Wednesday, July 11, 2012

"The Amazing Spiderman"


Wow!

What fun!

If you like the Spiderman Series, then you'll love this one.

Now I'm smart enough, just barely, to know that my cup of tea may not satisfy others, but this episode, and there will be more (stay through the initial credits), filled my cup to overflowing

First of all, the story: the tale of Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) - his parents and their untimely disappearance ... raised by  Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field) ... his high school sweetheart (Gwen Stacy) ... and a good guy gone bad (Rhys Ifans) ...

We know the story, mostly, sort of ... but it's done exceedingly well, and for me, the acting is terrific. What's not to like about Martin Sheen portraying what he does so well - an ordinary working stiff with native wisdom and compassion ... and Sally Field, with some of the saddest eyes I've ever seen, yet with fire in her heart for her beloved nephew.

Andrew Garfield captures the slightly geeky character of Peter Parker, and then the thrill of discovering great abilities. Gwen Stacy is high school innocence and delight; a genuinely smart young lady who has an eye for this Peter Parker, even as he has an eye for her. They bring off the awkwardness of the teen years without being melodramatic - which says a lot about the directorial skills of Marc Webb who keeps things under control.

The music is superb ... heroic music as Peter Parker discovers his abilities and learns how to use them well.

But first, humiliate the high school bully (Chris Zylka) who may actually have some redeeming qualities after all.

And, of course, the proverbial Stan Lee cameo as the high school librarian ... you'll love it.

It was entertaining throughout, though at one point, I wanted the story to get on with it. But I think the director made a decision, the right one, to tell the story with detail and care. This is a movie, first of all, not just a showcase of special effects, monsters, all in 3D, which, by the way, is very well done, without overwhelming the senses.

As a summer action movie, it more than fills the bill - making up for summer's biggest disappointment, "Prometheus" ...

There's plenty of high school angst for the younger crowd, and love, too.

There's enough action for the testosterone gang.

And plenty of story-line for those who like good questions: 1) Can science solve our ills and woes? 2) Does science have its limits, and what happens when those limites are transgressed? 3) How does one use one's abilities? 4) If you're not the high school jock, then what? 5) How do we learn who we are?

Okay, 'nuff said.

Worth seeing?

You bet.

In the theater?

Yes, for sure. You'll want the big screen for this one.










Monday, June 11, 2012

Prometheus - Stay Home

One big disappointment, and mostly boring - no suspense, some horror, and no story at all, at least one that made any sense to me. Visually, somewhat entertaining, but hardly worth cheering about. The "dreamy" moment when the robot sees the holographic solar system reminded me of the brainless moments in sci-fi films when the "wonder" of the universe is displayed and beatific smiles all around - cheesy at best! Acting, mostly so-so; actors seemed pre-occupied with more important things than making a movie. The ending - how campy can ya' get? Worth seeing in a theater? Forget about it! There's more suspense in a Dr. Seuss book. 

Sunday, April 29, 2012

"Bernie"


Jack Black is terrific … in his portrait of real-life character, Bernie Tiede, a small-town assistant mortician who’s a bit dandified, a determined self-guided PR machine who quickly becomes the town’s darling in his care for the deceased and their families, and especially the darling of all the “little old ladies.” 

He joins the local church and becomes a song-leader.

He lives humbly and gives away most everything.

He does a post-death visit on the town’s meanest and richest lady, Marjorie Nugent, played skillfully by Shirley MacLaine. Slowly, she warms to Bernie’s kindness and soon they become an inseparable couple, he inviting her to cultural events, and she, taking him along on her travels around the world. 

At some point in time, her meanness, her neediness, overwhelms the relationship and Bernie becomes a lapdog. She convinces him to go part-time in the funeral home and become her personal servant. She includes him in her considerable financial empire and though Bernie enjoys first-class travel and fine hotels, he donates huge sums to the community, helping the local church and making life a little easier for lots of folks.

Bernie is a generous man, with Marjorie’s money ...

You’ll have to see the movie for the rest of the story.

Set in East Texas, with a wonderful ensemble cast and lots of local actors with their marvelous East Texas expressions of life, it’s a “small” movie, wonderfully executed by director Richard Linklater.


Cast members include Matthew McConaughey who portrays “country lawyer” and Carthage, TX prosecutor, Danny Buck Davidson, with a fine cameo appearance of McConaughey’s mother, Kay McCabe (not credited on IMDB, but found here).


Linklater tells the story comedically, while offering a generous respect for the folks, mores and faith of this small Texas town.

It’s a “dark comedy” pulled off successfully, rarely accomplished even in more ambitious films. Hats off to the director, of course, but to the screen-writer, Skip Hollandsworth for a deft and well-paced story, allowing a variety of characters to emerge in this economically presented tale. Cinematography and music are equally well done.

Wait for Neflix?

I dont’ think so.

See it in a theater, grab some popcorn and enjoy this jewel of film … and be sure to stay for the credits!

Saturday, March 24, 2012

"Hunger Games"

I enjoyed it and recommend seeing it, if not in your friendly neighborhood theater, then in the comfort of your home a few weeks from now.

It's a fine story of loyalty, sacrifice and love in the face of oppression. These values are highlighted throughout most of the film, though at times, the message got a little muddy, though not in any terminal way.

It's about 20 minutes too long; I found myself getting slightly bored by a mostly repetitive plot - kill or be killed, though the lead character played by Jennifer Lawrence is spared most of the killing.

The lead actor (Lawrence), though touted in the media, lacked the emotive power essential to the story.

The same for her fellow Tribune (Josh Hutcherson). They're young actors and may yet mature, but their lack of intensity was slightly disappointing, though the story itself has plenty.

I haven't read the books, so it's hard to say, but the Hutcherson character, Peeta Mellark, was played ambiguously - is he trustworthy? I don't know it that was the intent, but that's how it came across to me. If he's not to be trusted, that was played a bit too weakly. If he's to be trusted, that really didn't come across all that well.

Elizabeth Banks and Jennifer Lawrence in
The Hunger Games
Lawrence's character has strength of mind and soul, but her lack of emotional intensity never quite delivers. Does this hamper the story? I don't think so, but a more mature actor might have made the role more memorable.

Stanley Tucci is the Hunger Games Host, and he does a fine job, along with Woody Harrelson who is a former games' winner, a mentor to the new contestants, and now mostly a drunk, who reluctantly takes an interest in our heroine, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence). Donald Sutherland portrays President Snow, a dangerous and calculating man who uses the games to entertain the nation and reinforce the power of the state.


These three actors bring a considerable maturity to their roles, compensating for the younger cast.

While the film has plenty of violence, it's well choreographed to enhance the story rather than being the story.

Filmed in North Carolina, the glories and mystery of the Eastern Mountains and Forest are front and center, along with some last-minute mutants created by the high-tech computers employed by the Games.

In some ways, the film had the feel of a sci-fi B movie, but all that aside, I enjoyed it.

Worth seeing in the theater?

Sure, if you want to see it now and be able to talk about it with your children or grandchildren.

But it'll be fine on your TV, too.




Monday, March 5, 2012

"The Artist"

Wow, an impressive piece of movie-making.

A window into a time of transition.

A love story, with a young lady achieving fame in talkies, a famous man, a silent star, falling out of favor, her love for him, his pride that further drives him into despair, a fire, a dog and a "Bang!" ... and her love persisting, until they find a place where both of them can dance!

From the get-go, mesmerized!

Wonderful acting by Berenice Bejo with a smile that never quits, charm and energy, and, of course, a beauty mark - what a delightful role ... and her male counterpart, Jean Dujardin, a face, a hero, a dashing blade, with pencil-thin mustache and all.

And a fine supporting cast all around: John Goodman as a powerful director with a heart, James Cromwell as the always-loyal butler, and a host of other lesser and greater lights that fill the frames of this terrific tale.

My heart still belongs to the "The Descendants" and George Clooney.

But this is a piece of superb film-making, with a delightful ending ... and, of course, Uggie, all dog, and all hero.

Don't miss it.


Sunday, February 26, 2012

Act of Valor

Glad I saw this film, and it was a treat to hear the director, Mike McCoy, afterward.

Lots of new tech here with the Canon D5, and special lenses - about 85% digital, and the rest 35mm film - all put together seamlessly.

As for the acting - well, they're all SEALS, and they did much of the script, creating it on a day-by-day basis, and when the script didn't work, they did their thing - as they speak to one another in a language filled with code, and when silence is needed, with hand-signals.

This is no doc - it was all shot in live-fire training - no blanks at all. They filmed in various locations around the world - so the whole thing has a very real feel to it. When the gunboats pull up at the extraction point after a hostage rescue, and those boats let go with their Gatling guns, sounding like a zipper, it's truly goose-bump time.

There's enough blood and gore to make it real, or so it seems to me. But blood and gore were not the purpose. Rather, to show these men as flesh-and-blood human beings who go to work like anyone goes to work - to do the best job possible.

McCoy noted, "these are some of the brightest people I've ever met - the communications specialists on ship, a woman, with a Ph.D in geology."

They are all professionals, and their devotion to one another is clear. They work as a team, or they can't work at all.

One of the most telling lines in the film - on board ship, prepping for a rescue operation, one of the SEALS asks, "Will they have patrols?" The Chief replies: "We don't know, but most likely they lave patrols. They do this for a living, too."

Emotionally, I kept thinking of the Russell Crowe film, Gladiator. And the Roman Empire, and the need to defend an empire's borders. America is The Empire right now - our military presence reaches around the world - we go anywhere, and perhaps rarely ask for anyone's permission. Another dramatic moment in the film - SEALS are in rubber boats, awaiting pick-up - and suddenly, from the deeps, a nuclear submarine quickly breaches; the boats scuttle onto the sub, everyone's picked up, and the sub dives again.

What with all the machinery of war - sophistication beyond anything most of us know, and men and women trained to the nth degree. I sat in the theater amazed and in wonderment.

Every empire has enemies - such is the nature of an empire. And these men (and they are all men; women are on the ships and involved in all aspects of a mission, but not on the teams), so finely trained, defend the borders and rescue those in harm's way.

It's an amazing story, well told.

But it's no puff piece for recruitment, nor a right-wing propaganda spiel.

I thought: "These men are doing their job, and doing it very well."

Though I regret America's policies at many points, I'm glad they're at work. America does have enemies, and they seek to do us harm. Like it or not, I live in the Empire, and I'm glad to live here. And I don't want anyone to wear an explosive vest and blow themselves up in any American city.

I work hard to see that the Empire is as just as it can be, and I'm grateful, at the same time, for those who keep our land safe.

It's a difficult world, and if we were not the Empire, someone else would be, and, perhaps, in time, as we replaced Britain, someone or something else will replace us - maybe China, maybe India, or who knows what or who.

Well, I'm rambling right now.

Worthy seeing in a theater?

For sure.





Tuesday, February 14, 2012

"Star Wars - The Phantom Menace"- 3D

Saw it yesterday (Feb. 13) and while thoroughly enjoying the music, came away with the same impression I had in the first go-around (1999) - the acting is marginal, the script thin and the story weak ... and most telling - it wasn't made for 3D, and the 3D effects are marginal - at one point, I took off the 3D glasses and could hardly tell the difference; though the 3D effects seemed to vary from scene to scene as I watched without the glasses.

The only exception to the mostly lifeless acting is a young Skywalker (Darth, soon-to-be), played by Jake Lloyd - he did a fine job, though his career seems to have plateaued with Star Wars. Not sure why; his precocious portrait captures nicely the rare talent possessed by Skywalker.

The Darth Maul character is of limited value, and not threatening enough to convey the evil of the Dark Side of the Force. But at his death, we're left with a question: Is Darth Maul the Sith Lord or the Apprentice? They come in twos - the Lord and the Apprentice. That's the question supposedly holding us in suspense, as the camera shifts hintingly to a profile of a rather benign-looking Senator Palpatine. Hmmm, could he, might he ... be ...?

With regard to young Skywalker, Yoda hints at the fear found in him, and what that fear might do:

Yoda: How feel you?
Anakin: Cold, sir.
Yoda: Afraid are you?
Anakin: No, sir.
Yoda: See through you we can.
Mace Windu: Be mindful of your feelings.
Ki-Adi-Mundi: Your thoughts dwell on your mother.
Anakin: I miss her.
Yoda: Afraid to lose her I think, hmm?
Anakin: What has that got to do with anything?
Yoda: Everything! Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. I sense much fear in you. 


In 1999, and now again, Yoda's comment about fear remains central to the entire Star Wars drama, and relevant to our times, as well. Fear is the path to the dark side, for any of us, and for any nation as well.

This time around, I liked Jar Jar Binks voiced skillfully by Ahmed Best. It was "very rude of me," to dislike him in 1999, and so I apologize.

The story remains disjointed - the bits and pieces are all there - the origins of C3PO and R2D2 are fun to see -  but it's like, "Who really cares?" ... and that's an issue of scripting, for one thing, but mostly of the acting. Most of the time, it felt like everyone would have rather been in a dump kicking bricks barefoot than in this gig. And maybe that's an issue for the director, George Lucas; maybe by the time this work was underway, he was tired of the whole thing.

Worth seeing in 3D?

If you're a Star Wars' Junkie like I am, sure, go ahead. Get some popcorn and a softdrink and settle back for a so-so film that cannot be rescued by 3D.

Otherwise, don't spend your money.

It was a thin film in 1999, and a thin film it remains, 3D or not.