seeing the moving power of this story. There were more than a few tears in the audience.
In the talkback after the screening, it was brought up that Teresa was the victim of domestic violence and where is her justice? Ms. Booker indicated she has worked with domestic violence organizations, but made the choice to focus the film on the Syriani siblings since they are certainly so exceptional in, what can only be called, their “goodness.” She’s right. It’s heartbreaking, but the best tribute to their mother is the wonderful, decent people they have turned out to be. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| HOW SHE MOVE Rated PG-13 for some drug content, suggestive material and language. Drama 98 minutes
3½ stars |
Even though the outcome of How She Move is never in doubt, the dancing is exhilarating, and the movie ultimately inspiring. Raya Green (sparkling newcomer Rutina Wesley) has to leave private school to go back to her old neighborhood after her parents spent all their money to save Raya’s older sister who died from drug addiction. Her mother, Faye (Melanie Nicholls-King in a moving performance), is heartbroken and determined not to lose her one remaining child to the crime-ridden neighborhood. When Raya returns to school, she’s not exactly greeted with enthusiasm by her former classmates. These kids are tough because they have to be, and her former friend, Michelle (a terrific Tre Armstrong), isn’t going to give her any special consideration feeling that Raya expects to be treated differently.
Into to this mix is Trey (an appealing Shawn Desmond), who has poorly hidden feelings for Raya and also, the leader of a step dancing team. It seems Raya learned to step dance from her sister, and has serious moves. When she takes a test for a scholarship to get back into the private school, she believes she blows the test. She has to figure out how to come up with the money so as not to disappoint her mother, who wants at least her last remaining child to get out of the neighborhood and be “successful.” Of course, the big competition is coming up, with big prize money, and Raya thinks she can step her way to the big dance with the boys in Trey’s team. His seemingly nerdy younger brother, E.C., who has a nice rapport with Raya, helps her with some of the moves, and she gets in with the team.
Of course, there are complications, and before long, Raya is out again, angering Trey when she tries to save the team in a lower level dance competition. She goes to the big competition with another group. Three teams compete for the top prize, but I won’t go further than that, except to say she and Michelle come to an understanding.
The odds of something like this happening are, to put it mildly, highly unlikely, but that’s beside the point. What’s incredible is that director Ian Iqbal Rashid is able to get such high energy performances from the dancers. Every one of them has trim, muscled bodies. They love dancing and it shows. The hours the students practice in the movie is probably nothing compared to what it must have actually taken to choreograph and rehearse the dance numbers to perfect synchronization. Even if you know nothing about step dancing, it’s quite a show. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| UNTRACEABLE Rated R for some grisly violence and torture, and some language. Crime/Thriller 100 minutes
2 stars |
A cyber-killer terrorizes…mostly FBI agents. From the movie, there’s no evidence that the general public is scared. The internet users out there in internetland apparently are just callous enough to want to see someone tortured to death if you believe this screenplay. Or, is it just a convenient way to get from plot point to plot point, and make the lead character the hero? In any case, it’s not believable that this situation would be allowed to continue. There is a super computer that can find this guy, and the FBI can’t use it? The servers would not go down if they knew a series of murders are going on, online? The movie is glossy enough to distract you from these huge implausible holes in logic—for a while.
Jennifer Marsh (Diane Lane, giving a good performance) is one of the FBI agents who monitor cyber criminals so that we are all safer. Another agent who works with her, Griffin Dowd, (Colin Hanks, likeable) is assigned the same task, but Griffin is also looking for love, and is trying to find it on the internet. Is that realistic knowing how people misrepresent themselves and he deals with it all the time? Most of their work is about fraud, but one day a website pops up that says the more people that bring up the website, the faster a man will die. They show him strapped to some kind of board with an intravenous set up. It contains a blood thinner. Something has been carved on his chest superficially, but then he begins to bleed in earnest as people check out the website at record rates. And so it goes for another two murders, with even more people killing his victims even faster. Another agent, Eric Box (Billy Burke, appealing) shows up to work with Jennifer and company, and they make a connection, but Jennifer is a widow who lives in a big house with her mother (Mary Beth Hurt in a thankless role) and daughter Annie (a cute Perla Haney-Jardine), and apparently has no time for a relationship so that goes nowhere. Oh yes, and the windows are not covered at all so we can see Jennifer from the outside as the killer might. Didn't she learn about that kind of thing in FBI school?
Would that many people really go to a website where they would hasten someone’s torture and murder? The acting is suitably serious, but the basic premise turns this movie into more of a slasher film, so that we, the audience, are like the voyeurs on the internet. It doesn’t feel good, or right. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| MAD MONEY Rated PG-13 for sexual material and language, and brief drug references. Comedy/Crime 104 minutes
2 stars |
I really wanted to like this film more than I did, mainly because Callie Khouri directed it, and talented women in Hollywood don’t often get their due. Yet, I have to admit, this movie is pretty pedestrian. The actors: Diane Keaton, Queen Latifah, Katie Holmes all have their appeal, each representing a different generation, and one would think that together they would enhance each other’s strengths. Not so; appeal is not the same as performance. The movie is mildly entertaining, but hardly believable. If I don’t believe it, I don’t buy the premise and start looking for inconsistencies. It’s not to say the movie is totally without merit, but then, with all the talent involved, that’s not saying much.
The women all work at the Federal Reserve in minor jobs, but wait---they’re clever enough to rob it, for months, without being caught? Sure it’s a nice fantasy, but I never for one minute thought Bridget Cardigan (Diane Keaton, sadly resurrecting this character type again) would lose her house; that Nina Brewster (Queen Latifah in a down to earth role) would lose her kids; that Jackie Truman (Katie Holmes, adequate though sweet) was a real “space cadet.”
The problem begins with the screenplay that relies too much on the charm of the actors to make the characters likeable. That might be okay if there was more to work with here, or I didn’t “see” the wheels turning. The plot is thin. The three women are in need of money. Bridget’s husband Don, (Ted Danson, wisely not trying to outdo the ladies) has been fired, and they could lose everything. She takes a job emptying trash at the Federal Reserve out of desperation. Then this wealthy wife, who has not had to work, decides they have been wronged somehow. After all, the money at the Federal Reserve is going to be destroyed anyway, so who is it hurting? The selective ethics are skimmed over. Are we supposed to think Bridget is just quirky instead of immoral?
I suppose you could say that the Oceans movies, and other heist films are in the same category, but the difference is that they are so outrageous, so out there, you can suspend disbelief. Here, the women are “regular” people, yet some of the characters in the movie are no better than stereotypes or clowns. Whatever the reason, it doesn’t completely work; I just wasn’t convinced. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| CLOVERFIELD PG-13 for violence, terror and disturbing images. Action/Sci-Fi/Thriller 84 minutes
3 stars |
At a going away party someone asks a guy standing around to document the goings-on with a video camera. Being an Okay sort, Hud (T.J. Miller), decides to help out because his best friend, Rob (Michael Stahl-David) is moving to Japan to be Vice President for some company. But wait – Rob's former good friend, Beth (Odette Yustman), arrives with another guy. Rob is upset, heartbroken really, because he and Beth were finally together as lovers, but now he’s leaving and she is walking out of his life with someone else. The camera follows this torturous scene of forsaken young love. Then there is a loud noise, everyone runs up to the roof; the camera follows. Bombs go off; some Godzilla-like noises come from a gigantic, weird monster that looks like a plucked chicken with extra legs and no beak. Everyone runs down to the street. The camera follows. They look up and the monster is in front of them with soldiers shooting at it. Things are falling off it. What are they? The camera gets close enough to see they are ugly looking large spiders that pin their victims down and tear them apart. Oh-oh. Better go the other way. The camera follows.
And so it goes with Cloverfield. This is basically a rescue movie. As some of the group of young New Yorkers from the party join hundreds of others, after the initial attack, walking across the Brooklyn Bridge, it begins to collapse. Rob gets a call from Beth (in the midst of the insanity) and she’s pinned in her apartment and bleeding. Rob decides that he’s going to get to her—at all costs. As the group begins to thin out, four are left: Rob; Lily (Jessica Lucas), his brother’s girlfriend; Marlena Diamond (Lizzy Caplan), a reluctant guest at the party; and Hud, still videotaping everything. They run here, they run there. They see horrific things happen to people. It’s never explained why these monsters are attacking or where they came from, but the movie is really not about the monster. (It’s eerie when some of the skyscrapers collapse and the cloud of dust and debris come down the streets like on 911. New York seems to be a favorite destiny as a target of destruction.)
The production values are better than expected: some nice work there. The acting by this 20-something group of actors is promising. The catch is—can you stand an entire movie that is a videotape, or will you eventually get motion sickness? It's too much jiggling for my taste. I want time to actually see what's going on. Just know that’s how it is going in because…the camera follows. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| 27 DRESSES Rated PG-13 for language, some innuendo and sexuality. Comedy/Romance 107 minutes
3 stars |
Having been a bridesmaid five times, I can appreciate all the work it is to help someone celebrate their marriage as one of the wedding party, and one of the funniest lines in the movie is one you hear all the time when you go to buy your bridesmaid dress, “You can cut it down and wear it again.” The audience howled at that one. There is no way these dresses get used again. First of all, most are unattractive, especially for themed weddings, then there is the problem that the people you hang out with have already seen you in it, and know it’s a bridesmaid dress. If that wasn’t the case, the scenes where the main character, Jane (an appealing Katherine Heigl), tries on all the dresses for a journalist, wouldn’t be so funny.
The problem is that after you get past that joke, you have to have a plot that makes sense and works. Could someone actually be in 27 weddings? Well, I suppose so, but think of the expense? Not to mention she has a pretty nice apartment in New York (look at the closet!) Jane is a business assistant, so where does all the money come from for her to help out these brides? I guess the number is to make a point.
Jane is a doormat, and can’t seem to say no since she is a romance/wedding junkie, and someday wants the perfect wedding for herself. She also happens to be in love with her boss George (a serviceable Edward Burns). He doesn’t seem to notice how pretty she is, even though she is “deglamorized” here with brown hair. James Marsden, a likable performer, plays Kevin, the cynical journalist who wants out of covering weddings to write more substantial stories, and confronts Jane about her decisions. Of course, they argue, yet are attracted to each other. Then there is Malin Akerman, last seen in the unfortunate remake of The Heartbreak Kid, who plays Jane’s beautiful, younger sister, Tess. She seems to be getting type cast as the beautiful, but ditsy, party girl.
We’re way ahead of most of the characters in the movie. We know from the start who’s going to end up with whom, so the suspense is not very suspenseful. And there are also some scenes and lines that contain the yuk factor. 27 Dresses is (in part) a light-hearted testament to women’s allegiance to each other in their time of need – their weddings. If you don’t think it’s stressful, you’ve never been married--or you weren't paying attention. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| THE BUCKET LIST PG-13 for language including a sexual reference. Comedy/Drama/Adventure 97 minutes
3½ stars |
What would you do if you had less than a year to live? One answer might be the title of this movie: make a kick the “bucket list.” Of course, at this particular level that presupposes that you had Trump-type money to go anywhere in the world you wanted, and willing to spend it. In this case, that would be the money of Edward Cole (Jack Nicholson in a familiar but well done performance), the CEO as selfish, uncaring, money-making machine.
When he has to enter his own hospital for cancer treatment, he finds out (what we hope managed care finds out), that saving money often means less than sensitive treatment. Because he always insisted on two patients to a room he is forced to be a roommate to Carter Chambers (the always reassuring Morgan Freeman) who is also suffering from terminal cancer. Testy and rude at first, Edward softens as he comes face to face with his mortality. No matter how rich you are, there’s no getting away from the inevitable. Carter, who is a mechanic, had dreams deferred because of family obligations, yet is very smart and congenial. The bond, though, is solidified when they both learn the end will come soon.
It is Carter who starts the list but Edward, who has the expansive personality and money, is the one to push them into their adventures. Something not quite believable, though, is that Carter leaves his wife of forty-five years, Virginia (Beverly Todd, touching and real), to go with Edward. Their travels and experiences are interesting and fun for the most part, but the real story is about how so many people find their humanity just as they are about to lose it. "Life is precocious" is a cliché, but nonetheless true. The writer Justin Zackhman and director Rob Reiner give the narrative more realism than expected, although the dialogue is often predictable, and Mr. Reiner has a tendency toward sentimentality that undercuts some of the effect of the movie.
The film may be more poignant to those who have lost family or friends to cancer as they watch helplessly when the patient suffers the effects of post-op surgery or chemotherapy, not to mention the devastating news that the end is near, no matter what you or anyone else can do. But ironically, if you have the time to reflect, look honestly at your life, and are willing to change, the end can be a true growth experience. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| THE ORPHANAGE Rated R for disturbing content Horror/Drama/Mystery/Thriller Foreign Film–Spanish, with subtitles 100 minutes
4 stars |
There is something naturally creepy about a big, gothic-like old home. The house in The Orphanage is as much a character as any of the actors. Laura (Belén Rueda, who makes an engaging leading lady), once lived there until she was adopted as a little girl. She returns as a grown-up with her husband Carlos, a doctor (well played by Fernando Cayo) and an adopted child of her own, Símon (Roger Princep). It seems Laura wants to open up the orphanage again for several children to come live there with them, but it’s not long before Símon is seeing other “children,” and not just the two imaginary friends he brought with him. Laura gets an unsettling visit from an older woman, Benigna (Monserrat Carulla, suitably sinister) who says she’s a social worker, but later Laura learns there is no record of her.
For her part, Laura is upset and confused by the changes in Símon. His insistence that there are other “children” and that they play “games” with him, frighten her. During an open house event Laura and Símon argue as the guests arrive. She notices soon that he has vanished, and thus begins her obsessive insistence on finding him. The search goes on for more than a year.
Writer Sergio G. Sánchez and director Juan Antonio Bayona have taken great care to keep the screenplay balanced with elements of other worldly mysteries and everyday terror. The attention to detail propels the movie out of the realm of horror for horror’s sake, and onto a higher level of thriller. Even Geraldine Chaplin shows up to play the medium, Aurora, who finally helps Laura open up to find the answers she needs.
All the technical elements are well-done, and work exactly because the film is not dependent on overdone special effects. The cinematography by Óscar Faura is of special note, as is the production design by Josep Rosell. The sound is important here and Xavier Mas, and sound designer Oriol Tarrago do an excellent job.
The dialogue is in Spanish with English subtitles, but the subtitles are not intrusive. The acting and visuals are strong enough to carry the story for most of the movie. Still, you have to pay attention as clues are given. Mr. Bayona uses a helpful technique, too, of flashing back briefly to signs and hints previously given little attention that turn out to be important. How deep is a mother’s love? How close is the bond between mother and child? The Orphanage provides its own possible, though disturbing, answers. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
IN THE EVENING |
STARTING OUT IN THE EVENING Rated PG-13 for sexual content, language and brief nudity. Drama 111 minutes
3 stars |
The appeal of a movie about an older, out of print writer, may be questionable, but the performance of Frank Langella is not. He plays Leonard Shiller who has had health problems and leads a constricted life. His daughter Ariel (a believable Lili Taylor), has her own set of problems. She is nearing 40, unmarried, but wants a child. Father and daughter criticize each other’s choices, and occasionally spar, but the love is evident. Into this quietly stifling world comes Heather (Lauren Ambrose, perfectly cast) as an adoring graduate student who wants to write her thesis on Leonard’s novels.
It takes convincing, but Leonard finally agrees to Heather’s proposal and she attacks the job with gusto, challenging the older writer to give her more understanding of his life, and therefore his books. This is where Langella excels. The small gestures, the looks, the formal manners, all convey Leonard’s character. His performance is truly masterful. Especially painful is for the writer to realize, many times, that he is a throw back to another era. Even as he tries to explain to Heather that he writes for art, not for posterity, it’s uncomfortable to watch her insensitive questioning of his life’s work. Unfortunately, the movie itself moves a bit too slowly and deliberately, and at times seems more suited to theatre than film.
The subplot involving Ariel and her former lover, Casey (an appealing Adrian Lester) about commitment and whether or not children are in their future, is not nearly as interesting as that of Leonard and Heather. Since the film was adapted from the novel by Brian Morton, the screenwriter Fred Parnes had the difficult task of how to make it work on screen. He and director Andrew Wagner made choices that don’t entirely work in the narrative, but the relationship between the older man/younger women has enough interest and heft to carry it through.
There is a strong argument that Heather is an ambitious, manipulative critic only out for herself, preying on a sick old man’s shattered ego. She certainly imposes herself into his life, then talks about him and his work with an editor she’s trying to impress. Or does an incident that threatens his health cause her to retreat for fear of harming him further? The viewer can decide for him/herself. But, whatever the truth about Heather’s motives, the experience does leave Leonard with enough hope to try to recapture the once and future writer. Review by Ann Marie Oliva