FilmNut

"The Descendants"

2012-02-03T22:38:00.000-08:00

This is one heck of a film; glad I finally got around to seeing it.

A fine ensemble of actors, led, of course, by George Clooney who portrays a father/husband struggling to find himself in the midst of a chaotic family life, some of which is his own doing, and some of which belongs to his wife and her family. No truly bad guys or gals here, as is the case with most of life; just real folks trying to find their way through the fog of life, sometimes rising to the occasions of life with dignity and purpose ... other times, sinking into the mire of moral failure.

Clooney's daughters are remarkably portrayed by Shailene Woodley (Alex) and Amara Miller (Scotty) - portraying, respectively, the confused and unsettling worlds of a privileged 17-year old and an uncertain 10-year old living in the shadow of her older sister, now in a private school.

All of them live in the shadow of the wife/mother, whom we never meet, other than in a few moments of an opening scene of her riding joyously at high speed on a powerboat in the blue waters of Hawaii. There's an accident, which we don't see, the result of which is a profound coma that can only end as it does: with the tubes pulled, organs donated, and her ashes committed to the sea. Throughout the story, the family spends their own time at the hospital, watching her machine-aided chest rise and fall, and then, the fateful day when the tubes are removed, and the wait for her demise. All of this is handled with great care, no melodrama, no over-wrought scenes; just the grinding down of body and soul by the shadow of death and all the unresolved sorrows that will go to her grave.

Throughout the film, it's a story of betrayal and secrets revealed.

A story of a father and his two daughters, in a profoundly difficult time, finding their way back together again as a family, and ultimately, some degrees of forgiveness and reconciliation ... in one of the most powerful and touching cinematic scenes EVER, Clooney says goodbye to Elizabeth.

Clooney is master actor, at the top of his game - his face a thousand different nuanced expressions ... his emotions powerfully restrained, even as he deals with unrelenting tragedy, while trying to hold his family and his business together. I hope he gets the Oscar nod for this one - well-deserved, for sure.

The "odd"music of Hawaii sets the tone for "paradise" - are you kidding? All of that beauty cannot mask or prevent the human drama, in all of its squalor and all of its hope. Life, even in paradise, is still life.

What is a family?
What is love?
What in the world is forgiveness?
And what is anger, and what to do with it?
And what does it mean to be a descendant of a great family?

A host of other actors give this movie a depth of characterization, without overwhelming the story.

A special word is deserved by Nick Krause, who portrays Alex's "boyfriend" - he captures all the snottiness of a privileged youth who deserves the smack that he gets from Clooney's father-in-law. Yet, in time, we discover Sid's own loss (his father died but recently), and by the end of the story, I found myself appreciating this bright young boy who simply had no social graces. A fine performance, for sure.

In the end, the pending death of Elizabeth sends all of them into a journey of painful questions and self-discovery, though I want to be clear - this is not a Dr. Phil psycho-babble trip, but a painful excursion into a malstrom of suffering.

Worth seeing?

For sure.

It's a fine film, powerful themes, masterfully presented.

In a theater - yup ... ya' wanna see George's face up close, and some of that gorgeous Hawaiian scenery, and if you love Hawaiian shirts, you'll love "The Descendants."

Battle: LA

2011-03-13T17:36:00.000-07:00

Well, predicable, in all ways, I suppose, like "Independence Day" and other such "us against them" sorts of stories. "They" come with force, and they're horrible and implacable and ruthless, but we're noble and honorable and determined, even as we struggle with our usual junk.

Sure, lots of shooting and lots of explosions, and familiar LA landmarks coming under alien fire.

Okay, that said, I totally enjoyed "Battle: LA."

It's entertaining, with great visuals, fun acting, a story laced with some of the profound questions that color the human drama, and fun for folks who know LA ... familiar with streets like Lincoln and Olympic and landmarks like the Santa Monica Airport and the LA skyline.

Filmed in La, though, sort of dampens the effect, but so it goes. It's a story about LA, and as the general says, "We can't afford to lose LA," and that makes sense no matter what.

I enjoyed Aaron Eckhart as "Staff Sargent," with his Marine-like chiseled face, a man tormented by survivor's syndrome, trying to survive his own inner demons. Having lost men in a previous deployment, he's ready to leave the Maines, submits the paperwork to resign, but this sudden emergency puts all of that on delay.

He's called into action with a Lieutenant fresh out of school, a team-member resentful of his leadership, a big-mouth who's more noise than substance, a tough woman, a loving father, some frightened children, and always the alien soldier who may be just as scared of us, as we are of them, yet with a vastly superior technology.

Throughout the course of operations, some big thoughts:
- Loyalty to the team.
- Courage in the face of fire.
- Forgiveness - the surviving brother of a man lost under Staff Sargent's tour of duty is serving under his command here at Camp Pendleton.
- A father's love for his son.
- The reality of death.
- The power of persistance.

Michelle Rodriguez is a familiar face and voice playing a role reminiscent of her fine role in "Avatar." She brings a fine blend of Latino toughness and smoldering sultriness that says, "Look, but don't touch."

In the end, well, we still don't know how it's going to end. If this were the mid-50s, a story like this would be a great Saturday afternoon serial.

Worth seeing?

Absolutely, and see it in a theater, big screen.

Pay attention to the big questions, grab a bag of popcorn, sit back and enjoy the action.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

2010-12-18T17:45:00.000-08:00

A sometimes-delightful blend of schlock, pretentious throw-away phrases that were so “weighty” they frankly seemed comedic, but with some touching moments, as the boy, who made a better dragon, comes to his senses. His transformation seems to be the heart of the film. Yet I often asked, “What’s the point here?” Where is the story? Frankly, I felt it was a series of creative images in search of a clear purpose.

The music is lush and so is 3-D imagery, but most everything seemed slightly strained and often without depth.

Though Georgie Henley (Lucy) continues to bring a wide-eyed innocence to her role, but now with a wiser and more mature demeanor.

For me, the delightful part of the story featured Will Poulter (Eustace Scrubb), a snot, if ever there was one, full of disdain for his cousins who are forced by the war to stay with his parents while their parents have gone to America. He’s a delightful actor who totally captures the arrogant snobbery of the well-bred, those who have no time for Narnia, religion’s “cultured despisers,” as Schleiermacher called them.

Yet he’s drowned, if you will, in a sort of baptism, but is transformed by his own greed into a fire-breathing dragon, who finds his courage and his faith, and ultimately is redeemed, comes to the defense of his friends and saves the day.

One of the great animation characters is, of course, our noble-hearted mouse, Reepicheep, voiced touchingly by Simon Pegg.

The flim ends well.

Lucy and Eustace and Edmund return to their world, richer and stronger, knowing that Aslan is a part of their world, though known by another name, even as they were a part of his world for awhile.

Can’t say this gets a high endorsement from me, but if you’re fan of C.S. Lewis and have seen the other two installments, it’s worth seeing.

Worth seeing in the theater?

Sure. Go ahead and get some popcorn.

"The Social Network"

2010-10-18T17:45:00.000-07:00

Reviewed by good friend and fine writer, Susan Steele ...

Mark Zuckerberg...Does he have Asperger’s Syndrome? Is he merely misunderstood? An asshole? Or… just trying to be one?

Zuckerberg is the arrogant computer genius defending himself in a lawsuit against his only friend along with three other Harvard acquaintances who also claim to be the founders of The Social Network - otherwise known to us as Facebook.

The movie portrays Zuckerberg as someone who has difficulty relating to girls, roommates, friends and anyone else who does not speak his language - computer programming. He is also distracted by the fact that he has not yet been invited to join one of two prestigious Harvard Final Clubs. (So named because they are two of the last social clubs one can join at Harvard before graduation).

We watch as Mark Zuckerberg flaunts his hacking skills in front of Harvard officials, apologizing to no one for his ability to build a network faster and more sustainable than anyone has ever been able to do. He never seems to second guess himself, has no qualms about asking his friend and business partner Eduardo Saverin for more money, and then casts aside his friend when he no longer seems useful (or is he jealous because Saverin is invited to be in a Final Club and Zuckerberg is not?).

He also has to defend himself against three elite Harvard students, the snobby twins Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss and their friend, Divya Narendra, who "hired" Zuckerberg to create a social network for Harvard - thus launching Zuckerberg on to a larger project - connecting the elite schools in the country via a social network, then connecting colleges overseas like Oxford and Cambridge, and then, later, creating the network that everyone uses today…from your teenager to your grandmother. Helping him on this journey is his bedazzling, slightly slimy, new friend - founder of Napster, Shawn Parker.

The Social Network is well-written (Aaron Sorkin), seamlessly directed (David Fincher) and comprises a fine cast including Jessie Eisenberg. Eisenberg, as Zuckerberg, is compelling in this ironic tale of a friendless young man who becomes the founder of the world’s largest social network (not to mention the world’s youngest billionaire)…which, in Zuckerberg’s case, makes the phrase “Add As Friend” a little pathetic.

Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World

2010-09-06T10:13:00.000-07:00

Reviewed by my fellow-writer and true FilmNut, Michelle Welker Scott.

Scott Pilgrim is in love. Again. Although he’s already in a relationship and has a long trail of broken-hearted women behind him, he’s pining for someone new: a girl with hair like ‘this’ and whom everyone says is way out of his league. But Scott doesn’t care. In fact, he’s willing to battle his new love’s seven, evil ex-boyfriends in order to win her.

Admittedly, it’s not much of a plot, but it isn’t the story that makes this movie special. It’s everything else. From the eye-popping special effects that turn the movie into a kind of a comic book to the wonderfully overblown fight scenes to the general, overall goofiness, Scott Pilgrim versus the World is a genuinely fun flick.

Some of the best elements come from the supporting cast. Sweet and sassy Ellen Wong, who plays Scott’s high school girlfriend Knives Chau, is full of boundless energy. With her large eyes and hilariously over-animated expressions, Wong could have leapt from the storyboard of an anime cartoon. Wong makes a great contrast to Kieran Culkin (McCauley’s younger brother), Scott Pilgrim’s jaded roommate who offers up scene after scene of deadpan one-liners.

The only weak link in the movie is Scott himself who is played by Michael Cera. Audiences have seen Cera in so many roles as the adorable, bumbling misfit that it is almost impossible to envision him as the hard fighting, heart breaking Pilgrim. Although it’s nice to see Cera try something different, he can’t really carry the lead.

But everything else about the movie is dazzling. Even those who don’t understand the subtle jokes relating to video games and anime comics, will enjoy the punchy dialog and furious action sequences. Scott Pilgrim Versus the World is a sweet ending to the summer movie season.

The Expendables

2010-08-21T07:11:00.000-07:00

Short review:

ultimate testosterone ... guns, bombs, planes, rapid-fire shotguns,explosions and fire, really bad guys, and good guys who are bad, tattoos, motorcycles and car chases ... and even some good acting now and then ... Mickey Rourke and Stallone have a moment of conversation that's profound about when the soul dies in so much violence and blood ... and that saving someone else might just save the lost soul!

The story lifts up the power of loyalty. When the "beautiful woman" in the story chooses to remain behind in evident danger, while Stallone's character flees, he's haunted by her courage, and returns to save her. I was intrigued by the way in which this was handled - this wasn't about lust, or even love, but the human response to courage, and the need to save a soul - his own - ravaged by violence, by saving someone else.

But don't let the story get in the way of gutsy entertainment. If ya' want comic book violence, with a solid background story, you'll find it here.

I was entertained on a Friday afternoon when I wanted some entertainment.

Gals, stay away ... a good friend challenged me on this, and she's a gal!

Guys, this one's for you!

And maybe for anyone who likes a shoot-'em-up story with hints of real depth.

Get Low

2010-08-15T10:07:00.000-07:00

See it!

This is a fine film, starring three remarkable actors, with a fourth not far behind.

What can be said about such actors: Robert Duvall (the hermit, Felix Bush), Sissy Spacek (Mattie Darrow, who loved Felix 40 years earlier) and Bill Murray (the slightly smarmy funeral parlor owner, Frank Quinn)?

Their craftsmanship is stunning to watch, as they bring to life the nuances of their characters - these are real people we're watching.

But there's a fourth actor here that deserves our attention: Lucas Black (Buddy, Quinn's assistant) who delivers a stellar performance - with his slow southern accent (for real, a native of Alabama), he's ernest, honest and innocent, but not naive).

These four are surrounded by a bevy of fine supporting actors who deliver the story with uncanny personality and winsomeness, delivering a fine script by Chris Provenzano and C. Gabby Mitchell under the direction of Aaron Schneider.

Set in Tennessee in the 1930s, the story is inspired by a real-life legend of a hermit who decided to throw a funeral party for himself, before he dies, and he's got the money to do it.

There are secrets here.

And they slowly emerge in this remarkable tale, wonderfully filmed amidst the pines and fields of Depression-era Tennessee.

It's about sorrow and lost love, and the inevitability of human frailty and hurt. That Felix Bush would be a hermit, and as we find out, self-imposed for a "crime."

Don't miss this remarkable film.

And don't wait for Netflix.

Eat Pray Love

2010-08-14T07:56:00.000-07:00

I’m glad I saw it.

Was it enjoyable? Yes.

Is Javier Bardem every woman’s dream? You bet. And every man’s dream as well.

After being seated, I started listening to the crowd (mostly young adult women edging up to middle-age) – they were charged, responding excitedly even to the previews of up-coming “chick-flicks” (no preview of “The Expendables” was shown – darn!) This movie clearly taps into a huge audience, and I suspect this movie will have legs: the ladies will see it multiple times and bring their husbands and boyfriends along (guys don’t worry; no explosions or car chases, but it’s a good story for us, too).

When the movie began, I thought I was in a screening of “Twilight” where hundreds of 12-year old girls exploded with giggles and screams at the first image of Edward Cullen (Robert Pattison). Now let’s be honest, I’ve had a few of those movie moments myself, where a much-loved book comes to life on the big screen, forever melding together what was read and what was scene!

Anyway, back to the movie. Bring the tissue box – there are more tears here than Mama dicing onions. In credit to the director (Ryan Murphy), none of it felt contrived – these characters have broken hearts and they’re broken people, as we all are. From a theological perspective, we’re sinners, so to speak, and when we discover our brokenness and our capacity to break someone else (hallmark of maturity), it’s gonna get teary-eyed, as it should.

I didn’t read the book, and probably never will (never’s a big word, isn’t it?). But the movie gives the impression that it’s a big book with a big story – a heart in search of selfhood. A woman trying to find herself apart from all the social and marital expectations woven into the fabric of her life and world. “Who am I?” is the driving question of the story, at least as the film delivers it.

Built on three themes: Eat (in Italy with new-found friends) and put on a few pounds, even if you have to buy some “big lady” jeans; pray in India (with new-found friends), and scrub floors in the Ashram; love (again) in Bali with a new-found man who loves his family deeply.

Julia Roberts is wonderful – playing well into her mature years. She’s beautiful and who can resist that mile-wide smile (slightly overplayed a time or two – we don’t need close-ups on her perfect teeth ever ten minutes).

Jarvier Bardem is terrific. And how I loved the relationship between father and son (“darling” – a term used for all of his sons) when his 19-year old son comes for a visit in Bali for a week, and then the departure, with plenty of hugs and tears – as it should be for two strong men who know the pleasures and power of a deep family love.

I appreciated the moment when Julia prays for the first time in her life – as her marriage evaporates, and she hasn’t a clue. Who of us really knows how to pray? But it’s heartfelt and powerful as she introduces herself to God. And if there’s an answer to such prayer, it’s the unfolding story, the quest – and as she later learns in India – “God lives within me as me.”

All along the way, plenty of fine performances, including one of my favorites, Richard Jenkins, who’s a “guy from Texas” seeking forgiveness and healing in India and becomes a mentor of sorts for Julia, calling her “Groceries,” because she’s still eating a lot. Here, and throughout the story, there are no easy or quick answers. Like a sculpture slowly chiseling away at the marble, it’s takes a lot of hammering to make a life!

One of the disappointments was cinematography – for a travelogue film, itt lacked cinematic bigness, but I was sitting in the third row, and that could make a difference (for that reason alone, I might see it again, but further back).

Obviously, this is a story about people for whom money is no issue. But that’s what the imagination is all about, and Julia’s travels are played with restraint – no five-star hotels. Though few in the audience could afford this kind of soul-searching journey, even at the hostel level, I doubt if anyone resented her opportunity. We are not watching a rich bitch sample the world; we journey with someone who has the rare opportunity to search for her life, a quest done with honesty and humility.

Is this a great movie? I don’t think so.

But it’s a great story – really everyone’s story – the quest for meaning and identity – found partly within ourselves, with good food and friends and prayer, and found in our love for others and their love for us – only when we can let go, and that’s the dangerous part of the deal.

Worth seeing in the theater? I’d say so! And guys, you’ll enjoy it, too.

The Extra Man

2010-08-10T16:00:00.000-07:00

Ya’ can’t be anyone else but who ya’ are … though no one comes to that reality overnight, and it may take a lifetime, and then some, to find our identity.

I like quirkiness, and this film has plenty of that.

Kevin Kline gives us Henry Harrison, a down-on-his-luck playwright, whose opus has been stolen, who supports himself with some college-level lit teaching, loves a bowl of Christmas balls beside his chair, fancies himself an aristocrat and escorts wealthy old ladies to the opera and fine restaurants (the extra man), spending an occasional several months in Palm Springs each winter on their tab.

Paul Dano serves up an amazingly complex character, at once both intriguing and slightly off-putting: a quiet and uncertain prep school lit teacher by the name of Louis Ives, who loses his job because the headmistress caught him in the teachers’ lounge trying on a bra left there in another teacher’s briefcase. Dismissed for “financial reasons” Louis somewhat happily heads off to find his life as a writer in Manhattan, driving an old Pontiac inherited from his father.

Searching the want ads for an apartment, Louis calls Henry, and following a delightfully bizarre interview, with Kevin Kline at his acerbic/ironic/misogynist best, Louis agrees to room there.

They pretty much go their separate ways, until one strange incident (crossdressing) brings them into a roaring conflict, yet one through which both gain a greater understanding of one another. For Henry, he is what he is. For Louis, he is not yet what he shall become, but having tried to be what he is not, and having failed profoundly, he begins a journey into his own reality – though the story draws to an end before we clearly see what and how that shall end.

I loved it and had plenty of laughs.

Kline is Kline, and there’s no one who can deliver his lines with such disdain for the world as he does.

Dano, on the other hand, offers us a most unusual character, in part, because of his looks – he’s no Hollywood hunk – with a face as we would find in some tragic story from the Twenties, an era to which his character is drawn via literature - and in his imagination, living in Gatsby’s world. At several points, as his quest to find himself breaks down, we watch him break down, too; this young man can act. He takes some real chances in this role, and succeeds.

John C. Reilly gives us another offbeat role as Gershon the repairman, Henry’s neighbor, with a squeaky voice that becomes “normal” only when he sings. He’s a delightful off-beat presence, a “chronic masturbator,” with unruly hair and beard – a man who can repair most anything.

Marion Seldes is marvelous in her role as Vivian, a wealthy old lady who loves the charm and comfort of a gentleman escort, usually Henry. But laid up with a bad back, Henry sends Louis instead. The work here is remarkable, and in one of the most tender film moments I’ve seen, at the end of the evening, and at the foot of her mansion stairs, she drapes her arm around Louis’ neck, and Louis picks her up and enfolds her little frail body in his arms and slowly carries her up to the bedroom, gently laying her on the bed, and thanking her for a most wonderful evening.

Katie Holmes scores a strange role here – a decent but shallow human being wonderfully engaged in her own life. Only toward the end is there a glimmer of light for her character, and in a final gesture to apologize to Louis for her otherwise dismissive attitude, is turned down by Louis because he’s just a few steps ahead of her now.

The whole things ends with a wedding … I like that … a new beginning for all of them?

Maybe … but at least some freedom for Louis to appreciate Louis – he may not yet know who he is, but he knows who he is not, and more importantly, he knows where to look!

This is a small film, of course. For me, a little gem.

The script is subtle, the acting honest; the dreary apartment with all the detritus of Henry’s tired life says it well.

See it in the theater?

Not necessarily … this is a good one for Netflix.

But be warned: if kinkiness – sado-masochism and cross-dressing bother you, stay away. But if quest themes intrigue you, and good acting entertains you, you’ll enjoy “The Extra Man.”

"Inception"

2010-08-04T16:35:00.000-07:00

“Inception” features Leonardo DiCaprio – a young man who has evolved into a powerhouse actor; his screen presence, subtle yet firm.

I can’t say enough about him - he fills the story with an uncanny passion, as he has done in all of his work. I’m not sure anyone can learn this; it’s simply a gift, though surely honed with practice and discipline, as all gifts are.

To make a long story short, I loved it.

It pulled me into its complicated plot, such that, as it ended, I had completely forgotten where they were, as if I had been pulled into one of the dreams levels, too.

But unlike “Shutter Island,” which was equally well-done and technically without flaw, I didn’t feel deceived with “Inception.”

I don’t like it when a director, or an author, hoodwinks me – there’s no skill to that. I can tell you to meet me for lunch at noon on the 23^rd, and when I don’t show up, oh well, too bad. That’s deception.

But to do what Christopher Nolan (writer and director) does with “Inception” requires an enormous amount of skill, and it left with me sheer delight as having been so powerfully entertained.

From the get-go, no one in the audience knows where or what. But as the story unfolds, with some of the finest music (Hans Zimmer) I’ve heard in a long time, the audience is brought on board, though with plenty of twists and turns to keep everyone guessing.

I found myself fully engaged with the characters, all powerfully and singularly well done, each bringing to the screen their unique gifts.

For a full listing of the cast, stop by the IMBD web page for “Inception.”

Special effects are superbly balanced for the story, as well as the action, of which there is plenty, but all properly fitted into the plot.

The storyline is utterly intriguing – is it possible to get into someone’s dreams, not only to learn their deepest secrets, but to plant an idea – an inception – so carefully that upon waking, they will believe the idea to be their own?

The background to the story is corporate espionage, with a giant payoff for Cobb (DiCaprio) who’s been on the run from the States, accused of murdering his wife. If he can pull off this job, his employer will make a phone call and clear his record.

As grimy as all of this is, it’s only background – the heart of the movie is the dream-world into which all of this plays out, with all kinds of subplots around Cobb himself and his deceased wife, who keeps showing up in the dreams.

It’s all very complicated. So, if you go, and I hope you do, be prepared for a lot of uncertainty, especially in the first 20 minutes or so. But hang on. It all falls into place, and ends with a moment that leaves the audience wondering.

Is he home, finally? Or is it still a dream?

A movie to see in the theaters? For sure.

Prince of Persia: Sands of Time

2010-06-02T08:42:00.000-07:00

“Prince of Persia: Sands of Time” - what kind of a movie is it?

Seriously so-so in my opinion, and I was in a good mood.

First of all, while I totally like Jake Gyllenhaal, he’s no prince of Persia, in spite of bulging biceps, leather straps and greasy hair and leaping tall buildings in a single bound. I kept hoping for a Kurt Russell persona and face, but what we get in Gyllenhaal is a sad face, the face of sensitivity and compassion – all well and good for a contemporary flick full of 21st Century angst.

I realize that he can’t help it, so this is a casting issue.

If they simply wanted to build a showcase for Gyllenhaal, so be it, but if they wanted to make this a first-rate entertainment film, they failed.

Ben Kingsley is slip-sliding away, a parody of himself in former days when he could bring to the screen some depth of passion and mystery. But this character? Unconvincing – a bored actor playing a carboard villain.

The one who did it well – always does – Alfred Molina. Whimsical, greedy, boastful, with some remarkable bits and pieces of nobility. For me, Molina is by far the best.

The beauty of the story is Gemma Arterton … but, again, I think it all failed for her for want of fire.

Does anybody really care! What’s at stake in this story? Are nations trembling? Are the fates waiting? “Yawn … did anyone get popcorn?”

The whole thing lacked passion.

Special effects are good … but oh so typical. Music, typical. Buy the soundtrack? Sure, why not?

Worth seeing in the theater?

I don’t think so – save it for Netflix when you have nothing better to do … or better yet, go to the beach and enjoy some real sand!

Robin Hood

2010-05-18T05:31:00.000-07:00

Ridley Scott has done it again. The man knows how to make big movies, and he’s scored with “Robin Hood,” starring the ever-powerful Russell Crowe as Robin Hood, or more accurately Robin Longstride, because this is a prequel to the familiar story, and I liked it.

And with Cate Blanchette as Marion Loxley, we have another marvelous actor.

Both Crow and Blanchette have 12th century faces – hard and good, intense and strong, kindly, with steel!

It’s gritty and it’s 12th Century – life is dark, damp and short.

Be sure to stay for the credits – it’s a million-dollar sequence – the most exciting credits I’ve ever seen.

Acting is superb … great cast ... the cinematography captures the 12th Century – the mud and the warfare. Like was hard, indeed. Music is typical for a movie of this caliber – powerful stuff for a powerful story.

The story is massive, and there are some editing jumps, but the audience can follow along ... and did the French have landing craft?

The relationship between Robin and Marion could have been done a bit more effectively, but it works.

Don’t wait for Netflix – see it now.

Iron Man 2

2010-05-12T13:10:00.000-07:00

Written by my good friend and accomplished writer, Michelle Welker Scott!

The Iron Man with the Heart of Flesh

Sometimes, the most interesting thing about super heroes is not their strengths, it’s their weaknesses. And Tony Stark, aka Iron Man, is a flawed human being of epic proportions. Not only is he physically dependent on the Arc-Reactor in his chest, he’s also vain, egocentric, and ridiculously impulsive. In short, he’s a fascinating character.

Iron Man 2 picks up where the first Iron Man ended, with Stark openly proclaiming his identity. Unlike Superman or Batman, Tony Stark flaunts his superhero alter-ego. At the beginning of the movie, he lands his Iron Man suit, rock-star like, in the middle of his adoring fans.

But while Tony revels in his fame and fortune, his life is crumbling. The Arc-Reactor in his chest, the thing that keeps him alive, is slowly poisoning him. The son of an old family enemy has come back to seek revenge. Justin Hammer, a corporate rival, is building a fleet of iron man suits of his own. And the US military is breathing down Stark’s neck, demanding that he release his technology to them.

For all his panache, Tony Stark is a flawed man, and his biggest flaw (other than the faulty core of his heart) is his determination to remain alone. Throughout the movie, he attempts to tackle all of his problems solo. It’s only when he gives in and accepts the help of his friends that he is able to move forward.

Unfortunately, Iron Man 2 doesn’t possess the same degree of tension that the first movie had. Stark’s inner battles, though fascinating, just do not carry the same impact as a prison break from a Middle East terrorist camp. Yet, this movie offers much more than the average sequel. The plot is intriguing, the characters are interesting, and the special effects are, of course, dazzling.

It goes without saying that Robert Downey, Jr. makes the movie, but the other actors aren’t without talent. Gwyneth Paltrow, who plays Stark’s personal assistant Pepper Pots, has wonderful on-camera chemistry with Downey. And Tony’s rival, Justin Power (played by Sam Rockwell), is perfect as an annoying wannabe who will never be Tony Stark any more than the dowdy PC guy will be Mac in those Apple commercials.

If the movie gets off to a slow start, it’s offset by the high-impact ending. After all, every great pitch begins with a windup.

~ Michelle Welker Scott

"Kick-Ass"

2010-04-23T08:29:00.000-07:00

I went in expecting a comedy about teen-aged angst and got it, and then some.

What I didn’t expect was the powerfully dark story woven in and around the comedy.

Hats off to the director, Matthew Vaughn, who has skillfully woven the two threads together. Many a film tries its hand at this and fails. But “Kick-Ass” more than succeeds, which makes for a delightful and thoughtful movie-experience.

Based upon a comic book of the same title, (written by Mark Millar and illustrated by John Romita Jr., and published, of course, by who else, but Marvel), it clearly has that comic-book feel – striking images, powerfully developed characters with a lot of quirks, teen-aged angst, of course, some masturbation humor and plenty of well-choreographed violence – “sickening violence just the way you like it” (as it says on comic-book cover).

The story is basic: a geeky, nerdy, highschool boy wonders why no one has evertried to be a super-hero. His equally out-cast buddies tell him, “Only in the comics – and besides, they have super-powers.” David Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) fires back, “Batman didn’t have super-powers.” They rejoin, “Yeah, but he had all that money to buy what he needed.”

Oh well … so David orders a green and yellow wet-suit, some Ninja clubs, performs powerfully in front of his bedroom mirror, and then off he goes to set the world right, only to be stabbed in the stomach and get the crap beat of out of him in his first effort of crime-fighting – trying to stop a couple of punks from breaking into a car. He staggers into the street and is slammed by a car. Not wanting anyone to see his costume, he asks the medics to throw it away before they whisk him off to the hospital for a series of operations to implant a variety of metal parts and a long rehab, with some interesting results: he’s sort of a bionic man and some damaged nerve endings inure him to pain.

The medical report notes: “Naked when he entered the hospital” – and that sets up and interesting scenario. His not-to-bright father wonders if he’s gay, and when the word gets back to school, the girl he’s always wanted takes and interest in him because he’s safe. Oh well …

As soon as he’s out of the hospital, he dons the costume again, hits the street to right all wrongs, and stops a beating – but it’s videoed by an-looker who posts it to the internet. Yup, you guessed it – it goes viral.

David d

evelops his own “Kick-Ass” website, and pretty soon “Kick-Ass”is the talk of the town. “If you need help, contact me.”

It isn’t long before he’s tangled up in some pretty rough stuff, and who should come to his rescue, but a 10-year old girl who knows more about guns and knuckles that anyone - well-trained in martial arts and weaponry by her sweetly loving, but slightly deranged, father, who’s also an ex-cop and (oh yeah), a comic-book illustrator, known as Big Daddy, played as only Nicolas Cage can deliver!

Her name, Mindy Macready (named after the country-western singer and reality star of the same name?), or Hit-Girl, played with amazing aplomb by Chloe Moretz. With her Eastwood-snarl, and cheap purple strip-club wig, she’s one tough cookie, a force to be reckoned with. Her father “shoots” her with a big-caliber handgun, knockingMindy off her feet. What? Oh, but she’s wearing a bullet-proof vest, and Big Daddy is training her to take a hit.

The bad guys are bad – Mark Strong captures the cold, venomous, demeanor of a high-end drug kingpin on top of the city’s drug trade, and his slightly geeky son who wants in on dad’s business, played well by Christopher Mintz-Plasse.

On the road to the end, lots of mayhem and death, a hot car, subterfuge and betrayal, a fire and a gatling gun. Hit-girl does her stuff, gets into trouble, and is saved by Kick-Ass. What a team. Oh yes, did I mention the geeky son of the drug dealer? He’s going to be the next super-hero, bad guy, Red Mist! Seeking revenge. Can we wait for the next installment?

It’s all rather complicated, as comic-book stories usually are, and as life mostly is. Yet at the core of the story, it’s all about identity and a young man’s dream to make a difference.

I went expecting good afternoon entertainment and found a gem of a story well-told.

Worth seeing, for sure!

How to Train Your Dragon

2010-03-30T15:33:00.000-07:00

By Michelle Welker Scott - FilmNut's good friend.

Hiccup is a teen-aged boy who lives in a place where, “it snows nine months of the year and hails the other three.” Berek Island, his home, is nearly uninhabitable. But one of the biggest challenges facing the Vikings who live there isn’t the weather or the terrible food. No, it’s the marauding dragons.

In order to keep their village safe, everyone on Berek Island slays dragons. Everyone, that is, but Hiccup.

In some ways, How to Train Your Dragon resembles another high-grossing film that recently came out. Think of it as Avatar lite. In both movies, the establishment fights against an unappreciated alien race until a single individual speaks out against the mindless slaughter. Like its Oscar-winning predecessor, How to Train Your Dragon is about questioning what others take for granted. It’s about opening your mind to new possibilities. It’s also about how utterly cool it would be to tame and ride a winged creature, be it dragon or mountain banshee.

Although this movie’s straightforward plot doesn’t offer many surprises, the animation is a marvel. From the spectacular scenes of soaring above the clouds on dragon’s wings to the final battle scene, How to Train Your Dragon is a visual wonder. Additionally, the character’s facial expressions and gestures are charmingly rendered. Toothless is a wonderfully expressive creature with mannerisms so realistic that any pet owner can surely identify. And the dragon’s relationship with Hiccup is as timeless as that between Travis and Old Yeller.

It’s nice to know that Hollywood finally got the memo: it’s okay to make a funny, family-oriented movie that will not only delight the kids but make the parents sit up and enjoy themselves as well.

Hot Tub Time Machine

2010-03-30T15:29:00.000-07:00

By my good friend and avid movie reviewer: Michelle Welker Scott

Maybe the only thing more fun than a parody of angst-ridden teenagers who struggle with their adolescent insecurities is a parody of angst-ridden, middle-aged adults who struggle with their mid-life crises. Combine those these two in the same movie and you get Hot Tub Time Machine.

Just reading the title of the movie pretty much gives the plot away. Three middle-aged men and one post-adolescent boy take a trip to a mountain ski resort in order to escape their miserable lives. During the trip, the four of them inadvertently get into a hot tub that takes them back in time to in 1986. Hilarity ensues.

Okay, so it’s not Tender Mercies. But it is, surprisingly, funny.
Reminiscent of those rollicking party movies like Animal House and Porky’s, Hot Tub Time Machine is full of stupid, tasteless humor. But it’s humor with unexpected appeal.

For starters, there’s always something hilarious about the 80’s; with its Kid ‘n Play hairstyles and Miami Vice fashion sensibilities, it’s a decade that’s just begging to be mocked. Additionally, actor and producer John Cusak lampoons his own early career in such movies as Better Off Dead and Tapeheads, by playing the same kind of earnest, lovable everyman (er, boy) that made him a heart-throb nearly three decades ago. Crispin Glover puts in an appearance as well, playing the straight man against a very funny running gag. And Craig Robinson (who plays the character Darryl Philbin in the TV show, The Office) holds his own as the wannabe musical star cum doggie athletic trainer.

Be warned, however. Hot Tub Time Machine is rated ‘R’ for good reason. It’s crude, offensive and vulgar. There are jokes about drugs, alcohol, vomit and – of course – sex. Viewers who are offended by foul language or nudity should not even venture in the door.

But despite its crassness, obscenity and utter lack of a moral message, Hot Tub Time Machine is a very funny movie.

Short Reviews: "Alice" and "Green Zone"

2010-03-22T22:17:00.000-07:00

"Alice in Wonderland" is delightful, zany, entertaining and just plain fun to watch. Johnny Depp captures the madness of the Mad Hatter, and Mia Wasikowska is terrific as Alice. All in all, a lot of eye candy with the wonderful story of a young girl with dreams, who's "gone around the bend?" as she wonders with her imaginative father, and who later becomes a young lady determined to chart her own course in the face of social and family pressure to knuckle under and marry the young man everyone expects her to marry.

For entertainment value, "Alice" is high on my list, with plenty of laughs and a fine message for young women.

I saw it in old-fashioned 2D (sorry about that) - friends tell me that I should see it in 3D - I may just do that.

Worth seeing, for sure, either way.

But don't wait for Netflix - see it soon.

"Green Zone"

If you want a kick-ass message, please see "Green Zone" starring Matt Damon as Chief Miller, a soldier doing his duty - looking for WMDs in Iraq, coming up empty-handed at every site, beginning to wonder what's up with intel. He begins to raise questions and finds himself enmeshed in a deadly clash between Bush Administration officials and the CIA.

Greg Kinnear, as point person for the Bush Administration adds another brilliant role to his resume. Playing a political slime-ball more interested in PR than truth, Kinnear brings a deadly rationality to a blood-thirsty role. God save us from such evil monsters. I couldn't help but think of ultimate slime-ball, Paul Reiser, in his brilliant performance in "Aliens" as Carter Burke, a man who would gladly sell his grandmother, his mother and everyone else to promote his rise to power and wealth. Or the latest Mr. Corporate Slime Ball, "Avatar's" Giovanni Ribisi as Parker Selfridge.

One the classic roles goes to Brendan Gleeson, a Michael-More look-alike, the CIA guy on the ground, who sees through the Bush Administration lies, as does Chief Miller. They hook up and seek to bring some truth to the whole mess, but ultimately, they fail, as we did in Iraq. The Bush Machine plowed on, telling us one lie after the other, and we were were helpless to stop it.

Another must-see film ... but, be prepared; it'll make ya' angry!

"Edge of Darkness"

2010-02-22T08:25:00.000-08:00

MUCH better than I expected and receives my highest rating. Director Martin Campbell has brought off a darkly moving story.

Entertainment Value: High.
Acting: Terrific.
Music: supportive, interpretive.
Plot: full of twists and turns.
Message: power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Social Relevance: High

I expected a more formulaic story, but all the twists and turns kept me riveted to the screen ... I didn't wanna miss anything.

Mel Gibson portrays a loving single father who's daughter is shotgunned and killed on his front porch. At first, every one thinks Gibson (Boston cop Thomas Craven) was the intended victim. But why was his daughter so ill, and why had she come home so unexpectedly, and why, on the very night she was killed, did she have a bloody nose and then vomit blood?

Clearly, there's more to the story then meets the eye.

Craven's daughter, Emma, is played, with a deceiving innocence, by Bojana Novakovic. She's a top-notch graduate of MIT, now working in research for a shadowy company maintaining America's nuclear stock pile - huge amounts of money involved, of course. Though Emma is killed up front, her "presence" in Craven's mind fills out the absolute horror and sense of loss that grips a father's heart. In the end, there's a tender scene that some might consider a distraction, a sentimental flourish (think: John Tavolta's 1996, "Michael"). But it works for me; it touches on the final reality and the final hope!

Following his daughter's murder, Detective Craven goes to work, digging around where he shouldn't, finding out the story - it seems that his daughter discovered certain irregularities, and was about to go public, working with friends to gather evidence. But the company kills her friends and poisons Emma.

All the acting is superb, but one character truly stands out: Jedburgh, Captain Jedburgh, a man of the shadows, working on the edges of corporate power and government intrigue, a man responsible for cleaning up messes and putting the story straight. You wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of a stick held by Captain Jedburgh. Ray Winstone captures perfectly the ambiguity of this man who never asks moral questions, yet possesses a conscience that, in the end, ends the affair, so to speak. Elegant, in his own brutal way, working alone, he does the job, but faced with his own mortality, some decisions have to be made.

As the story unfolds, power at every level is involved.

As I sat there, I grew more and more edgy, thinking about power and wealth in this nation, and the Reagan-Bush legacy of unregulated big biz taking us down a blood road to hell. These Republican administrations have us worshipping the Market as if it were god and adulating power and wealth as if this were the pinnacle of human achievement.

Ask children today what they want to do when they grow up, and the answers are all-too common: be a star and make tons of money. What the hell have we done to ourselves?

In the end, the film asks, "Is justice possible?" when wealth can buy protection at the highest level?
When senators are in the pockets of the powerful, and the powerful can do anything they want. When government itself fails to remember The People!

In many ways, this film reminded me of "The Departed" ... and that's all I'm going to say right now about that.

Bloody and violent, but such is life all around us, and a film like this helps us think a little more deeply about the world we've created in the last 50 years.

A distinction can be made between violent men and men of violence. Violent men hang around in bars, drink cheap beer and look for a score. But men of violence wear expensive suits and live in expansive homes, drinking fine wine and looking pristine and smiling confidently, sitting in Congress and manning corporate helms, making us feel safe and comfortable with them. They gather in the world's finest hotels and spas, fly first-class and ride in limousines; they give orders to kill and then order flowers for their girlfriends. They send young women and men to their graves without a moment's thought (see "Avatar" - "When someone is sitting on some shit you want, you make them your enemy.")

A deeply moving dark story with a highly relevant message.

"Edge of Darkness" is definitely worth seeing!

Crazy Heart

2010-02-10T13:36:00.000-08:00

Ran across an excellent review by Steve Vineberg in a "Christian Century" blog ... click HERE to read.

I would add: one of Jeff Bridges finest moments - a marvelous actor, as he brings to life a beat-up wreck of a man.

Reminded me of Mickey Rourke's "The Wrestler" ...

I appreciated the ending ... reminded me of "It's Complicated" and Clooney's "Up in the Air" ... a good ending isn't always a happy ending, but in each of them, a curious kind of grace that sustains, even as they help others find their own life.

The Lovely Bones - Reviewed by Michelle Welker Scott

2010-01-26T10:44:00.000-08:00

My good friend and writer and fellow-movie-nut, Michelle Welker Scott, offers the following review:

It’s 1973, and Susie Salmon is fourteen years old. Susie is a typical teen. She loves her parents – though they sometimes aggravate her – has a crush on a boy in her high school, and has plans for her future which include becoming a wildlife photographer. But one afternoon, just a few days for Christmas, Susie is kidnapped on her way home from school and brutally murdered by a sexual predator. What follows is a tale of grief and grace as Susie’s family struggles to come to terms with the tragedy even as their dead daughter does everything she can to reach out to them.

The movie is based on Alice Sebold‘s novel of the same name, but it lacks Sebold’s memorable characters and intricately interwoven plotlines. In fact, compared to the novel, the movie is something of a disappointment. But what the movie lacks in reinterpretation, it more than makes up for in visual spectacle.

Director Peter Jackson seems to love nothing more than to create scenes of otherworldly beauty. Just like in his previous works, such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy and an earlier film, “Heavenly Creatures”, Jackson’s camerawork is phenomenal. His use of light and shadow give depth to the scenes, and his juxtaposition of the In-Between (the realm between heaven and earth) and the everyday make it seem as if all we need to do is reach out our hand into order to make contact with the dead.

Jackson creates an afterlife which is both whimsical and lovely, ghostly and frightening. Like a Magritte painting, the world of the In-between is both familiar and fantastic. It pairs the breath-taking beauty of nature – lofty mountains, fields of wheat, solemn forests – with stylized symbols of the world of the living – ships in glass bottles, a gazebo, and brilliantly colored beach balls. This movie is a must see on the big screen if for no other reason than to witness the panoramic beauty of this supernatural realm.

But while Jackson enjoys a spectacle, this movie doesn’t dwell on the grisly details of Susie’s rape and murder. In fact, Jackson accomplishes something remarkable: he creates scenes of almost unbearable tension without reveling in salacious depictions of violence. But while this movie is tasteful, it is also very grim. This is not a piece of bubblegum. Some parts, such as when a newly deceased Susie enters the bathroom of her killer as he is washing the blood and mud from his body, are so ghastly and eerie that they would be at home in a horror flick.

Jackson’s eye candy is not the only thing that the movie has going for it. Although the characterization is sometimes weak, there are several outstanding performances by the actors. Susan Sarandon excels in her role as the heavy-smoking, hard-drinking grandmother. Her performance is a breath of fresh air in what can, at times, be a ponderous film. And Stanley Tucci’s depiction as the predatory neighbor is chilling. In the end, however, it is Saoirse Ronan’s performance as the innocent fourteen-year-old Susie Salmon that makes the movie work as well as it does.

“The Lovely Bones” is both beautiful and awful, a thought-provoking drama and gripping movie of suspense. Although it doesn’t slavishly follow the novel on which it’s based, it does let the mood of the book shine through.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

2010-01-25T14:50:00.000-08:00

Don't bother!

I hate to say it, but this hodge-podge story, so poorly crafted, isn't worth your time or the money, and I rarely say that.

Though it's Heath Ledger's last work, his legacy is poorly served by this inept effort. Rather, to be remembered for his masterful role in the "Dark Night."

In an attempt to bring this work to the screen after Ledger's sad and untimely death, three fine actors are enlisted to portray various permutations of Ledger's roll - Tony, a sometimes good guy who's mostly a scoundrel deserving his comeuppance.

Colin Farrel, Johnny Depp, and Jude Law cannot rescue the film, nor can the special effects, which, in their own way, are rather dazzling, but effects are no substitute for a story.

The mystic wizard, Dr. Parnassus, is gamely portrayed by Christopher Plummer who manages to shine in this very dim effort.

The lovely young thing, which most every movie needs, is done well by Lily Cole who, in the end, finds happiness.

Decent efforts are made by: Verne Troyer as the hapless midget who manages the show and Andrew Garfield as the stage hand.

The show, by the way, the Imaginarium, has something to do with walking through a mirror of sorts while the good Dr. is in a trance. Apparently people find something of their own inner character, be it good or be it evil. Oh well ...

The theme kept reminding me of Tony Randall's 1964, "The 7 Faces of Dr. Lao" - now, there's a good film, and if you haven't seen it, rent it now from Netflix.

It does what "Dr. Parnassus" apparently attempted to do, but failed.

Sadly, "Parnassus" gets my lowest rating. This movie should have never made it out the can.

But you'll enjoy Tony Randall as Dr. Lao.

The Book of Eli

2010-01-25T14:47:00.000-08:00

I thoroughly enjoyed the film and will likely see it again.

Denzel Washington is impressive as Eli, a man carrying a book, a book desired by many - indeed, not just a book, as Eli's nemesis puts it, "it's a weapon."

For some thirty years, in a post-apocalyptic world, with all the usual suspects: cannibals, lonely road-warriors, survivalists, and the power-hungry seeking to rebuild the world as they would have it (Gary Oldman as Carnegie) - I find it ironic that Oldman's name is Carnegie, a man who built much of our world through Pittsburgh steel, and, like Carnegie the industrialist, Oldman's character is a strange amalgam of good and evil, as he searches for the book, the one remaining book, to give authority to his dreams and to help him rebuild the world. Yet every book he finds, he burns; he's not interested in wisdom, but only power, and that's the poison in his blood.

The book carried by Eli is the last copy, all other copies have been burned in the post-nuclear world, for people thought it's message had brought about the war that ended the world!

Cinematography is impressive, along with special effects, capturing a burned-out world, dirty and desperate - food and drink all too rare, shelter and safety long gone. The acting is carefully done by everyone with subtle passions; no artificial tears here, but a genuine sorrow and hope playing with one another. I found myself engaging deeply with Eli, and the other characters as well. "The Book of Eli" achieves where "The Road" failed - as powerfully done as "The Road" is, I found myself looking at it, but never drawn into it. The other "end-of-the-world" film, "2012," while offering a very different scenario of the end, actually conveys a better, though lesser, emotional power. One does care about the outcome.

For thirty years, Eli has carried the book across the country, from east to west, because something has told him to do so. At times, he seems imbued with a supernatural ability for the sake of his mission, a mission he cannot clearly define, but only seek. Along the way, he hunts for his food and defends himself with a lighting-quick sword; don't tangle with him - you will not survive. And every day, he reads the book.

Stumbling into the town under Oldman's rule, Eli becomes a virtual prisoner. Having demonstrated his prowess, Oldman sets out to win Eli's allegiance. "I could use a man like this." At Oldman's beck and call, a mother (Jennifer Beals), blinded in the war, and her illiterate daughter (Mila Kunis), who is sent to Eli to seduce and entice him, but to no effect. In this moment of great kindness, a relationship is cemented.

Only after Eli leaves town, because Oldman cannot hold him, Oldman soon discovers Eli has the book, the one remaining copy, and sets out in Mad-Max-like pursuit, what with all the requisite blood and gore.

Eli is wounded badly, but the young girl, now on the run from Oldman, finds him, and they set out to finish the journey - to reach the West Coast, San Francisco, and there they find the community for which Eli has been searching for thirty years, a community that values the book, and all the great books of human wisdom and glory. There, Eli lives long enough to "give" the book to the new community seeking to rebuild the world, not with power, but with wisdom.

I'll not give the ending away here - you'll have to see it yourself.

But this I can say: it's the most religious non-religious movie I've ever seen, with a genuine surprise ending that plays upon the deepest currents of faith, hope and love.

Definitely worth seeing on the big screen.

White Ribbon

2010-01-19T14:18:00.000-08:00

I was mesmerized by it.. a painful peek into rural German small-town society, family and church, on the eve of WW 1, July, 1913 - August 10, 1914, and the inordinate harshness toward children, with a mystery of something very dark in this small town's life.

Done in black and white, this is a technical achievement - great to see B&W again - and surely consistent with the film's dark themes.

Costuming and music are splendid, everything carefully done. The script captures the pain of children growing up in a time where the child is to be seen and not heard, where fear of sin leads the pastor to brutalize his children, and in the end, to ignore terrible possibilities.

Cleverly narrated by an old man (whom we never see, but only hear) who tells his part of the story when he was the young town teacher. We witness his falling in love and a very chaste courtship. Was it really that way? I suspect it was, though moderns can hardly believe they didn't fall into bed by the second date.

He tells his tale that we might understand. But understand what?

Erie, to say the least, as the story unfolds ... a reflection of every dysfunctional family - how secrets are hidden behind a wall of shame, often buttressed by a hyper-religious overlay.

The sad little boy in this picture, one of the pastor's children, says it well - the cross on the wall, the communion chalice, and the white ribbon, a symbol of purity. The father expresses deep disappoint in his son's depression which he determines is caused by self-abuse - you know, the stuff that'll make ya' blind. So a white ribbon is tied on his sleeve and he must wear it all the time. His hands are tied to the sides of the bed at night, lest he touch himself.

Something terrible is happening in this town. Is is the doctor? The pastor? His children? The peasant-farmer's son? Harshness and cruelty abound.

At 2 1/2 hours, with a slow pace and questions that remain unanswered, I felt the mystery and the sadness slide inside of me, like watching a slow-motion train wreck in a dream, yet just before the trains leaves the track and tips into the waiting swamp, the dream abruptly ends.

I think a second viewing might help me pick up some of the clues as to who did what (there was one signifiant scene, I think, that held a clue), though the intent is to leave the mystery intact. After all, there are things in life never solved, and this town's sadness may be one of them.

The young teacher was drafted into the army and left town, never to return.

While we never finally know (as least I didn't) who dunn it, we have a chance to see the elements that lead to tragedy.

Not an easy film to see, but clearly worth it.

Could one wait until Netflix? Yes.

Up In the Air

2010-01-05T17:42:00.000-08:00

I wrote the following to a friend:

Here's a man who does what he has to do, but does it with both efficiency and some compassion - he's not heartless, in my judgment, but has to steel himself in order to keep functioning. What else should he do?

It's a commentary, for sure, on systemic powers ... and how dehumanizing it is. That Clooney goes to his sister's wedding, takes the photos with their cardboard cutout, and actually goes to Chicago reveals the heart. That she's married, and he's back on the road reveals just how hard it is for everyone to break out of the mold we've all created, or the mold that's been created for us.

The young lady (Anna Kendrick) is, in my view of things, so typical of the young today - full of themselves, as Mary Pipher says of her youthful self in her book, "The Shelter of Each Other" ... and it's Clooney, however, who can see just how shallow she is, and on the road, she comes up against the reality of what they have to do, and when she hears of the lady who jumped and killed herself, she quits - her moment of redemption.

Clooney, if you will, sacrifices himself to save her. Clooney is lost up in the air; she, perhaps, will find her footing, or even her soul.

And he's off to do what he does best - and he does with as much as is possible, without self-destructing. Someone has to do it. And when all is said and done, he gives a round-the-world trip to his sister and her husband. What he can't do for himself, he at least can do for others. Another Christ-theme - "Come down from that cross and save yourself."

Clooney isn't interested in saving himself, but in some remarkable way, he's save the young lady from herself ... and discovered, perhaps, that his life is up in the air.

Clooney's boss, of course, reflecting the worst in corporate culture. The real people in the film reveal the devastation of job loss.

The moral themes of this film are oozing out all over the place. If anyone is lost here, it's Alex, played masterfully by Vera Farmiga.

The ending is real ... Clooney's character is what he is ... is there no grace for him? I think there is ...

This is a terrific film ... I've now seen it three times, and I've laughed and been moved each time.

Don't wait for Netflix; see it now.

It's Complicated

2009-12-26T10:19:00.000-08:00

I haven’t laughed this hard in a long time.

This is a brilliant and bitter-sweet look at love and marriage, divorce and children, longing for what was and the reality of time’s flow taking us to new places, by choice and by circumstance, both sad and hopeful.

Hats off to Nancy Meyers for putting this remarkable ensemble of actors and themes together – it’s a testimony to her considerable skill as writer and director.

If you like Meryl Streep, you’ll love her here; she’s at the top of her acting game and brings pathos and yearning and sorrow and anger to life.

Her ex, played by Alec Baldwin, brings to the screen all the characteristics that make men loveable and deeply irritating.

A special word about John Krasinski who’s the oldest daughter’s fiancé (Harley) – his sense of comedic/dramatic timing is impeccable; he is the role, and the role is him. We will see a lot of him in the future.

The three children are done well: Hunter Parrish (Luke, who’s just graduated from college), Caitlin Fitzgerald (Lauren, the oldest engaged to Harley ) and Zoe Kazan (Gabby, just off to College), capture the rueful longings for a whole family, yet the bitter realization that time moves us along to other places, and life does go on.

The lonely guy roll is played well by Steve Martin, though I felt it took awhile for him to find his pace … hard to tell what scenes were shot when, but in the end, I think he captures the essence of his persona.

The family dynamics are powerfully presented – a family who is finally getting used to the divorce, and then having it all disrupted when mom and dad get hooked up again, at least, for a fling! “The affair” brings to the screen some of the funniest moments I’ve ever seen – Alec Baldwin is brings his aging self to life for us, as does Streep; the body isn’t what it used to be, but the soul remains and so do the memories.

But there’s no going back home.

And dad, who left mom for a younger woman, and is now going to fertility clinics and looking at preschools even when his last daughter is off to college.

As you can see, the themes are rich and poignant, but the comedy, so well done, keeps the film well-paced and easy to watch, even as one’s heart is wrenched a time or two.

I suppose one could wait for Netflix on this one, but why wait. It’s a terrific evening for adults who have lived long enough to know that “it’s complicated.”

Thumbs up on this one!

Avatar

2009-12-23T12:15:00.000-08:00

“Avatar” is a remarkable film, with incredible special effects, great acting and a tremendously relevant and painful story.

Somewhat on the size and scale of “Lord of the Rings,” with its own native language and vast struggles of good and evil, it’s not quite as sophisticated or as subtle, but don’t take this as a criticism of “Avatar,” but only as praise for Peter Jackson’s “Rings” trilogy.

And speaking of Jackson, “Avatar” is the movie his “District Nine” tried to be. Hats off to James Cameron for a stunning piece of work, and if you can, see it in 3D, though, thankfully, the 3D stuff enhances the story rather than the story being a vehicle for 3D (as was Brendan Fraser in last year’s "Adventure at the Center of the Earth").

The blend of animation and live acting is seamless, and these days, the audience demands nothing less. Expensive? For sure, but there's no going back, and Cameron's "Avatar" has upped the bar considerably.

If you like big stories, we have it here.

If you like special effects, it’s all here.

If you like solid acting, you’ll be pleased.

First up, Sam Worthington plays Jake Sully a wheelchair-bound marine who accepts a deep-space assignment on Pandora where human beings are engaged in precious ore mining, with only one problem: the natives’ home sits right on top of the mother lode.

So, what’s a stock-holding enterprise to do? Well, as one line goes, “If someone is sitting on something you want, make them your enemy.” The story "enjoys" two bad guys - first, the manager, who sees only the bottom line, played ably by Giovanni Ribisi whose character possesses a cruel innocence, a cruelty of distance, cold and determined to promote the company's purpose. I found myself recalling Paul Reiser's Carter Burke in the 1986 "Aliens" (another James Cameron spectacular effort).

The second bad guy is all hands-on - Colonel Miles Quaritch played spot-on by Stephen Lang, all muscle and a lot of brain to boot - and the man loves war. He can hardly wait to pull the trigger on these savages.

The company has been creating avatars - bodies that look like the natives, but also possess the DNA of the person who's thoughts will animate the avatar via thought-projection machinery - the human lays in a bed of high-tech bells and whistles in base-camp, safe from the hostile atmosphere of Pandora, while the avatar can explore and engage the natives.

Jake's avatar is assigned to reach the natives with a simple message: leave or be destroyed. But Sully is no mean-spirited man; he's a solder, of course, all the way, but in time, his encounters with the Na'vi and their ways opens his mind and heart to the beauty and the value of their ways. We witness his transformation from a marine hired by the company to a man who sees the world through other eyes. As he grows in understanding and love, Sully realizes the crime in which he's involved. By way of comparison, who can forget a similar transformation in Kevin Costner's "Dances with Wolves" (1990)?

Sully is found in the wilderness by Neytiri wonderfully voiced by Zoe Saldana of "Star Trek" fame. Her animated character is remarkable, and you can guess where it all goes. She takes him under her wing to teach him the lore and wisdom of her people. Her contempt for Sully and his guns is magnificent. In her eyes, he's only a child who knows nothing. And she's right.

If there’s one criticism, and it’s slight, the story is so painfully obvious, cleverly mixing, however, multiple stories with a singular theme: the white man’s burden (to liberate the savage from his world) and colonial pillaging of the native environment for gain, backed up by a vastly superior firepower.

Aside from this simple caveat, the story grabbed me powerfully. I felt the pathos of Sully and Dr. Grace Augustine played skillfully by Sigourney Weaver (who can forget her in the "Alien" series?) who's education and personality are filled with sympathy for the natives.

James Cameron and crew create an alternative universe to play out the stories of our world – the large-scale stories of war and colonialization and the intimate stories of love, jealousy, hope and courage.

A rare combination of high action and a deeply moral story. For those who are not into action and violence, well, there’s plenty of it, but it’s choreographed carefully for the sake of the story.

Clearly intended to lay the foundation of a sequel, “Avatar” really works.

Don’t wait for Netflix on this one – it’s a must see.

"The Blindside"

2009-12-07T07:29:00.000-08:00

Everything that could have gone wrong with this film DIDN'T!

Everything needed for a solid story happened.

Great script, great casting, great acting ... and Sandra Bullock, as the quintessential Wealthy Southern-Republican-NRA Mom packing heat, is at the top of her game - Wow! This, and her earlier gig in "The Proposal," puts her on top of the A-List.

Having lived in some of the southern regions of this nation (not quite so far south as the film), I've known a few White Protestant Women of Wealth who run their world quite handily, thank you, and a few who have an extraordinary heart to balance out what would otherwise be a temptation to pride and cruelty.

This is a story about grace.

I found myself struggling to keep back tears any number of times ... sort of like hearing beautiful music, something in this story reached pretty deep into my soul.

And what's not to love about Ms. Bullock? Shall I use the word Hot?

All around her, a great cast - her husband (Tim McGraw), who "owns hundreds of Taco Bells," is bemused and engaged by his wife's compassion, and they decide to put up the money. There can be no love without cost; no love without advocacy, and this couple pays the price and goes to bat for a young man named Michael Oher (powerfully portrayed by Quinton Aaron) who's quiet depth speaks volumes with few words - there's an ocean of hope and pain within his character, and Sandra Bullock's Leigh Anne Touhy touches it and brings it healing.

At its worst, someone might suggest that a Black Man's hope is to find a generous White Woman.

I was very impressed by how the story looked at them as people first, and then dealt with the sociology of poverty ... the economic divide that pits us against one another. Of course, race is an issue, and that was heard in Leigh Anne's wealthy friends eating in an expensive restaurant - this brief scene was well-scripted and edited.

Throughout the film: the dogged determination of one family to help a young man! And the young man's slow entry into that family's love. Not many families are in a position to give so much. But one life saved will save many others. There are incredibly generous people and may their tribe increase. We hear horror stories about the rich and the famous all the time, and it's great to hear a story of wealth being used so powerfully to save a young man.

The Tuohys are religious as is found only in the South, but the story wisely omits the usual shlock or bitterness associated with faith; this is a religious family who takes seriously the compassion of the gospel, even when friends raise their eyebrows. This family took some chances, had the money to back it up, and they did it. Not every story turns out quite so well, but it does a heart good to see one that does. We all need this kind of encouragement to keep on keepin' on!

A rising star for sure, the younger brother played with "leave it to Beaver" freshness and a dash of Wall Street savvy, by Jae Head. We'll be seeing a lot of him.

For college football fans, a lot of real coaches show up here - enjoy! It's a lot of fun, and they're all pretty decent actors - one learns that while coaching, I suppose!

Worth seeing?

Absolutely, and don't wait for Netflix on this one ... grab someone you love, get some popcorn and enjoy a major-release film with a real message about hope.

New Moom

2009-12-04T05:37:00.000-08:00

I loved the first one - a solid-message story ... a tightly-told tale.

But this go-around, hmmm.

The film began chaotically for me - like, what the heck is this? But pulled itself together at the mid-way point. If I had read the books, would it have made any difference? Even the teen girls in the audience seemed less excitable than the first. Maybe they're just a year older.

The acting caught my attention in the first one, but, here, it seemed too patterned and predictable, with one notable exception: Taylor Lautner, who brings a smoldering, intelligent, passion to this role. Here's an actor we'll be seeing again and again. And for those of you who are into buff, you'll enjoy seeing his wolf-buddies who are never cold in the NW climate of chill and rain, so we see a lot of six-packs and pecs.

The special effects of the wolves is about 80% - I've seen better, but it tells the tale well - a conflict, now governed by a truce, between vampires (Edward) and wolves (Jacob), both of whom love Bella and are, in turn, loved by her. The love-triangle is pulled off rather well, with some decent twists and turns.

If there's a message here, it's likely this: Who am I? For all three central characters, Edward, Jacob and Bella, it's the pressing question, and wisely the story reminds us all that the question is answered primarily in relationship. No one can go off into a corner and figure it out, though a little corner-time is always needed. But in our love and fear of others, we find the depths of our character and define our identity through an ever-changing landscape.

Clearly a teen movie, but with questions that bedevil us throughout life.

The plot wasn't as tightly presented as it was in the first film - this is always the plight of the second film in a trilogy ... rarely can the middle (muddle) be told with the clarity of introduction or finale.

And speaking of finale, I wonder just how many films are in the works. The next one, "Eclipse," is pretty much in the can for next year.

Worth seeing? I think so, and certainly in a theater for the special effects.

End of the World Films

2009-12-03T15:58:00.000-08:00

"2012" - a visual-effects masterpiece, and "The Road," a sort of a "Heart of Darkness" journey, take us to a time when the world is either collapsing ("2012) or has already collapsed (The Road".

The first of these is a visual delight, though the storyline is grim: an unusually heavy burst of solar flares is bombarding the earth with neutrons, heating up the earth's core like a grapefruit in a microwave, destabilizing the earth's crust, sending continents crashing around the glove, with Randy's Donut sign careening down the street (just blocks from where I live) and finally tipping the whole of Los Angeles into the Pacific Ocean.

It's a typical disaster film, with the best, yet, CG images. Typical though it is, it's one to see in the theaters - on a big screen. Though the story has a few improbabilities, and a fledgling pilot who's way-too skilled to be flying a twin-engine plane through the collapsing buildings of downtown LA, the story rightly asks the core question: when things are going to hell in a hand-basket, how will we respond? Some respond cruelly, others with grace. I guess we already know that, don't we? But it's always worth pondering.

Sub themes: money can buy you time, sometimes. Sacrifice is noble. Love might even

win out. But millions will die, as only a few can be saved.

Plot-wise, a slightly unexpected ending as to how some are saved.

Acting is mostly good with a talented cast. At one point, during a rather lengthy philosophical ramble, my son said, "Okay, enough talk; I wanna see more buildings toppling over."

-------

"The Road" is unrelenting grimness - clouds and rain, cold and damp, as a father and son struggle to survive in a world gone mad. We're never told what happened or why, but most of humanity is dead, and most of the survivors have turned to cannibalism.

The little boy says to the Dad, We’re the good guys, aren’t we?

Dad says, Yes we are, because we carry the fire, here, in our hearts.

Will we ever eat people? the little boy asks.

Never, says the father.

One can always hope.

With virtually no special effects, this film is all about acting, and Viggo Mortensen (Dad) and Kodi Smit-McPhee (son) portray the quintessential father/son relationship - of the father's unyielding loyalty to the boy, and the boy's unquestioning (?) trust of the father's love and care.

As a metaphor of life, cannibalism is clearly the way of the capitalism - we exist for one another's appetites, and only the brave refuse to succumb, taking a chance of starving to death rather than engage in cannibalism. It takes enormous commitment to remain good.

Sadly, as powerful as is the acting, it lacked, for me, that needed emotional edge that captures the heart and makes the viewer care. I watched it, but I didn't participate in it deeply enough. Maybe it was just me. Maybe the script. Maybe the directing.

But I wanted the love of the father and the son to pull me in, and it didn't.

The bad guys are really bad, but aside from a few moments of terror, the movie mostly plods along with a strange and ill-fitting cameo by Robert Duvall, and an even stranger encounter with a thief who ends up buck naked.

All-in-all, a good story in a film that didn't quite hit the bulls-eye. Worth seeing? Sure, but wait for Netflix.

Where the Wild Things Are

2009-11-10T07:46:00.000-08:00

Visually fun, this adaptation of Maurice Sendak's children's story.

With a good message, though slightly dark.

Will children enjoy it? Will children understand it?

Not sure!

Let me know.

The film tracks a child (Max Records) out of control, whose world, if you will, is all about him. Things are tough for the boy in a home unsettled by divorce and the usual suspects. But with a deeply loving mother (Catherine Keener). Yet the boy is hateful and mean: "Feed me woman!" he says defiantly to his Mom one evening, as she's trying to entertain a male guest. Are we dealing here with a parable?

Running away from home (every child's spiteful dream, "I'll show you!), the child finds a small boat and sets out across the sea, until coming upon a strange land where the wild things are - is this the child's own soul meeting him?

The Wild Things are wonderfully crafted - a blend of Jim Henson's Creature Shop puppet magic and computer animation. And their voices - so profoundly out of sync with their visual qualities - lends a wonderful sense of delight to the story.

But Wild things are wild things, and they threaten to eat him. Yet the boy's defiance and quick-footed creativity serve him well, at least for awhile. Rather than eat him, they make him king (what every willful child desires; what all of us desire?), and, at first, good things, but in the end, things fall apart, or are destroyed.

Willfulness is always destructive. Period!

The boy learns these hard lessons, and finds love once again in the wild things of his life. The Wild Things are wild - that's the point - they try to love the boy, the boy tries to love them, they try to love one another. But love, for them, for us, is hard. Yet not beyond our reach! Love will never make the Wild Things cease, but love manages and finds a way to live with the Wild Things.

The boy returns home to find a loving mother waiting anxiously for him, who has always loved him, and now back home, we hope: the child will love his mother in her life as it is, for that's all we can do, and that's all that's needed - to love one another as we love ourselves in the reality of our lives, just as they are, mixed up and uncertain.

That's the message.

A good one for all of us.

Capitalism

2009-10-05T09:04:00.000-07:00

The Founding Mothers and Fathers of our nation were wary of banks and landed interests. Why?

Because they knew all too well the corruption of Europe – the divine right of kings, the poor houses and the generally abysmal conditions of life for most, except the gentry who lived off the land they owned by rank and title and on the backs of their peasants.

Our Founding Mothers and Fathers sought to create real democracy, wherein everyone, created equally by God, was entitled to a piece of the pie. Of course, some would always have a larger piece, but not the whole damn thing.

What we have today is a far cry from the democracy envisioned by those who laid the foundations of our land. What we have today is a plutocracy, an oligarchy, run and ruined by the wealthy 1 percent who have manipulated the markets, gained control of the financial engines of government and thus powerfully influence both courts and legislatures.

It’s a horrific picture, when one dares to look at it for what it really is, rather than through the rose colored glasses the wealthy have shoved onto our faces, the hope that we, too, could, one day, be wealthy – the power of the American Dream. But that’s the point – it’s just a dream, and though millions toil away trying to reach it, and millions pretend they have, borrowing themselves silly on credit, which, of course, the big boys have arranged, only to further deepen our debt and enslave us further – just like the peasants of old. And if that’s shocking, check out Deadpeasnts.org – one of the slimiest devices ever invented – tens of thousands workers worth more to their company when dead than alive.

Where’s a prophet when profits become obscene?

Where’s a prophet when religion fails to offer anything but salve to the conscience and a narcotic to the mind?

Here comes an ungainly figure, with rumbled clothing and baseball hat, a man from Flint, Michigan – reared in the heartland of the FDR middle class, knowing full well how men like his father built this great nation, with the help of FDR, unions and a government that knew how to tackle the big boys and put them in their place.

Michael Moore, standing in front of the AIG building in Manhattan with a bullhorn making a citizen's arrest, wrapping crime-scene tape around a Wall Street skyscraper ... searching out the crimes of the wealthy against our nation (click HERE for a trailer).

Oh, how the big boys hate all of this, and they’ve spent billions to undo the social victories of FDR (check out his Second Bill of Rights), emasculate the middle class and bust the unions, all the while blaming the unions for high costs of production, while they suck off millions for themselves, lay off workers, shutter plants, outsource manufacturing – because the wealthy couldn’t care less where a product is made nor the worker who makes it. And who needs the middle class? Not the wealthy, that’s for sure.

See Michael Moore’s “Capitalism” – and America, let’s grow up to be the nation envisioned by our Founding Mothers and Fathers, let’s take a second look at FDR’s Second Bill of Rights, and if you happen to be a Christian, or something akin thereto, take a look at the Bible again – and ask yourself, “What would Jesus do?” when it comes to Bank of America and all the rest of the boardroom scoundrels who’ve pillaged the land and looted the public treasury, laughing all the way to the bank and sneering at the rest of us from their position of privilege?

Wake up America!

This is a serious business, because there are domestic enemies plotting even now to undo our Democracy. No, not the guy with the beard, but the smiling dolt with the spray-on tan and the pink tie, the head of Countrywide. And the goons and gargoyles of big biz who have bowed the knee to Mammon and sold their soul to the Devil. And their political toadies who manipulate the laws and the purveyors of cheap big-box religion who soothe the soul of the people with spiritual nostrums about heaven and self-improvement nonsense, lest The People wake up and see the horror.

Am I wrong?

Hope so, and then who cares?

But what if I’m right, and what if Michael Moore is the Prophet of our time, calling attention to the moral breakdown at the highest levels of our society?

You see, it's not the poor guy on the corner or the young girl selling herself; it's not gays and lesbians and doctors who do abortions. No, they’re not the problem.

The hyper-wealthy are the problem.

They’ve always been the problem.

And as long as good government comes to the side of The People and balances out the power of the wealthy, we all have a chance, even the wealthy.

Yes, even the wealthy, who, if left alone, devour themselves, right along with all the rest of us. They need as much protection from themselves as The People need protection from them!

So, who needs FDR’s vision? And Michael Moore’s penetrating analysis of society? We all do, but it’s up to The People to raise a cry for justice.

If you see only one film this year, see Michael Moore’s “Capitalism.” Because he's a man who truly loves America!

The Informant

2009-10-05T07:38:00.000-07:00

Steven Soderberg has pulled off a remarkable feat – telling a serious story from a comedic point of view, using Marvin Hamlisch music as a comedic device overlay for a sad and pathetic story – greed run amok in ADM and the tangled, fanciful dreams of a schizophrenic executive who wants to bring ADM down while scamming the company of millions.

Based upon the incredible book by the New York Times writer, Kurt Eichenwald, the story unfolds as if it were a novel. It’s hard to believe that the goons at the top could be so craven, so greedy, so far removed from real life, ensconced in their Midwest empire, cheating every American, 5 cents at a pop, for every bottle of Coke and every Chicken McNugget … as suppliers of fructose (corn-based sweetener) and Lysine, a growth hormone essential to meat production.

Getting back to the Hamlisch music, which is brilliant, reminded me of “The Sting.” The folks who saw it with me felt as if the music were an artificial overlay. One said, “I think they finished the film and weren’t satisfied – so they pasted the music on top of it.”

For me, it fit Soderberg’s experimental style. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a film where music played such an important role – more than supporting the story, but actually telling a counterpoint story – as we watch bunch of buffoons parade around as if they were important, when, in fact, they’re only clowns, albeit a bloodthirsty crew.

I thought it a brilliant casting coup to have Tom Smothers portray Dwayne Andreas, head of ADM. Though but a cameo roll, it captured much of the story for me – the whole ADM world – full of small self-important, entitled, men clowning around; the tragedy of it all - they had neither the moral nor intellectual stature to see themselves for what they were.

Profits and profits alone motivated them. And together with their worldwide competitors, they set about fixing prices, artificially allotting production quotas and setting price to boost their profits on the backs of working men and women around the world.

By the way, the ADM story is perfectly counterpointed in Michael Moore’s latest, “Capitalism.”

Matt Damon captures the insane mindset of Mark Whitacre who wanted to expose ADM for some weird amalgam of moral sensitivity, greed and an ambitious dream to be the heroic savior, and eventual head, of ADM.

Lucas McHugh Carroll brilliantly captures the naiveté of Whitacre’s Midwest wife – a decent sort of woman, but unable to push her way through the tangled web of wealth and comfort. She defends her husband to the end.

One of the saddest pieces of the story (both the book and the film) is how the ADM sharks (attorneys) set out to destroy the case by going after the FBI agents driving the investigation – one of whom is played by Scott Bakula who carefully captures this earnest young agent with a keen sense of justice and doing it right. But in a world of sharks, even the good are eaten alive.

As part of the shifting landscape in America, as we discover how evil the world created by Reagan and deregulation, how the big boys have looted the economy and pillaged the public good, “The Informant” tells one critical piece of the story. That all of this stuff could happen in America boggles the mind, but the America we know today is a far cry from the America envisioned by the Founding Mothers and Fathers, and a million miles away from the social victories won by FDR for The People, yes, the People.

Worth seeing?

For sure! But if you want to wait for Netflix, go ahead.

Zombieland

2009-10-05T06:53:00.000-07:00

It’s a lot of fun, and I love Woody Harrelson in his devil-may-care, toughg-guy role as one of the few human beings alive who isn’t interested in eating another human being; what he craves above all else is Twinkies, and, excuse me, Snowballs won’t do – he doesn’t like coconut – it’s not the flavor, just the texture.

The second role goes to Jesse Eisenberg who does his usual, but brilliant, young Woody Allen fussbudget, angst-driven nerd who survives with a long list of rules, such as “double tap” (you’ll have to see the movie) and “never be a hero.”

Their counterpart is played well by Emma Stone and Abigail Bresslin as two clever, survival-bent sisters, on their way to a west coast amusement park rumored to be free of zombies. While Harrelson plays by his brawn, Eisenberg by his caution, the girls play by their wits and take advantage of male gullibility (sorry guys, that’s the way it is).

In such a world, there can be no intimacy: so names are never used (with one exception in a rare tender moment), so they’re named after their hometowns, or destinations or whatever: Tallahassee (Harrelson), Columbus (Eisenberg), Little Rock (Breslin) and Wichita (Stone).

The zombies, shades of every Fifties B movie, are ravenously hungry for human flesh – aren’t they all? And though overwhelming in numbers, they’re easy to kill because of their obsession. Hmmm.

This is, in many respects, your typical road movie, within an apocalyptic world. Will they or won’t they? While the two teams seek to undo one another at first, there grows a grudging realization that they might just do better working together.

The film ends at the amusement park amid a pile of dead zombies, and this reflection from Columbus, “If you don’t have friends, you might as well be a zombie.”

For me, the story is a parable of America – have we become a nation of zombies, devouring one another to satisfy an unending ravenous appetite? Has fear taken such a hold that intimacy is impossible? That names, real names, no longer count? And is there a place free of zombies? A safe place for us?

Technically, the film is well done! What can I say. Of course, it’s a B movie, so don’t press it on details (such as, if the world is now filled with zombies, how can the power grid still be working to light the amusement park and run the rides?)

Sure, it’s light entertainment, but it’s fun to watch with a lot of laughs.

See it in the theater? Yeah, I think so.

And be careful of the zombies – they’ll eat ya’ alive!

Whiteout

2009-09-19T15:00:00.000-07:00

A strange film to review.

I liked the story, and it had me most of the time.

It's a simple whodunit with some good twists and turns, a lot of good acting, and special effects.

The story unfolds in Antarctica as a massive winter storm closes in, forcing the evacuation of the entire base. But two days prior to evacuation, a body is found on the ice in the middle of nowhere.

So out goes Federal Marshal Carrie Stetko (Kate Bekinsale) to investigate. The body's a mess, with a hastily sutured leg wound and an ice pick wound to the chest. What was the guy doing out here? And why?

Very quickly, things unravel, and off we go on a pretty good adventure with a lot of chilling (literally) special effects - the deep freeze of Antarctica as the storm closes in. All set to go home before the long dark night, Marshal Stetko stays behind to finish the job. With her, the good doctor John Fury, done well by Tom Skerritt. And one other guy, a slightly suspicious U.N. operative done menacingly by Gabriel Macht. And their pilot, Delfy, played rather well by Columbus Short.

I was bothered by one glaring directorial (Dominic Sena) decision - the two people with me also spotted it, and all of us agreed: it clearly distracted us and detracted from the overall impact of what otherwise is a pretty good detective story. The issue? No face masks in the bitter winter storms with temperatures 40 and 50 below with murderous winds. Yes, they had goggles and all the necessary protective clothing, but no face masks; the simple truth: exposed flesh, at those temperatures and with those brutal winds, would freeze in a minute or less.

As my son put it, the director choose to let us keep seeing the beautiful face of Kate Bekinsale, sans eyes, of course, and a beautiful face it is, and a good actor she be!

Both Marshal Stetko and the U.N. operative are in Antarctica for rehab, of sorts. While we never learn his story, we get to see Marshal Stetko's story in a series of flashbacks - does this device work? Sort of, and maybe just too much of it, but it does tell her story.

As the story unfolds, we begin to see just how good the marshal is - she's putting it all together, and then, just to confirm her analysis, the director actually let's us see that part of the story, so we are dealing here with multiple stories unfolding for the audience.

I can't say this is entirely satisfying, but the overall feel of the film was engaging and quite entertaining with enough twists and turns, spills and thrills, frozen bodies and an amputation scene, to keep my interest and have me gripping my seat now and then.

Worth seeing?

Sure, why not?

Public Enemies - video vs. film

2009-09-11T06:16:00.000-07:00

Check out this fascinating article on Mann's "Public Enemies" - shot in video rather than film. Frank Beaver, film historian and critic and professor of film and video studies and of communication (University of Michigan) offers a technical review of the media chosen by Mann. The traditional difference between emulsion film and video seems to have been conquered by Mann.

Click HERE to read more.

Warner Bros. settles lawsuit over 'Lord of the Rings' licensing payments -- latimes.com

2009-09-09T07:19:00.001-07:00

Warner Bros. settles lawsuit over 'Lord of the Rings' licensing payments -- latimes.com

Posted using ShareThis

Warner Bros. settles lawsuit over 'Lord of the Rings' licensing payments -- latimes.com

2009-09-09T07:18:00.001-07:00

Warner Bros. settles lawsuit over 'Lord of the Rings' licensing payments -- latimes.com

Posted using ShareThis

District Nine

2009-09-04T09:00:00.000-07:00

The story is fascinating … but the film fails the story!

Frankly, Enemy Mine (1985) did it better, because it did it on a smaller scale.

Peter Jackson’s latest effort, perhaps unconsciously driven by the vistas of “Lord of the Rings” and his stellar reputation, tries to be too big.

It’s hard for me to put into words – as if it were a bowl of vegetable beef soup, with all the right ingredients, but no salt, no seasoning – bland, tasteless. I don’t know what’s missing, but it left me rather cold. It was fascinating to watch, to be sure, but the technique, I think, that of “documentary” – with folks looking right into the camera at times, as they go about the work at hand – never engaged me. In other words, I didn’t care about characters, though the story is clearly a powerful tale of discrimination and we treat “aliens.”

Special effects are astounding, music is terrific, and Sharlto Copley (Wikus Van De Merwe), the “star” (in quotes, because here’s a man who effectively portrays a bureaucrat put into a high-powered position because of his influential father-in-law) is incredibly effective. He’s the perfect nerd trying to be tough, evicting the aliens from District Nine, the classic wimp backed up by guns, to be relocated some 200 miles further away from Johannesburg.

The aliens have been there for 20 years, sequestered, as in Apartheid, after their ship was disabled and they sought refuge here. These intelligent aliens, to our eyes, strange, if not repulsive, are relegated to a slum, and there they live, barely surviving, some of whom are subject to bizarre medical experiments and constant harassment.

During the eviction process, Wikus is exposed to a strange bio-fluid that’s taken years for an alien to create with cobbled parts and old computers – as it turns out, it’s the needed fuel to fire up the command module long buried beneath the slums, to return to the mother ship hovering and unmoving over Johannesburg from the day it arrived.

Within hours, Wikus begins to develop extreme symptoms – apparently alien DNA in the fluid is transforming him into an alien, first growing a hand that can fire alien weapons, a feat that weapons’ developers had been trying to accomplish for 20 years. In other words, Wikus is now worth billions.

But in a feat of strength, he escapes and flees to District Nine.

I won’t tell you the rest of the story – yes, the movie is worth seeing – as the story unfolds, we see what happens when race turns on race – hatred and fear, exploitation and black-marketing, and, as always, it’s the children who suffer.

A story for our times, indeed, but the film fails to deliver the requisite emotion, tension, hope and fear, that such stories inherently hold.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

2009-08-26T08:39:00.000-07:00

Reviewed by Michelle Welker Scott

Throughout the past five episodes of the Harry Potter series, the young wizarding student has battled evil in the form of basilisks, abusive family members, giant spiders, corrupt authority figures, and – most importantly – He Who Shall Not Be Named.

But in each of these movies, Harry has been an innocent. He’s dispensed his share of violence, of course, and he’s been forced to make many tough decisions, but through it all, he’s maintained a sort of blamelessness. In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, however, Harry becomes less of a victim and more of an instigator. And like Adam and Eve, Harry learns that sometimes good and evil are so closely intertwined that it can be impossible for us mortals to know the difference. If the entire Harry Potter series embodies a coming of age story, The Half-Blood Prince is the pinnacle of Harry’s journey into adulthood.

Not everyone would call this movie a success.

The plot winds around more than the hallways at the Ministry of Magic; even the well-initiated can get lost. But in all fairness, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was a book with a story line so labyrinthine that it could hardly be encompassed by a movie. Even so, the film falls short. Despite the fact that this is one of the better directed pictures of the series (surpassed only by Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix), it is still less than a success.
Yet, the movie has its moments.

The humor here is wonderful, revolving around those episodes of teenage angst that plague, or have plagued, all of us. Love is in the air. There are giddy crushes and love triangles; secret admirers and jealousy. Hogwarts is one festering bed of hormones, yet there is nothing lurid or prurient about these encounters; the movie maintains a very sweet and innocent tone. Another bright spot is that director David Yates took great pains to let the teenagers act like, well, teenagers. In this movie, Hogwarts seems more like your local high school and less like the stuffy, too-good-to-be-true, British boarding school. It’s a more real Hogwarts. One that you or your offspring might actually attend.

The most wrenching scene comes when Harry must accompany the headmaster, Dumbledore, on his quest to find a horcrux (an object of dark magic). Before setting off on the journey, Harry swears that he will do whatever the headmaster asks of him, no matter how terrible, and when put to the test, Harry fulfills his obligation.

But his actions come at a great personal cost. In one of the finest bits of acting that the Harry Potter movies have to offer, Harry coaxes, bullies, and eventually forces his beloved teacher to drink every drop of a vile potion in order for the two of them to access the horcrux. It’s a gruesome scene. Perhaps too ghastly for younger viewers. But the book never shied way from depicting the terrible power of evil, and – to its credit – neither does the movie.

The ending will come as a surprise, or not, depending on how well you know the series. Unfortunately, like the rest of the movie, the final scene suffers from an overload of images. Instead of reacting to what is happening on the screen, the audience is scratching its head and asking, ‘huh?’

The Half-Blood Prince is a movie rife with controversy. Devotes of the books argue that the movie takes too many liberties and leaves out too many details. Movie viewers who are unfamiliar with J. K. Rowling’s original series find it confusing and clumsy. But, despite its faults, the book’s spirit still shines through.

Julie and Julia

2009-08-10T08:35:00.000-07:00

Butter.

That’s it … that’s what good cooking is all about, along with fearlessness, and that’s what Julie learned from Julia, among many other things, as Julie cooked her way through Julia’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking (1961) and blogged her way through a personal challenge: to do everyone of Child’s 524 recipes in 365 days, along with her government job and a husband who loves her cooking.

The story comes to light when her blog is discovered by New York Times’ food critic, Amada Hesser, August, 2003, and the rest is history.

The story is delightful, and I found the film wonderfully entertaining with plenty of good laughs and the sheer delight of good cooking, though this is NOT a film about cooking. This is a story about two strong, creative women, and the men who love them.

Technically, it’s a fine film: well-scripted and well-acted, with well-chosen music to highlight Paris in the late Fifties and the Queens in the early Nineties.

It was obvious that the actors were enjoying one another and feeling the intensity of story – Julia and Paul in McCarthy-era Paris and Julie and Eric felt in their tiny Queens second-floor apartment above a pizzeria.

I appreciated the references to Senator McCarthy, as Paul Child was “called home” at one point, hoping for a promotion, only to be grilled by a trio of lawyers with a stack of papers on a bare table in a windowless room. In that sad and twisted era (also shown well by Julia’s wealthy Pasadena father who loved McCarthy), Paul Child was just one more suspected Commie-pinko rat who might even be H o m o s e x u a l … what with so many Americans flirting with fascism these days (yes, that’s what the far right is all about), this sub-text story within the story helps us think a bit about such things, without any “preaching” or “moralizing.” Just tell the story, and Nora Ephron’s film does that very well.

Cleared of all charges and sent back to Paris, the film continues about Julia’s efforts, along with her Parisian teachers and friends, to publish a French cookbook for American women who “are servantless” – “Is that a word?” Julia muses; “Well, it is now!

Several reviews have panned Amy Adams (Julie Powell), suggesting that she's overwhelmed by the bright light of Streep’s incomparable acting. NOT AT ALL! Ms. Adams more than holds her own.

I love Meryl Streep, and though I sometimes feel her acting to be, not only overwhelming in its power, but sometimes over the top as well, there was none of that here. Streep captures the essence of Child and holds her energy in check, creating a wonderfully nuanced portrait of a rather simple and boisterous person, tall and witty, slightly out of place in the Fifties and Sixties.

Adams, on the other hand, captures Julie Powell’s Nineties life exceedingly well, bringing to the role her slightly sweet, slightly sour, slightly ironic, personality. Don’t let appearances fool you – her character's not to be trifled with.

And for once, we have a film that shows good marriages – sure, the stresses and strains of life make for powerful drama and even humor, and, yes, many a marriage does go on the rocks. But a film like this helps us all understand that goodness and kindness go a long way, and that, even today, it’s possible to have a good marriage, making room for one another in a slightly self-indulgent era of delayed adolescence, encouraging one another to explore interests and dreams, and sometimes just putting up with one another. Yet, in truth, the contemporary marriage failed; Ms. Powell had an affair and the marriage has sense ended. Yet the film's message remains; it's possible to pull off a marriage, but one has to do so as Julia cooked, with lots of and fearlessness, and who cares if something falls on the floor - pick it up and continue; you're the only one who has to know.

The respective husbands, Paul Child (Stanley Tucci) and Eric Powell (Chris Messina) bring off their roles superbly – they are decent men.

Hats off to Nora Ephron for bringing this part of the story home – no preaching, no moral heavy-handedness … just a good story revolving some very decent people who know how to love and support one another.

And is it true? The best way to a man’s heart is through his stomach? I suspect it's true for all of us.

So put away the margarine (a terrible invention against body and soul) and bring out the butter (and I recommend Plugra). Near the end of the film, Julie and Eric visit the Smithsonian where Julia’s kitchen is on permanent display, and by a portrait of Julia, Julie leaves a package of first-rate butter.

This is a film worth seeing, right now.

Enjoy it’s lip-smacking delight, as Paul and Julia enjoyed their first meal in Paris, and then go home and start cooking!

G.I. Joe: the Rise of Cobra

2009-08-01T12:06:00.000-07:00

After so many years, and all those TV cartoons, we finally have a real Joe movie.

Saw it with my son at Paramount - he's a Joe fan, and website manager, so he was invited to a special screening in the Executive Screening Room at Paramount - about 25 folks sitting comfortably in big red leather chairs ... and he invited his Pop to go along - a pretty good deal.

I loved it, but my son's review is worth the read - click HERE for it.

He critiques it from a fan-boy's point of view, and then the movie itself.

Enjoy the review, and enjoy the movie.

The Hurt Locker

2009-07-07T07:01:00.000-07:00

Aren't we all supposed to love our work?

Haven't we all been regaled by preachers and teachers: "Love what you do, and do what you love" "Find a job you love, and then do it with all your heart"?

What happens if you're a professional soldier?

A specialist in disarming bombs? The infamous IEDs of Iraq?

Staff Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner) is just such a man. Living on the edge 24/7 - a bag full of bomb pieces - timers, fuses, wiring harnesses - puzzle pieces, souveniers, from earlier assignments - the man is a genius with an uncanny curiosity and confidence. He loves his work, putting himself in harm's way time and again. His own bomb squad is skeptical - is Sergeant James hotdogging it? Putting himself, his team, at risk, with his feats of daring-do?

While on patrol in the bleak countryside of Iraq, the unit comes under sniper fire. Quickly taking cover, and taking a few hits, the unit digs in and begins to look for the source of the sniper fire. They quickly discover a small block building hundreds of yards removed, and now begins a cat and mouse game.

Sergeant James is on the binnoculors - a unit member with a 50 caliber sniper rifle with scope begins to track the snipers - one in the building, the other on the roof. A long hot waiting game begins. The weapon jams; there's blood all over the magazines taken from a fallen comrad. With a measured determination, a strangely detached approach - a job has to be - the Sergeant takes charge of cleaning the magazine.

Loaded and ready, the enemy located, the weapon is fired.

Sergeant James, "You're high and to the left." Adjustments are made - and the first kill of the day is made. More waiting. It's hot - dessert dust coating everything. And then another kill - the final kill of the day, or is it? They wait, and finally Sergeant James says, "We can go home now."

As the days of his tour wind down, we want this incredible specialist do his job - his unit pull together and weather the various storms of the soul.

In one of the most powerful moments of the film, an Iraqi citizen approaches a check point with his arms up, shouting - "I have a bomb strapped to me." And not just strapped, but locked with heavy padlocks - the man is clearly a sacrifical lamb.

The sergeant, dressed in a heavy bomb suit, approaches and calms the man - succeeds in cutting off one of several padlocks, but the whole cage-like affair is just too much. The timing mechanism, a cheap watch, is ticking down. Trying furiously to disarm the bomb, Sergeant James has no more time left in the tangled web of wires. He looks at the man, tells him there's no more time, turns and hurriedly walks away.

With great editing, we watch the Sargeant, from a variety of views, lumber away to safety, while the Iraqi, resigned to his fate, falls to his knees, hands outstretched, praying, the camera on his face - we're there.

In a moment, the man disappears in a violent explosion ... a sad, heart-wrenching moment, but just another moment in this incredible job.

Sergeant James loves his work.

The film shifts to the Sergeant back home, tour ended - with a woman he loves - in a grocery store. She's doing the shopping, but she's asked him to get some cereal, and there he stands, with his empty shopping cart, all alone in the cereal aisle, 10,000 boxes from which to choose - frustrated and bewildered, he finally grabs a box of anything. From the streets and deserts of Iraq to the cereal aisle.

In a few weeks, he says, "They need bomb disposal people." He returns for another year of duty, to the helter-skelter world of Iraq, to this land of adreniline-pumping, death- defying, winning and losing, blood and guts, world of the professional.

The final scene - dressed in his bomb suit, he's walking down a deserted street toward a bomb - he's alone. A man with job to do. A job he loves.

Without being political, this film successfully explores the world of the professional soldier and what it's like to love a dangerous, violent, job.

The film, lovingly, gives us an insight into the strange world of men and women asked to kill or be killed - living with death, with blood on their hands, metaphorically, and literally, as they cradle a dying comrade in their arms.

The grocery store cereal aisle is as befuddling to them as the streets of Bagdhad would be to us.

I came away from this film with a greater love for the professional army we've created over the years - these people are precious. They are doing a job we've asked them to do, and many of them do what we all try to to do - behind the desk, at the assembly line, wherever - to do what we love, and to love what we do.

And if the news is accurate, we're not doing enough to honor them - forget the schmaltz of parades and medals - I'm talking about taking care of their families back home, for one thing: that housing and medical care for spouses and children would never be a question. That proper armament and everything they need is readily available. That we understand their role and how hard, if not impossible it is for them, to re-enter a civilian world.

We have created a professional army. We have asked them to do a terrible job, and like human beings anywhere, and Americans especially, they love what they do, and they do what they love.

No wonder the suicide rate is so high. The cereal aisile is a dangerous place, a strange and forboding zone in which the professional soldier feels trapped and alone. He's not qualitifed for cereal; he is qualified, more than qualified, to join his unit in war - to face the enemy the politicians have created, and to love what he does and do what he loves.

Can we ask of them anything more?

And can we not do better by all of them?

This is a powerful film with a message about our professional army.

Hats off to Kathryn Bigelow (director) for bringing this fine piece of film-making to the screen. Without romance or schlock, without glorifying anything, she tells a basic story of a man who loves his work!

See it when you can!

Public Enemies

2009-07-03T11:11:00.000-07:00

Something is wrong with this film.

It doesn't work very well for me.

Technically, everything is here, and it's all good ... but put it all together, and it's a ho hum film.

I think too much was attempted - it's tough to do a bio-pic - how do you reveal a huge characters like Dillinger and Purvis?

Johnny Depp, of course, as Dillinger ... but the portrait is flawed - too nice a guy - the reality: Dillinger was a killer. I think Depp is a terrific actor, but something didn't click here. The cold-blooded character of a killer didn't emerge. Sure, Dillinger might have been a nice guy now and then, but the raging fires of a troubled childhood and a life of prison and crime never emerges. This is not a role to be played with the elan of "Pirates of the Carribean." Perhaps a bit too cavalier.

Christian Bale as Melvin Purvis, the man who "gets his man" does a far better job then he did in "Terminator." Cool, calm, collected, relentless, and maybe that's the issue for the whole film - just too cool! Bale reminded me of Robert Stack - cool and calculating. A good role for Bale, but again, the characterization lacked fire - Stack had it, so did Kevin Kostner playing Elliot Ness in "The Untouchables." Is this lack of fire a question for the director?

The love between Dillinger and Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) is muted ... somehow or other, the desperation of two lovers in a losing game of life never makes it to the surface - there's no fire, no passion, not even any good old fashioned lust. In every relationship, something is at stake - something vital, powerful, even crazy. But what's at stake here? Was Bille trying to escape a life of being a coat-check girl? Was Dillinger looking for true love? None of that emerges. It's like, okay, so what? Who cares?

As I watched the story unfold, I wasn't rooting for anyone ... too little was at stake.

I think of Ron Howard's "Apollo13" - we all knew how it was going to end, but as the story unfolded, Howard had us all on the edge of our seats. We all suspected that maybe there'd be another ending.

We all know how it's going to end for Dillinger, but no seat-suspense here. No suspicion of another story. No hope that maybe Dillinger and Billie will find true love after all.

As for movie-going enjoyment, can't beat old cars careening through a city, bad guys and good guys standing on the running boards, trench coats streaming, firing away with a Thompson machine gun.

The music is terrific ... I think ... and maybe that's a good sign - I felt the music, as good film music should be.

The sound is awesome - the harsh crash of big caliber weapons ... the sound of prison doors closing ... assorted thuds and bumps ...

The period is beautifully captured ... but even here, everything seems too stylistic, too clean, more Disneyland than real. I wanted more grit, smoke and dirt; this needed to be a dark film, searchings of the soul - anger, power, hatred - everything here just too cool.

Clearly, some Oscars here for Michael Mann in terms of technique - maybe sound, maybe music, maybe costuming, but not Best Picture, and I doubt if any of the actors will even be nominated ... but, then, who knows.

The line-up of actors is impressive - how much did Mann pay for this stable?

But the story didn't cut it.

Is this one to see in the theater?

If you're looking for a movie to fill in the gaps, sure.

But otherwise, get it on Netflix.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

2009-06-29T11:31:00.000-07:00

I saw it in IMAX - up close and personal.

As for story, well, not as tight as the first one.

This film is all about the special effects, and they are amazing. If you want to see robots fighting, this is the one for you.

Music, sound, editing - it's all done superbly.

Acting in this one wasn't as vibrant at the first, either, but it'll do. I thoroughly enjoy LBeouf - there's a marvelous understatement to his acting - he exudes a sort of "common guy" demeanor, but with an edge of passion - he's fiercely loyal and willing to go the extra mile.

Is this one to see in the theater?

If you like action, special effects, you bet - a good rousing night at the movies! See it now, and see in IMAX if you can.

Food, Inc

2009-06-21T08:41:00.000-07:00

What has happened to America's food supply?

It's been fast-fooded and corporatized, with decisions made in board rooms on the 20th floor in a building a 1000 miles away from the chickens and pigs and cows and grains that form the foundation of our diet.

There was a time when meat processing jobs were mostly union, and good jobs they were, equivalent to the auto industry.

But along came the fast food concept - workers hired on the cheap, no unions, trained to do one monotonous task, like putting pickles on the bun, with a demand for huge amounts of beef that all tastes the same.

The meat processing unions were busted a long time ago, and wages fell. Butchering is no longer an art; it's just a factory job now, with tens of thousands of immigrant laborers hired, many of them "illegals". There are now only 16 slaughter houses in the United States; in one of them alone, 32,000 hogs a day are killed.

To satisfy the public, raids are conducted late at night in trailer parks near the slaughter houses. Ten, fifteen immigrants are rounded up and deported. But does anyone go after the corporations?

Did you know that it's a crime to have a beef about beef? Remember the trial of Oprah Winfrey? She won it, but the laws remain on the books. If you publicly have a beef with beef, you could be sued.

Some of the most carefully guarded secrets in America - the giant feed lots wherein cattle stand ankle deep in manure infected with e-coli. Where chickens by the millions are raised in darkness, never seeing the light of day, growing so fast with hormones, their legs can't support them.

And all that e-coli stuff - a cow's gut is made for grass, not corn. Corn, with all of its sugars, breeds e-coli, and it spreads and it spreads and it spreads. And rather than treat the cause, science and technology have now produced an ammonia-treated beef additive to counteract e-coli bacteria, and we're eating it now.

Corn, which is subsidized by our taxes, is cheaper to raise than its cost.

Cheap American corn, underwritten by our tax dollars, has put a million Mexican farmers out of work, and millions more around the world, putting billions more into a very few pockets.

Here in America, a farmer can no longer save seed for the next year, something farmers have done forever. Because Monsanto has had laws passed making seed-saving a copyright infringement in the last 15 years. Monsanto owns the seed, the DNA design. Even if a farmer uses non-Monsanto seed, if a neighboring Monsanto pollen enters the field, it's copyright infringement, and the farmer can be sued. Yes, it's all legal!

And on and on it goes.

Teddy Roosevelt broke up the beef trust.

But like some ugly wart on the bottom of the foot, the beef trust has grown back, with more chemicals and garbage in the American food chain.

Our children are suffering. We all are.

Obesity and diabetes.

Why should broccoli and carrots cost more than beef? Because we underwrite beef and corn with our taxes.

Everywhere they can, the four giant corporations who control America's food supply do everything they can to put independent growers and producers out of business.

It's a terrible thing. The government seems helpless. The American people are addicted to fast food. The only folks who seem to be doing anything are the unions, and it's time for Americans to realize that unions have done more than anything to keep the workplace safe and blow the whistle on corporate greed.

But like a junkie on the street corner, as long as we can fire up the barbie and have our beef, we close our eyes to the horror of what we're eating, and the human tragedy unfolding across the land and the world, not to mention the inhumane treatment of all the animals. And, as one of the farmers said, "If you begin to treat your animals as a product, you begin treat people in the same way."

Hats off to Michael Pollan ("In Defense of Food) and Eric Schlosser for bringing us this important and rarely heard story.

P.S. check out this New York Times review.

The Proposal

2009-06-21T07:42:00.000-07:00

A perfect film, if there can be one. All the elements fit, and fit very well.

First of all, Sandra Bullock has mastered the craft - from the lift of an eyebrow to a catch in her voice, I've never seen anyone with a better sense of timing - the little bits and pieces that add up to a huge screen impression, without being overblown.

Ms. Bulluck plays Margaret Tate, a Canadian immigrant at the top of her profession - a book editor in New York City. There's only one small problem: before her immigration status was resolved, she headed overseas to secure a client, and now immigration officials are deporting her!

Into the office walks her secretary, Andrew Paxton, played ever so well by Ryan Reynolds, her faithful gofur with his own ambitions to be a writer. He's worked, or perhaps slaved, three years for her.

And now when she's about at the end of her career here, headed back to Toronto, unable to work for an American company, she says, "We're getting married."

Immigration jumps on this quickly - if there's any fraud here, it's deportation forever, and jail time for her guy. "Have you told your parents yet?" the sneaky immigration official asks. "I don't have any parents," says Margaret. "But we're going to tell his parents this weekend."

"And where do they live?"

"And where do they live?" says Margaret.

"Sitka. Sitka, Alaska," says Andrew.

Here is where Ms. Bullock offers one of the great moments of film: "Ahhh -las-ka?" with a slight catchin the voice. How she did it, I don't know. But it was one of those remarkable cinematic moments for me.

Bullock and Reynolds are the perfect match, playing skillfully off of each other. He's the nice guy from Alaska; she's the conniving crawl-to-the-top-at-any-price corporate slug. He's at home in a boat; she can't swim. Getting off the plane in Alaska, she's dressed to the nines, as if she were headed to a New York City cocktail party.

And it only gets better - off to Alaska they go to meet his wealthy and powerful family, with one ditzy grandmother played by Betty White. Ditzy or not, she knows a whole lot about life and love.

Andrew's Mom, done by one of my all-time fav actors, Mary Steenburgen, brings a gentle and loving presence to the screen. Her husband, Mr. Paxton, who owns the town, and wants Andrew to return home and take up the reigns of the family business, is done really well by Craig T. Nelson. He captures the character of a man used to getting his way, a man who never has to apologize, a man who believes that his wealth and position confirm his self-opinion - he's right about everything.

Along the way, Oscar Nunez, who's a waiter at the party, a male-stripper and the grocery story manager - he's a hoot, so watch for his performance.

At the heart of the story, Margaret Tate's loss of family and the promise of finding family again.

In one of the most touching moments of the film, she weeps, "I've forgotten what it's like to have a family."

And Andrew, with a family, strong and loving, trying to work out his love for the father, and what the father's love means for him.

The ending?

Oh, you'll have to see it.

Be sure to stay for the credits.

For the guys, don't worry - this isn't a chick flic ... this is a story, this is a film, worth seeing and enjoying, with lots of hearty laughter all along the way.

Hats of the director, Ann Fletcher, who put this one together.

This is one to see in the theater, soon!

Up - Reviewed by Michele Welker Scott

2009-06-08T08:20:00.000-07:00

In America’s can-do, make-it-happen-at-any-cost culture, failure is not considered an option. Only the weak surrender; or so we’re lead to believe. But as Walt Disney/Pixar’s latest movie Up shows, sometimes giving up takes more courage than hanging on.

Up tells the story of two men who have spent their lives striving for a dream. One, dashing explorer Charles Muntz , has circled the globe making amazing scientific discoveries. But when a terrible rumor tarnishes his reputation, Muntz is determined to clear the shadow from his name. The other, Carl Fredrickson, has spent his life dreaming of adventure. But while he’s longed to go exploring, somehow life has always gotten in the way.

Both men are determined to live out their dreams, but only one is willing to do whatever it takes to accomplish them.

Although children will enjoy the silly antics of the animals and giggle over the humorous dialogue of the talking dogs, Up is ultimately a grownup’s film. Just as The Incredibles dealt with middle-aged angst in the form of aging superheroes, Up tackles the even tougher issues: the anguish of childlessness, the wearying grind of daily life, and the grief and loneliness that follow the death of a spouse or the abandonment of a parent.

Death and abandonment are not new topics to Disney films, of course. In The Lion King, little Simba’s father is murdered; and in Toy Story, Woody the cowboy purposely turns his back on Buzz Lightyear, letting the space ranger fall into the hands of the bully next door. But the tragedies in Up hit much closer to home, and – as a result – closer to the heart as well. The first twenty minutes of this movie are, at times, almost too painful to watch.

But the movie, however sad, does not wallow in its troubles. As with any Disney film, there are moments of pure magic .

The scene in which Mr. Fredrickson releases of his attic full of balloons and sends his house soaring above the city is filled with such beauty and child-like wonder that it outshines any children’s movie I’ve seen in a very long time. Russell, the earnest chubby-cheeked Wilderness Scout, also has his share of humorous moments. And the dim-witted but pure-hearted Dug the talking dog is as endearing a character as Jiminy Cricket. No, Up may be an adult’s movie, but there is just enough laughter and zaniness to make the even the youngest viewers love it as well. And the nostalgic touch of nineteen-forties style adventure will make audiences of any age enjoy it.

The crowning achievement of this movie, however, is not the silliness, but its affirmation of selflessness and sacrifice. The movies tells us that giving up on ambition is not cowardly; in fact, it may be the most heroic thing a person can do.

For when it comes to dreams, sometimes it’s necessary to let go of one in order to be free to grab onto another.

Terminator Salvation

2009-05-30T08:30:00.000-07:00

Uh-uh. No salvation here!

So much to hope for, so little to experience.

At least for me ...

The first three quarters of the film were just there, on the screen in front of me ... I was an unmoved observer of some fascinating special effects and a lot of lack-luster acting (more about that later) and a story in search of a point.

Toward the end, I found myself getting pulled in, and, then, just like that, what with the silly heart-transplant, it lost me again - clearly, it tried to capture the mystery, if you will, of a robot giving its life for the human - we've seen it before in the series, but in this episode, it was only schlock ...

Visually, the film was filled with bits and pieces from Hollywood's best - the motorcycle jump from Steve MeQueen's "The Great Escape" - some "Road Warrior"- "Mad Max" images - Sauron's Orc factories from "Lord of the Rings" - but it felt like a bad pastiche ... nothing fit, nothing flowed, going nowhere fast.

I came to this movie with high expectations - I like Bale; he's been one of my favorites since "Empire of the Sun" - his performance in "The Dark Knight" was stunning, but here, I never once got a sense that he had his heart in it - is this an issue with the story, the director, the process? I don't know; all I know is that it didn't work.

Moon Bloodgood, the scientist, seemed more like a fifth wheel than anything else. I think she's a good actor, but here, again, nothing seemed to fit - a good idea that didn't bake long enough, like a chocolate cake taken out of the oven too soon - as it cools, it falls, and that's exactly what "Terminator Salvation" did.

With one exception - Sam Worthington as the cyborg ... his was a thoughtful performance - you could see the inner pondering: "Who am I? What am I?"

I'll give it an A for special effects - a great cyborg motorcycle and some monstrously huge fighting machines ... but without a story, without a reason, it was like watching a museum piece - interesting, but when are we going to eat?

Worth seeing?

Only on Netflix.

Angels and Demons

2009-05-17T07:48:00.000-07:00

I had a tough time with this movie, trying to decide if I liked it or not.

It has a frantic pace to it - cardinals are dying and Rome itself is threatened with a massive explosion fueled by anti-matter stolen from a research facility in Switzerland - the project overseen by a scientist who's also a priest, or is it the other way around - hmmm.

Tom Hanks as the inveterate symbologist, Robert Langdon, teams up with scientist Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer) to search out the villains, supposedly some underground gang of mad scientists who despise the church and seek vengeance for the manner in which the church rejected science and killed its proponents, a group called The Illuminati.

Much ado about nothing kept coming to mind - a highly stylized plot in which Landgon proves to be the Sherlock Holmes of old poetry and ancient symbols. His partner, Vetra, is clearly Dr. Watson - a decent sort of sidekick with an occasional insight. If the Holmes/Watson thing was intentional, I can only think of the many Holmes movies done over the years that highlighted the power of the rational mind to observe and discern. Is this Dan Brown's intent? I believe it is, but the movie hardly brings it off with the kind of drama seen in Sherlock Holmes.

The "bad guy" here (don't read any further if you haven't seen it yet) is played somewhat masterfully by Ewan McGregor ... it seems that his character, Camerlengo Patrick McKenna, is the adopted son of the pope recently deceased, and, as we find out through "masterful sleuthing," murdered nefariously with an overdose of medication. Hmmm.

The plot tries for some twists and turns, but mostly fails. At the end, a twist that I found to be the creation of the filmmaker rather than the story itself. In other words, the wool was pulled over my eyes (though a friend of mine nailed the bad guy early on) by either Dan Brown (I've not read the book) or by Ron Howard.

I found myself bored with 90% of it - without the great music by Hans Zimmer, and it's really great, the film would have been flat as Hanks' acting here. Sorry about that. I really like Tom Hanks, but neither he nor his Watson sidekick seem to have their hearts into this, which is a more problem of the story itself than anything else.

Hanks doesn't have to work here - it all just unfolds with brief moments of thought - "hmmm, let's think for a moment - ah, yes - this is it - the next clue, the next church, the next cardinal to die, will be found here - gimme a map of Rome - yup, I need it now ... " and off they run, helter-skelter through the busy streets of Rome crowded with pilgrims awaiting the white smoke.

One of my favorite actors, Armin Mueller-Stahl, plays Cardinal Strauss - for me, the best of the roles here - ambiguous and cautious, a man of great power - is he one of the bad guys?

As for storyline and great thoughts, the film pretty much fails. With one little exception; at the end, Cardinal Strauss muses: "Religion is flawed because man is flawed." Well, okay. But what else is new?

The film ended with a new pope, and Langdon and Vetra properly subdued - Vetra wearing traditional head veil and Langdon with a bow of the head before the new pope steps out onto the balcony - well, granted, Langdon saved the new pope from drowning in a Rome fountain. Ironically, Langdon has to done dry clothing, and so wears a priest's suit and shirt, sans the white collar insert. At one point, it's observed, "It looks good on you."

At this point the story shift from drama to piety - was this a nod of the head, so to speak, to religious sensibilities? That rationality (Langdon) and science (Vetra) grudgingly submit to the mystery and majesty of the Roman Church? I think a good many Catholics will thrill with the ending, as the new pope steps out onto the balcony to the ecstatic throngs in St. Peter's Square. It would seem here that the Church proves victorious in the end.

Clearly, the church struggles between truth and tradition - that much is clear. Perhaps there can be no truth without tradition, but tradition can also be a destroyer of truth, even as truth can destroy tradition, and when both are bloodied in the battle, what's been accomplished?

Okay, enough.

Acting flat. Story shallow. Music great.

Worth seeing?

You could probably wait for Netflix on this one.

Star Trek

2009-05-16T08:32:00.000-07:00

See it!

Concept, direction, music, script, actors - A+ and then some. J.J. Abrams and everyone else involved offer us a film that couldn't have been better!

You'll love it, it's a ride, it's for the fans, and their number is legion.

Even someone who has not followed the series will enjoy the energy, the pace, the story: the terrific way the characters are introduced.

I first saw it Thursday night, before it's theatrical release, at the Paramount Studio Theater - a huge placed filled to capacity - a fun audience, of course; all enthused, and who wouldn't be?

I saw it again the following Monday and loved it just as much, and found bits and pieces that I had missed the first time around.

I'll likely see it one more time ... it's absolutely, for me, thrilling!

State of Play

2009-04-30T18:16:00.000-07:00

What a good movie.

Tense and gripping, with plenty of twists and turns, good acting and some incredibly relevant messages.

As a film, for entertainment, topnotch. I found myself utterly engaged and mostly baffled by how it was going to unfold - for me, this is what film entertainment is all about.

Russel Crowe plays a tough Washington journalist who's seen a lot of life on the other side of boundary - he's savvy, he's dedicated and he's a maverick. In terms of characterization: he's the old hand - it's all about investigation and follow-up, hunches and connections, last minute copy and "stop the presses" - everything journalism has been at its best.

Rachel Adams portrays a young, savvy, blogger who's all about getting out the story right now, who spends more time in front of the computer than on the streets - who writes well, but doesn't know how to dig for the real story behind the sensational headlines.

Both of them are thrown into a double murder - a junkie and a nice young may, both shot and killed professionally within 20 feet of each other ... any connection? And then like a freight train out of control, the story hurtles into ever greater depths of corruption.

Ben Affleck is a young and up-coming Congressman dedicated to exposing the shady war dealings of a powerful multi-corporation behemoth with plenty of money from government contracts and plenty of hired guns.

Robin Wright Penn is the Congressman's wife - a marginal presence in the story, but a key part right at the end.

Helen Mirren is her wonderful self as the editor - hard-nosed and driving, and utterly frustrated by the possible demise of this once great newspaper, now under new ownership, and it's no longer about the story, it's all about sales.

As the story unfolds, it takes a lot of twists and turns, but with good directing (Kevin Macdonald) and editing, there's never moment of confusion - just good story-telling.

As for relevance - wow! As the years of the Bush Administration are held up to the light of scrutiny, it would seem that folks like Blackwater and who knows how many of the ruling party were in cahoots for big money and power. If big-city newspapers are no longer about the story, but only the sales, it would seem that some parts of the government, in clandestine partnership with covert operations, are no longer about the people but the profits.

As for journalism - what's happening? With the demise of the newspaper industry, the Fourth Estate, who will be the watchdog for society - who's going to put on a porkpie hat and smoke unfiltered cigarettes and hang around the police station, stop in for a drink at a seedy bar, and comb through old files?

Like the mortgage industry that succumbed to too many 20-somethings who knew all about the money but nothing about the industry, will the journalism world become nothing but tabloid blogs, long on sensation and short on story?

I don't know, but the Fourth Estate is one of the anchors of democracy, watchdogs of truth.

This is fine fim, and if you want only entertainment, this will provide it, but if you're looking for entertainment with some provocative questions, this is one to see.

Observe and Report

2009-04-11T18:56:00.000-07:00

I like Seth Rogan, but this movie has got to be one of the worst ever; surely the worst I've seen, and I've seen a bundle.

Laughs were few and far between for the audience, in mixed up film that had no idea how to handle what might have been a decent idea. This is no film for Rogan. Where's Jim Carey when we need him to play a lovable loser - to emote some feeling and invite the audience into his world.

A billboard stated for the film, "The World Needs a Hero" or some such nonsense, and in other hands, with other writers and another director, it might have worked; the audience might have been drawn into a loser's world, as that loser tries to connect to reality, to his alcoholic mother, a blond bimbo (Anna Faris) at the cosmetic counter and a sweet coffee server (Collette Wolfe) at a donut shop - both of whom turn in credible performances.

But there wasn't a shred of emotion here - I don't think anyone felt any sympathy for the character, nor was there anything for which to cheer. Whatever was missing was really missing. This movie has yet to be made.

All around Rogan, a decent cast of odd-ball characters mostly well-played, with Ray Liotta playing the cop - a roll neither funny nor pathetic; it should have gone either way, but this movie lost its way in the first five minutes and tried to make it up for it by using the "f" word and all of its variants every other line - but not even the "f" word, funny as it can be sometimes, could redeem this script. Liotta looked game, but mostly lost. Was he doing someone a favor? His brilliant sleezebag performance in "Crossing Over" reveals an actor with ability and depth. He should have stayed home on this one.

And then at the end, the flasher (yes, there's a flasher here) shows up one more time to frighten women and terrorize the mall. Played by Randy Gambill, this poor actor should be sent flowers and apologies from everyone involved in the film - the man's a flop, so to speak. With full frontal nudity in an endless chase through the mall, we're well acquainted with Gambill's anatomy - I hope he got paid lots of bucks for this one, but if he were hoping to advance his acting career with this caper, he's likely to come up short, so to speak. And it all ends with horribly bloody moment - what is this? This is not comedy any longer - it's blood and brutal.

This is one of the worst films I've ever seen - Rogan should have had the sense to can this film and put it away for archaeologists to find. Writer/Director Jody Hill needs a vacation from Hollywood - whoever green-lighted this project needs to go along.

Oh well, enough already.

Don't bother seeing it. Don't even rent it. Except if you're a Ph.D. student in failed films.

I observed (for $10.00) and now I report - stay home tonight, or as a friend of mine used to stay, "Kicking bricks barefoot in the dump would be more fun."

Adventureland

2009-04-08T17:18:00.000-07:00

The reviews were coming in good, but I was still reluctant - another teen-in-love movie?

But I went anyway and was I pleasantly surprised.

All the actors are terrific, but it's the story that makes this movie a cut above the usual run of teen-angst films.

These are all college-plus folks - the young man, Jammie (Jessie Eisenberg) a recent college grad, is all set to join a friend for a summer in Europe, but a financial setback with dad forces him to cancel plans as the family moves to Pittsburgh where dad takes a lesser job and Jammie takes a meaningless job in an amusement park, running games, where he meets an assortment of going-nowhere-fast summer employees.

Jammie meets Em, a complicated young lady with a painful home life, played splendidly by Kristen Stewart, whose face is filled with the uncanny depth of sorrow. She's being jerked around by a jerk (Ryan Reynolds), good-looking and fun, but married, who takes her over to his mother's house for sex - well, so much for romance. He's having a good time, but Em is lost.

In Jammie, she meets someone with a different take on life.

He's well-read, an intellectual, who wants to be a journalist. His "experience" with life is limited, but she doesn't seem to mind one bit, and no one else does either. But love is close at hand, unfolding in its usually bumpy fashion. They both end up hurting one another, and then slowly reach out to one another.

At one point, in one of the best lines ever, he says to her (as best as I recall): "You don't ignore the folks you've screwed up with."

Who doesn't screw up now and then? But the point of a relationship is finding those bridges that transcend the screwups.

At the end of the summer ... well, I won't give it away, but this film has one of the best "love" endings I've seen. Where's there's love, there's hope!

The parents, the other friends - Bobby (Bill Hader), the amusement park manager - a real hoot with his baseball bat protecting his employees; Eric (Michael Zegen), a pipe-smoking Jewish nihilist who waxes eloquent on the trials of life - terrific.

Hats off to the writer/director, Greg Mottola - what might have been a formulaic piece is real story that, for me, had the feel of real life, real characters, trying to find their way.

As for message: it's good to be smart, to be bookish, to be able to carry on a thoughtful conversation - life isn't all about sex and booze - and most kids are smart enough to know that - this film affirms them and is filled with hope in the midst of life's hardships - family reversals, death and missteps.

This is definitely worth seeing ... even as I write, I'm thinking I might see it again.

Having lived in Pittsburgh a few years, it was fun to "think" about that good city again - though filmed there, it's not about the city, but "Adventureland" - actually, Kennywood, an old-time amusement park just right for this 1987 period piece.

Frozen River

2009-04-04T15:39:00.000-07:00

The face of grinding poverty ... a day late and a dollar short ... and what about love - to only have a double-wide, with good insulation, so the pipes never freeze - a safe place for her sons.

Set in northern New York State along the St. Lawrence River, near a large Mohawk reservation.

Melissa Leo (Ray Eddy) gives a stunning portrait of a wife and a mother struggling to keep body and soul together. Her husband, a gambling addict takes off a week before Christmas. In spite of working two years for Dollar Mart, the manager refuses to give her full-time. They're coming tomorrow afternoon to take the TV.

Leo's face says it all - every line speaks a sorrowful tale. I couldn't help but think of those haunting Depression-era photos of Oakies living in the California camps - their farms long buried in the dust of drought, and their hopes dying for want of a job.

No wonder she was nominated for Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role.

Gentle, powerful performances in every regard.

Charlie McDermott is the 15-year old son, a good boy hurting for his parents. It was evocative to see a teen boy portrayed this gently, rather than opting for the usual images of temper tantrums and wild driving, or some fit of protest against the world. He cherishes the one thing his dad gave him - a blowtorch that he uses to repair a small, pedal-driven, merry-go-round. He wants a job, but mom keeps him in school, scrapping by pennies for lunch.

Until a chance meeting with Lila Littlewolf (Misty Upham), a young Mohawk single mom living on the reservation, an on-again, off-again, smuggler of illegal aliens from Quebec. Desperate for money, Ray agrees to smuggle some folks across the frozen St. Lawrence in her car trunk - it's easy money - the border in the Mohawk Nation is porous, and the law is marginal. So, why not? Maybe that double-wide is within reach.

You'll have to see it for the rest of the story, but this I can say: under the direction of Courtney Hunt, this remarkable film captures the heartache of poverty, the deep sense of entrapment, every door closed and every hope squashed. It's a tough world, no doubt, but for the poor, it's even tougher.

In the end, a remarkable moment of sacrifice and a glimmer of hope.

Literally, a dark movie since much of it happens at night. Carefully edited, with a marvelous smattering of characters on the bottom-side of life.

I would have loved to have seen this in a theater, but I'm glad to have finally seen it at home. This is a must-see.

Knowing

2009-03-21T06:46:00.000-07:00

Starring Nicholas Cage in his usual form - an intense, slightly spaced-out MIT prof, slightly lost single father, his wife having tragically died a few years earlier, rearing a son with an unusual "hearing" problem. Professor John Koestler drinks too much and is estranged from his dad, a retired pastor. John's sister regularly stops by to look in on her bro, hoping to bring about a reconciliation, but no go. Faith has failed the professor, so he turns away from dad.

For the first three quarters of the film, I was into it - sort of a Da Vinci Code, can-ya'-figure-this-out adventure centered around the opening of an elementary school time-capsule.

50 years earlier, children were asked to draw a picture of what the future might look like. One little girl, Lucinda (Lara Robinson), maniacally writes line after line of numbers, both sides ... the teacher snatches it away before she's finished, and then tucks it away in an envelope with all the others for burial in the time-capsule.

Later in the day, the little girl is missing, only to be found by the teacher, Mrs. Taylor, in the basement beneath the gym, hiding in a closet, scratching numbers on the closet door with bloodied fingers.

Now, 50 years later, when the capsule is opened and the envelopes given out to the students, John Koestler's (Cage) son, Caleb (Chandler Canterbury) receives Lucinda's letter.

Professor Koestler cursorily examines it, and then, something catches his attention. In an all-night frenzy of analysis, he determines half the numbers as dates for disasters, with the number of people killed - most of which have occurred. He shows it to an MIT colleague who's intrigued, but finally dismisses John's theory - "we see what we want to see."

But the next day, a day predicted for 81 to die, John is on the road to pick up his son for school, he looks at his GPS for alternative routes, and suddenly realizes that the remaining numbers on Lucinda's note are coordinates. That very moment, an airliner crashes beside the road, with 81 deaths, at the very spot indicated.

Okay, what's going on?

The plot unfolds well. John locates Lucinda's daughter (Diana Wayland played by Rose Byrne) and granddaughter Abby, only to learn that Lucinda died a few years earlier, alone in a trailer in the woods. John also locates Mrs. Taylor, now very old, but she confirms this to be Lucinda's letter and tells John about the closet in the basement.

Things now become a bit melodramatic - apparently, no one sleeps - searches of the trailer in the woods, and a lot of things, happen at night. I thought, "Why not wait until daylight?" Oh well.

Then, strange men begin appearing. Caleb can "hear" them whispering. So can Lucinda's granddaughter - she calls them the "whisperers."

A cataclysmic sun flare erupts - as predicted - the world is warned to take cover, and there ensues all the typical mob panic scenes, stores being looted, etc.. Thrown together by "fate," John and his son head for the caves with Abby and her mother.

Well, to make a long story short, the last quarter of the film falls apart, as far as I'm concerned - a good story in search of an ending - ominous music throughout segues into soaring chords of heavenly music ... "ET" meets God meets Ezekiel's wheels meets "Close Encounters of a Third Kind" meets a new universe and the tree of life, or something like that. In the end, and I mean end, John, his parents and his sister, have one final hug, but he knows his son and Abby are safe, having been snatched away in ... well, you'll have to see it for yourself.

If you like Nicolas Cage (and I do), you'll like it and will forgive the corny, rather unimaginative ending.

The acting is generally good, but the children have to spend a lot of time appearing mystical.

Worth seeing in the theater? Sure, why not?

Watchmen - reviewed by good friend Michelle Welker Scott

2009-03-14T12:51:00.000-07:00

I am delighted to welcome a guest reviewer - fellow filmnut and excellent writer, Michigan's very own, Michelle Welker Scott.

Watchmen is not your parents’ superhero movie. While Spider-Man gives its audience the scrubbed-faced, boy-next-door hero of Peter Parker and Batman offers a brooding-yet-sensitive Bruce Wayne, the good guys in Watchmen are, well, not so good.

Based on the 1986 limited comic series by Alan Moore and directed by Zack Snyder (of Sin City and 300 fame), Watchmen takes place in a 1986 that never existed. Richard Nixon, having won the Vietnam War by unleashing the destructive capabilities of Dr. Manhattan, has been re-elected for a third term. The cold war is in full swing, with Russia and the U.S. poised on the brink of nuclear annihilation. In the United States, pandemonium reigns in the form of massive demonstrations and social unrest. Things, to put it mildly, are a mess.

In such a chaotic world, the death of a single man, Edward Blake, doesn’t seem like much of a tragedy. But when Rorschach, a hot-tempered socially-maladjusted crime fighter, delves into Blake’s death, he uncovers a diabolical plot that is putting the entire world at risk.

What makes Watchmen such a fascinating movie is its penetrating look into human nature. The movie takes such a dour view of humanity that even a hard-core Calvinist might blanch at its depiction of total depravity. Surely people aren’t that bad! Yet there’s hardly a likeable character on-screen. The hardened, embittered Rorschach, though apparently on the side of ‘good’, is as cruel and ruthless as the villains he captures. And the Comedian, whose sardonic nature is personified by the bright yellow smiley button he wears, is both avenger and savage murderer; lover and rapist.

Divinity, too, is called into question. Dr. Manhattan, whose matter-bending abilities make him nearly godlike, is an odious creature. With glacial calm, he dismisses the world of humans, shrugging off their imminent doom by saying, “A live body and a dead body contain the same number of particles. Structurally, there's no discernible difference. Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts. Why should I be concerned?”

Not every character is abhorrent, however. Some, most notably the Night Owl and the Silk Spectre struggle bravely against nihilism. They fall in love; they act heroically in the face of danger; they even attempt to reach out to their wretched comrades. But, in the end, these acts of decency are simply far too puny to stop the impending Armageddon.

Yes, Watchmen is a grim film; a twenty-first century update of classic film noir. Nearly all the scenes are set in seedy apartments and squalid city streets. Yet the highly-stylized cinematography makes the movie a visual delight. Even violence is elevated to a kind of grotesque poetry.

And there is plenty of violence. People die in massive numbers. Arms are cut off, limbs are broken, skulls are hacked apart with cleavers. In one horrific scene, a pregnant woman is gunned down by her lover. The sound-effects alone can be stomach churning. Watchmen is no Spiderman. Even The Dark Knight pales in comparison.

Watchmen has other drawbacks as well. The movie is, at times, terribly confusing, especially to the uninitiated who have not read Alan Moore’s comic book series. Flashbacks and multiple points-of-view needlessly complicate the narrative. Additionally, the length (three hours) is astounding. Even hard-core fans of Watchmen feel the need for editing.

Yet, overall, the movie works. Despite its hard-core cynicism, there is salvation at the end. It is poor and wretched and comes at a magnificent price, but it is there. Billions of lives saved; millions are lost. Some relationships are restored while others are irreparably damaged. The good die for the causes they believe in, allowing humanity to enter a golden age. Yet, as the curtain closes, there is an undeniable sense that society will once more revert to its darker nature.

Crossing Over

2009-03-09T14:16:00.000-07:00

Starring Harrison Ford in a classic role for him, this sort-of-heavy message movie is, nonetheless, worth seeing, especially for its commentary on immigration policy, both its down and its up sides.

Harrison Ford, an aging immigration official responsible for raiding factories to find illegals, is a man of conscience with a heart, doing his his best to mitigate the suffering he unintentionally inflicts on illegals, who, in spite of their status, are working hard to make a life for themselves and, in many instances, their families. It's a tough job, and someone has to do it, and no one does it better than Ford.

Played with his usual fire-beneath-the-surface style, Ford offers a sturdy, steady, performance.

Ray Liotta is brilliant as an immigration official who processes green card apps, and suggests to a young lady (who wants to be an actor) that her app might move through the process in exchange for a few favors.

It's not that he's evil, just sleazy, with a touch of innocence, if not stupidity, and a relentless self-interest - a role Liotta plays well. I don't know if Liotta enjoys those roles, but he does them well. In the end, after she rebuffs his offer to divorce his wife and make a life with her, he relents and lets the young lady (Alice Eve) off the hook and then processes her green card favorably - it seems that that sleaze bag fell in love with her after all.

By the way, Alice Eve is terrific, with a striking resemblance to Nicole Kidman. Her willingness to be humiliated to get a green card is more than self-interest; she's hoping to help her lover, also an illegal, to find a life here in America. It's a complicated role she brings off well.

Liotta's wife, Ashley Judd, a lawyer specializing in immigration cases on behalf of the accused, is completely blind-sided when her husband is arrested for granting a green card in violation of requirements.

The first half was interesting to watch, sort of, but without any serious emotional pull. It's the last half that picked up speed and hooked me - with a message that's complicated, as these multiple stories and tragedies are woven together.

Cliff Curtis, successfully portrays a conflicted immigration officer, himself an immigrant, who's immigrant brother and father execute his sister and her lover for bringing shame on the family. In a remarkable shoot-out scene in a convenience store, he saves the life and future of a young immigrant who, in the end, becomes a citizen.

A bit confusing, all these stories? Similar to "Traffic" and "Crash," but without the smoothness of those two films.

The message: current immigration policy causes a great deal of pain, but lots of folks make it through the system to become naturalized citizens. The story doesn't attempt to offer answers, but through multiple stories of weal and woe, to reveal the human story in every immigration headline.

Worth seeing? Sure, but this one could wait until Netflix.

The International

2009-03-05T18:45:00.000-08:00

A first-rate thriller, directed by Tom Tykwer.

With an eye on today’s financial crisis, Clive Owen, an Interpol agent, seeks to uncover the nefarious arms dealings of a multi-national bank, working closely with a Manhattan assistant district attorney played superbly well by Naomi Watts.

The cast is suiably fit for each of their roles, but I’d like to call attention to Armin Mueller-Stahl who portrays the bank’s senior world-weary attorney – who knows better, but has become ensnared “in the ways of the world."

I couldn’t help but think of so many otherwise decent folk who become entangled in the schemes of power because they choose to close their eyes. A tragedy, indeed, that can only end as it does.

The ultimate source of evil is the head of the bank - well-dressed and surrounded by toadies – done well by Ulrich Thomsen - powerful and full of himself, self appointed royalty - he’s taking chances way beyond the limits of reason, and now, having brought the bank to the edge of the precipice purchasing arms on the margin to later sell to a rogue government, he can only fight all the harder to eliminate any and all threats, while manipulating international relationships with assassinations.

A financial expert suggested that such dealings were more fanciful than real, and that may be the case, But the story hits home: banks have taken risks way beyond reason, for want of internal restraint and lack of external oversight, bringing the entire banking industry to ruin.

The film is well-paced, and if you like gun fights, here's one of the best, in of all places, the Guggenheim Museum.

“The International” is a story for our time, and it’s fun to watch!

Gomorrah

2009-02-25T06:59:00.000-08:00

When Martin Scorsese introduced “Gormorrah” to American audiences at the New York Film Festival (spring, 2008) he suggested that people should forget what traditional narrative means. “Watch this movie,” went on Mr Scorsese, “and you will find yourself in no man’s land, walking down an unknown street. No way out of it. You will feel trapped. Trapped and doomed. It’s a real tragedy.”

“Gomorrah” is a remarkable film, that’s for sure, telling multiple stories in parallel fashion, every one of them a tale of entrapment, doom and tragedy. Obviously, the title hearkens back to the Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah, but it's a play on the word "Camorra" - the crime organization centered in and around Naples.

If there’s a message here, it’s this: crime is utterly stupid, those who manage it are utterly banal and the lesser figures (money runners and young boys) caught up into it are utterly trapped – once in, there is no way out – and you will either serve the organization and likely be killed in the line of duty, or attempt to mitigate your participation in it and be killed as an example. Death is lord of the entire film.

There’s no glamor here, no beautiful women, no fascinating men – even the top dogs wear cheap clothing and endlessly fret about the competition and possible hitches.

There is no song and dance, no wine and roses, no fabulous late-might meals in the backroom of some terrific restaurant - only cruelty, money and the constant struggle to maintain power and control – at any cost. People are nothing.

Whether it be drugs or illegal toxic dumping, no one cares about anything except raw survival and the success of the operation. If your truck drivers quit when they discover the toxic load they're dumping, higher young boys to do it - they can hardly wait to drive the big trucks around the dump site.

Technically, a well-done piece clearly having the feel of a documentary.

Emotionally, there’s so much going on, it’s hard to identify with any one character. I found myself fascinated – like stopping at an accident scene – watching in spite of myself, but without a lot of emotional engagement. One story caught my spirit: a young boy who delivers groceries, a good boy who does a few errands now and then for the mob, is finally cornered with “are you with us or not, and if you’re not, you’re dead.”

Reluctantly, the young boy knocks on the door of a home to which he regularly delivers groceries. Upon hearing his voice, a woman opens the door, only to be shot to death by a waiting assailant, as the young boy walks away, without looking back. It seems the woman’s son had betrayed the Camorra, so they made him a lesson by killing his mother.

There is no escape for anyone.

I can’t say this is a great film, but maybe that’s what makes it great. It’s a snapshot of life – bits and pieces, none of which mean anything by themselves, but all stitched together into a tale of sadness.

Watching this film, no one would ever say, “that’s the life for me,” nor will the audience even remotely think, “These are people just like me.” No they are not. They are utterly cruel, utterly banal and utterly stripped of their humanity.

If entrapment is the message, it comes through loud and clear. With a simple message: crime doesn’t pay anything but sorrow and death.

Fuel

2009-02-17T08:15:00.000-08:00

The perfect partner for Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth."

Joshua Tickell has put together a powerful documentary on America's addition to oil, and like a street-corner junkie, we're driven (so to speak, by our SUVs, etc.) to get our fix anywhere and anyway we can.

I was glad to see Jimmy Carter highlighted as a President who quickly began to move on the energy issues, installing solar panels on the White House, but it all ended when the Great Liar was elected. Reagan pulled the solar panels and eliminated Carter's initiatives on energy.

Since everything is politics, one way or the other, this is a "political" documentary in its commentary on our plight, but without undo prejudice. It's clear in the telling, however: Bush and Gang gave the country away in order to perpetuate our fuel addiction. Everything from tax write-offs for SUVs over 6000 lbs to the fabricated "war on terror" to justify our incursion into Iraq. Bush and Gang were all oil people - a cartel if ever there's been one, and what Iraq and everything else, the cartel has made enormous profits at our expense.

But the thrust of "Fuel" is not just what's wrong and the myriad of mistakes and calculated moves we've made, but the alternatives, and there are plenty!

The original diesel engine, designed by master engineer, Rudolf Diesel (who mysteriously disappeared from a transatlantic ship, and whose body was found a few days later by fishermen) ran on peanut oil (bio-diesel).

Henry Ford himself built his cars to run on alcohol, but with the passage of Prohibition (supported by oil magnate Rockefeller), Ford gave up and began building engines to run on gasoline.

There are plenty of options, including algae production farms located in sunny arid regions of the world using waste water - the algae is harvested and transformed into bio-diesel, a safe form of oil that smells like vegetable oil and can be eaten. Other sources of bio-mass from fast-growing trees specifically grown for this purpose. Not to mention solar, wind and tidal energy. And then redesigning our cities: bicycle-friendly, better and more light-rail, pedestrian friendly, and planting trees on every rooftop along with solar panels, and vertical farms and residences. So many good ideas, and maybe now is the time for us to take a collective deep breath, admit our folly and chart a new course for the future.

This is not a question of technology - we have it, and it's ready.

It's a question of political will!

And challenging our elected official to rewrite the policies that have kept us oil-addicted!

Filled with interesting statistics such as - a diesel school bus burning petro-diesel is likely to have an inside pollution index four times higher than outside, and this is the air our children are breathing. And we wonder why so many children develop asthma.

Hats off to Joshua Tickell for putting this together. He's an entertaining presence when on film, and his personal story gives it punch. Having lived a good portion of his life in Louisiana, the greatest concentration of petro-chemical plants and refineries in the United States, and one of the cancer corridors of the world, he knows whereof he speaks - that his mother had nine miscarriages speaks profoundly to what we're doing to the environment with our addiction to oil.

This is a must-see film.

Gran Torino - 2

2009-02-12T20:07:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine wrote a fine review of this film: click HERE.

Last Chance Harvey

2009-01-27T07:05:00.000-08:00

Okay, so the story's been told a thousand times - the chance-meeting of two down-on-their-luck losers, with time ticking away for both, will they or will they not, "so let's meet here tomorrow at noon" - and then she waits, but he doesn't show; oh my gosh, he's in the hospital - has no way of contacting her ... out the next day, he goes to where she works, finds out she's left for the day, in her writing class - he knows where that is - they meet again ... will they or will they not?

Sure, it's the stuff of a common cinematic story, but, oh boy, is this one well done!

Sort of like watching Emeril and Bobby Flay go at it - Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson (with whom I've always been in love since her brilliant performance as Harriet Pringle in "Fortunes of War" - which I've just ordered on Netflix)) are a wonder to watch. They can dance with one another - I was utterly fascinated to watch how powerfully they embodied their characters - the tiniest twitch around the mouth, the eyes to the side, the smiles, the longing, the searching, the hoping - this is acting at its best!

In one of the best moments ever in film, Kate (Thompson), a Brit, tries to explain to Harvey (Hoffman) what a "stiff upper lip is" - she can do it, he can't (he's American) - this reminded me of another delicious in filmdom when Robbin Williams tries to teach Nathan Lane how to walk like a man. These small moments are what make great films.

Anyway, I bow before Thompson and Hoffman - they are masters of their craft.

And the story got to me ... I was cheering for them, and when Harvey is dashing about London from the hospital the previous night, on his way to catch Kate before her class is finished, I'm saying, aloud, "Come on, hurry up!" The story had me, and that's what I like, and that's why I give this delightful gem of a movie my best recommendation.

I went with two serious critics - my wife and my son, and we all agreed, this was a great film driven by two incredible actors.

Around them, smaller roles so well done:

Eileen Atkins plays Kate's widowed and slightly neurotic mother who's constantly calling her cell phone.

Liane Balaban is Harvey's daughter who's getting married in London (she works there, and that's why Harvey is there), but Harvey is divorced from her mother, Kate (Kathy Baker), now happily married to Brian, a tall, good looking man (everything Harvey isn't) played so well by James Brolin.

Harvey's daughter has asked her step-father to give her away. The anguish and hurt, the brave attempt to cover it, captured so well by Hoffman - I could feel it in my bones. I hurt for him.

Finally, through a variety of mis-steps, missed flights back to the state, and the encouragement of Kate, Harvey attends the reception, and when the step-father stands to toast the couple, Harvey clinks on his glass and says, "They asked for the father of the bride" - Brian agrees (and so do with grace - only a very good actor could bring this little moment off), and Hoffman delivers one of the finest monologues I've heard - it moved me deeply - in that moment, Hoffman is everyone's father, and every father is Hoffman.

One of the delightful elements - Thompson, in heels, is quite a bit taller than Hoffman - clearly, an odd couple, but the chemistry is glorious to watch. At the end, walking down the street ... oh well, I won't tell you that - but a wonderful moment - one of a thousand little things that made this a crown film - filled with diamonds, everyone of them shining.

Under the brilliant direction of Joel Hopkins, also the writer.

Cinematography (John de Borman) was incredible - so many shots, utterly dramatic - one moment of Harvey's despair in a public restroom - leaning against the wall, next to his mirror reflection - I'll not forget that moment. And music to fill the ear and the heart!

Go see it NOW!

Inkheart

2009-01-25T12:55:00.000-08:00

I don't think so.

Good try, but this one didn't make it.

I went with high expectations for an adventure - but the whole thing fell flat for me. How to say: a movie in search of a story, or a story in search of a purpose.

An interesting concept: silver-tongued readers can bring characters out of a book and put others back in. I liked the possibility, but does the film deliver?

As the story unfolds, Mo "silver-tongued" Folchart (Brendan Fraser) refuses to read to his daughter (Eliza Bennett), having once read to her years earlier, only to read a few bad guys into this world and his wife into the book called "Inkheart," of which there are now only a few left in the whole world. It seems Capricorn, the badest of the bad, is destroying all other copies so there will never be a chance for a silver-tongue to read him back into the book - he enjoys his life here; after all, he has a castle, and who wouldn't like that.

Mr. Folchart, with his older daughter now, spends his time looking for another copy in the hopes of returning his wife. The daughter, by the way, has no clue - she believes her mother abandoned them. Mr. Folchart has never told her the truth, believing that his daughter would never believe him.

Along the way, they meet a character he long ago read into this world, Dustfinger (Paul Bettany) who's been looking for him lo these many years, hoping that Silver-tongue might read him back into the book, to return him to his family. Bettany, by the way, sports an Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) "Lord of the Rings" scraggly hair look, but without the fire. A rather lackluster effort, as far as this writer is concerned.

And then Mo's feisty and wealthy aunt, played marvelously by Helen Mirren - what a delight to watch and hear - every action, every line, delivered with a convincing effect - she's really good, playing a role in a film hardly worth her abilities. As for the story, she saves the day, discovering that she's inherited her father's silver tongue.

And then the bad guys, the leader of which is played exceedingly well by Andy Serkis. The bad guys - are they really bad, or mostly a bunch of bumbling dummies? Not sure the story knew where to go with them. The story reaches it climax in the bad guys' town - a mix of medieval dress and setting, but with guns and cars, as well. It takes a great deal of directorial (Iaian Softley) skill to mix metaphors, if you will; for me, it didn't quite make it.

The whole thing seemed lackluster, with clearly inadequate acting on Fraser's part. What with his "Journey to the Center of the Earth" and now this, he's got to find something else to do. Either he's not a good actor, or he's lost interest in this kind of fantastic, blue screen, stuff.

Even the special effects - sort of okay, but these days, it takes a lot to impress a jaded special effects junkie.

Eliza Bennett holds great promise; she was another who gave her role depth and passion. It was fun watching her, and I especially appreciate the skill with which she delivered her lines. She has a marvelous face - a maturity in the midst of innocence.

All around Fraser, good actors, but they can't carry him, nor can they carry the film. Sorry to be so tough on him - I've always like him, but these last two efforts do nothing for his career. I think he's capable of a whole lot more, but where's the script for him? I liked him very much in "The Quiet American," but there's been nothing similar for him since.

After Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, fantasy/adventure tales have a lot to live up to. In spite of an interesting story with promise, this film doesn't make it.

Stay home - catch it on TV or Netflix.

The Reader

2009-01-19T08:51:00.000-08:00

What a fine story ... I can't imagine how anyone can craft such characters and such a plot.

Now, I've not read the book, but how I enjoyed the movie.

It took awhile ... at first, what is this? As the young Michael Berg (David Kross) has a summer affair with Hanna Schmitz (Kate Winslet). From the get-to, you know that something is wrong, though tragic is the better word. Hanna is searching for something, and the young man is drawn into her sorrow.

The acting is superb on all counts. David Kross brings to life the angst and the lust of a 15-year old boy, both innocent and madly in love.

Kate Winslet - incredible. Her face is the face of sorrow and hidden depths. A story that needs to be told, but can only be hinted at.

As they lay entwined in one another's arms, she has him read to her, one book after the other, bringing tears to her eyes at times.

And then, one day, she's gone, and that's the last of it until Micheal, now a law student, attends a trial of concentration camp guards charged with the death of 300 Jews allowed to burn to death in a church on fire, the result of Allied bombs.

The law students and their professor attend the trial, and there sits Hanna, along with others, charged with the heinous crime.

When questioned, she's totally innocent - "They were under our guard. We couldn't let them out. What would have happened?"

When the judge reviews the written documents, he asks her if she wrote the report. He asks for a sample of her handwriting, a table and pencil put in front of her. She looks at it, and says, "It's not necessary; I wrote the report."

Her secret? She can neither read nor write, and though a simple confession of that fact could have saved her, years of hiding it, years of shame about it, compel her to maintain the secret, and she alone is given a life-time sentence. The others, only a few years.

For Micheal Berg, it all falls into place - and for the audience as well ... in some tragic fashion, was her love for the boy some means of atonement? As it turns out, she made prisoners do the same - read to her. Is she a monster? Is she a tormented soul? Somewhere in between?

Michael Berg goes to the prison to tell her that he knows her secret, but at the last minute, walks away. He could have entered what he knew, but he didn't. So begins another secret! His.

After a failed marriage in the midst of his own law career (now older, played by an amazing Ralph Fiennes), he reaches out to her - he sends her tapes - he reads to her, book after book, and in time, she begins the arduous process of learning how to read and write. It's quite extraordinary how this unfolds in the movie.

But I've already told you too much, though I've left a good deal for you to see on your own.

Don't miss this powerful film under the direction of Stephen Daldry.

Che

2009-01-12T15:47:00.000-08:00

A two-part film by director, Steven Soderbergh, detailing the revolutionary life and death of Ernesto Che Guevara ... brilliantly filmed by Soderbergh (as Peter Andrews).

Part One, the Cuban revolution ... at 1:00 PM

Part Two, Che's effort to export the Revolution to Bolivia ... 4:00 PM ... both at the Landmark on Pico. It was a full day, to say the least.

The whole enterprise flirts with boredom - endless slogging through the jungle - moving at a snail's pace - punctuated by a few moments of military action, but this is not about the fighting, it's about the man, his incredible energy and vision and his slow-motion plunge into death in the Bolivian jungles.

This is a bio-pic ... though I nodded off a few times, I found myself entranced - the story is told, and told well. I wanted to see what was going to happen next!

This is not an actor-driven film, though Benicio Del Toro portrays Che with convincing style. All of the acting is well-done, but the tone is "documentary" - unsteady camera work, the interspersing of black and white "news real" footage - some actual from the Cuban Revolution, but the New York City appearance of Che at the UN, had the grainy quality of archive footage. I really liked this element.

The only moment that seemed a bit strange to me - mega-star Matt Damon (Fr. Schwartz) has a brief role - fine as it goes, but I wish Soderbergh had stayed with lesser lights. This cameo didn't seem to fit.

It was fun to see Lou Diamond Phillips ... haven't seen enough of him lately. He brings a quiet intensity to his role - that of a Bolivian Communist, Mario Monje, who's caught between the party and the Revolution, initially helping Che, then, perhaps, betraying him.

Dialog is spare, utilitarian - the impression is clear: this isn't about words; it's about commitment, a willingness to give everything for the sake of the poor. Though a philosopher, Che is a revolutionary - it's action, not words, that count. But often with a few well-chosen words, Che inspires and disciplines his fighters, giving them some primordial - vision for what could be, and the willingness to pay the requisite price.

The slow pace also is the message: Che's effort in the Bolivian jungles was a slow march to death. The mystery explored is why the Revolution succeeded in Cuba but failed in Bolivia. A different time, a unique set of conditions, a United States ready to assist Bolivia when the US did so much less in Cuba? Who knows for sure.

The other mystery, I suppose, is Che himself. Why did he leave Cuba? Apparently the settled life was not for him. His was the life of the jungle, the armed struggle against oppressive regimes. Married and with children - no jungle liaisons with beautiful women, Che is all business, or shall I say, all Revolution. I wonder how his family felt. How have they fared since? What's up with his children?

Makeup does a fine job here - as we watch Che grow older, weak with hunger and beset with a nagging asthma that often leaves him gasping for breath. Controlled with medication, but in the last months of the Bolivian effort, having quickly fled the advance of government troops, his medication was left behind. Like everything else in those final months, it all went wrong.

Will a film like this enjoy commercial success?

Hard to say, but it's surely a contribution exploring the life of a world-recognized icon.

Revolutionary Road

2009-01-05T19:35:00.000-08:00

A tour de force of sadness ... this is a tough film, yet one of the finest films I've seen. Hats off to Sam Mendes for bringing this powerful story to the silver screen. And thanks to Paramount Vantage (and others) for this incredible achievement.

Set in the Connecticut suburbs of the mid-fifties, we watch a young, up-and-coming, family make their way into life, and into chaos.

Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler and their two children are living the American Dream, or is it a nightmare?

At the heart of the story, a conflict - between dreams and reality.

When I counsel, I often use the A-B Game - where A is our reality and B is our dream. What we all know is this: reality is complex and filled with bits and pieces we could never have foreseen. Whereas a day-dream is clear and happy - that's the nature of a day-dream. It's always better than what we have, and what we have pales in comparison to the meanderings of our imagination. When we play the A-B Game, reality always looses!

Paris in springtime, or scrambled eggs in Connecticut. Hands down, Paris wins.

At what point is a dream worth it?

And, at what point should we seek our dreams in our reality? Just how bad is our reality anyway?

If the story has a point, it's this: a dream held unreasonably can kill! But ... and that's the point as well ... should we just chuck our reality, if we can (and they could), and go full-tilt for Paris? Maybe. Maybe not!

Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler (Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet) - the perfect family. He's employed in the same company for which his dad worked. He's a young executive, but he doens't want to be there. He really doesn't know what he wants to do. Mrs. Wheeler's the quintessential Fifties housewife - a great dinner scene - all the recipes of the Fifties, including a pineapple with goodies affixed by toothpick - someone did their homework. The cars, the decor - it's all the Fifties, in all of its glory, and stifling horror!

The office environment in which he works - the men rule; the women serve. The neighborhood - where pretense and image are everything. We're happy, aren't we?

The Wheelers both yearn for something neither of them understand.

So they hatch a plan - we have enough money along with selling the house, and we can move to Paris, to fined ourselves and what it is that we need to be and do. But Mr. Wheeler doesn't really know what he wants. But that's okay. Mrs. Wheeler will go to work for the State Deparment - the pay is good, and Mr. Wheeler can think and write, and find out what he wants.

What a dream - it's shared with co-workers and neighbors, but Mr. Wheeler drags his feet.

And then, a promotion offered, and an unexpected development - suddenly the dream is in jeopardy.

The audience watches Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler do a slow-motion plunge into chaos.

So what's the dream?
What's the reality?
Where's the interface?
Who are we?
And what's it all about?

If you go, be prepared for a soul-searching experience. Go with some friends, exit quietly, head for a restaurant, grab a couple of stiff drinks and let the conversation begin.

Spirit

2009-01-03T07:12:00.001-08:00

Okay, I was mildly pleased, entertained, but this movie has yet to be made.

When it comes to comic book action and stylized imagery, "Sin City" remains the standard!

Spirit, played by Gabriel Macht, never quite gets off the page, so to speak. Lackluster? It takes considerable skill to play camp - for whatever reason, none of the cast are able to bring it off.

Script? Editing? Not sure ... but it left me flat!

What with all the good movies currently out, don't waste your time or your money, but if you're interested in the genre, it's worth it, if only to see how difficult it is to bring it off.

Glad I saw it - it's a film genre I really love, but this one needs to go back to the drawing board.

Defiance

2009-01-03T06:29:00.000-08:00

Based on true events (the film is an adaptation of Nechama Tec's Defiance: The Bielski Partisans), the untold story of three Polish brothers who, after the death of their parents at the hands of Nazis and Polish sympathizers, form a resistance movement and ultimately save 1200 Jews from the Nazi death camps. They survive by their wits in the forests of Belrussia, each of the brothers, a leader, but each in their own way, sometimes at cross-purposes.

Some of the reviews thus far have been critical of the script - a bit campy, too stylized.

But I don't agree.

I found the script terribly moving, spare in its content - quick and desperate, and to the point. These are terribly hard times, and no one has either the time or the energy to engage in lengthy conversation. Several intellectuals join the camp, and their banter is more than enjoyable, but the brothers, having taken on the protection of the infirm, the elderly and children, bear an enormous responsiblity.

One of the themes is the question of violence - at one point, "They may hunt us like animals, but we'll not be animals."

As my son notes, "Edward Zwick [director] doesn't know how to make a bad movie."

Beautifully filmed in the forests, the imagery of the seasons stands in stark contrast to their desperate hunger and constant fear. How any of them made it is beyond me, but the iron-willed leadership of Tuvia Bielski (Daniel Craig) sees them through.

His leadership is challenged at times by his more violently inclined brother, Zuz, played so adeptly by Liev Schreiber, who, at one point, joins a Russian partisan brigade because he wants to fight. Welcomed as a "comrade," Zuz nonetheless faces a constant low-level Antisemitism - though contrary to "Party" policy, it's there - "Do Jews fight?" "This one does" and does so with ruthless abandon - is he trying to prove the point?

We watch the youngest brother - Asael (Jamie Bell) - come into his own as a leader - though of a more gentle and thoughtful kind than either of his brothers.

The camp is composed of all the usual suspects - the angry fighter who wants more food for the men who get it, whereas camp rules are simple: everyone eats the same amount, at the same time.

The intellectuals who talk about it; the sick the dying ... and "forest love." Life in its fullness - life as we all know it - a microcosm of humanity, and perhaps that's the real tragedy of it all - we are all so much alike, but how we can distance one another and then look at one another with hatred. The human mystery - the folly of our story.

At one point, they capture a young German soldier who pleads for his life. What shall they do? Before anyone can decide, he's beaten to death, and every stroke against him, in the name of someone they've lost - brothers and sisters, parents and children - all of their anger and sorrow taken out on a young soldier in bloody reprisal. This is the way it is in such moments of time when humanness is driven to the edge.

Two of the brothers survive and immigrate to New York, to live quietly, without fanfare, never wanting their story told. The youngest brother joins the Red Army on its westward drive and is dead within six months.

A glorious, noble, story that needs to be told.

As we watch Israel pound Gaza, I have to ask: At what point does past suffering no longer justify present brutality? Just a question that rattles around inside my mind.

The acting is terrific; it's fun to see Daniel Craig in this powerfully nuanced role - the same complexity, a slightly ironic distance, he brings to the Bond character. Craig's a fine actor.

They all are, and hats of Zwick for bringing this powerful, evocative, story to the screen.

Along with Valkyrie, primal stories of Western history - stories that deserve to be told again and again, re-examined from every perspective, for such stories can never be exhausted in meaning, nor the questions they prompt!

Valkyrie

2008-12-29T08:06:00.000-08:00

Wow!

I compare "Valkyrie" to "Apollo 13" - we all know how it turns out, but in the telling of the story, we're mesmerized in it's unfolding, anxious for all the maybes and could-have-beens.

Cruise is excellent in this role - Colonel Count Claus von Stauffenberg - a professional soldier - a Prussian - dedicated to his work and utterly devoted to his Fatherland. But that's the rub - whose Germany is it? Is it Hitler's Germany to which he's loyal, or something larger, something better?

Several TV reviews last night (December 28) took Cruise to task - one said, "too bad he's in every scene."

In my take on things, not even close to the truth - he's perfect for the role. A devoted man, good looking and utterly clear - so Prussian!

A Wikipedia picture of Stauffenberg with Hitler bears a striking resemblance in profile and carriage to Cruise in the film - standing erect on the far left.

But this film, unlike "The Wrestler," is story-driven, not actor-driven. It's a big story with dozens of characters - large and small (had the feel of "The Longest Day" now and then); I was pleased with the casting - everyone seems just right for their respective roles - from the pompous and self-important, to the cautious and reluctant, and those in the middle - utterly clear about ultimate loyalties and the price to be paid, for both success and failure.

It's a story we rarely hear, often believing that the whole of Germany stood with Hitler, but the facts are otherwise. There were a number of plots to remove Hitler, beginning in the late 1930s (see excellent article about German pastor, Dietrich Bonhoeffer). Many a German disliked Hitler and Nazism, but the little madman held all the cards, having gathered around him thousands of small-minded men and bureaucratic sycophants devoted to a dream of world-domination.

I was utterly taken by the music - I try to pay attention to such things - whether they work or not - and it all works - the music got to my guts again and again.

Visually, a beautiful film - beginning in North Africa and then on to Berlin and the German High Command. Rich in color and simple camera angles - it all works as the drama unfolds.

The film ends as we know it will - but what a story for us all.

Ever since Vietnam and Reagan, we've seen a false patriotism rear it's ugly head, the kind of patriotism that drove the German nation to ruin, and the kind of patriotism seen as false by Stauffenberg.

Historical accuracy is high - as far as I can tell from what reading I've done - including the discarding of the second plastique bomb as Stauffenberg and his adjutant drive away from the Wolf's Lair after the explosion, convinced Hitler is dead, on their way to Berlin to continue the coup.

That the plot unfolded as it did ... that a man like Stauffenberg could carry a brief-case-hidden bomb into the room wouldn't happen today, what with hyper-surveillance and searches.

The irony is that nine months later Hitler commits suicide, and tragically, those not already executed for the bomb plot were all executed just days before the end.

Stauffenberg's wife lived until April, 2006 - as noted in a few historical notes tagged on at the end. That little note jolted me - it was the connection between the film and its story to the reality of it all - these were real people living in extraordinary times - making fateful and dangerous decisions - to stay the course and see what happens, or take up the cause and actively plot to remove Hitler.

A chilling tale well told. Hats off to the directory, Bryan Singer, and the whole crew.

Marley and Me

2008-12-29T07:48:00.000-08:00

Yes.

Not only a film for dog-lovers, but a film for just about anybody who wants to see a young couple work their way through marriage, family, love and loss.

Having lived through much of this myself, I appreciated the thoughtful and realistic manner in which the story was told. Marriage and family are all about love, but challenges lie along the way - like just being dead-tired with babies and a crazy dog.

Jennifer Aniston and Owen Wilson are a great movie couple; hope they do another. Both gave hints of their growing ability as actors, and conveyed the various stages of their unfolding relationship which spans Marley's life-time.

Marley ... or, Marleys - in all of his permutations. Hats off to the trainers - this dog is hoot. Some wonderfully hilarious moments (without being slapstick), and a lot of chuckles along the way - never a down-time, but well-paced with a lot of story being told.

With an ending we all know, and dread ... without being a tear-jerker.

It's well-done; a great Holiday movie for the entire family.

You'll be glad you went.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

2008-12-23T07:27:00.000-08:00

A film the size of “Forest Gump,” the granddaddy of all “big-story movies,” and “Big Fish" – both incredible tales of adventure and love – folks looking for who they are, trying to figure it all out. Set in New Orleans - why do so many great tales have their locale in the South?

Benjamin (Brad Pitt) is born a shriveled old man – his mother dying at his birth; his distraught father grabs the infant and flees into the night, ready to toss this ugly creature into the river, but an eagle-eyed police officer forces the father to run and finally leave the child, wrapped in a blanket, on the steps of a nursing home.

Reared with the elderly, Benjamin button begins his life in a wheelchair, afflicted with all the infirmities of age. He likes the nursing home; it’s quiet and peaceful – a place where folks can sit and think about the world.

Then he meet Daisy (Elle Fanning), a red-haired girl full of life – she’s a 7-year old child, and so is he, but he looks like Methuselah. She says, “I think you’re odd,” and he is.

The acting is so very good, and the combination of prosthetics and CG wizardry make for an incredible feast for the eyes. If nothing else, an Academy Award for this.

For me, one of the great images - Benjamin on a 50s motorcycle ... jeans and t-shirt - an homage to two iconic figures: James Dean ("Rebel without a Cause") and Marlon Brando (The Wild One").

“Nothing stays the same,” is a constant refrain in this love story, and that’s what it is finally – love in many different forms: the love of Queenie (Taraji P. Henson) for the ugly little baby left on the steps of the nursing home she manages … the love of Daisy … the love of his father, driven as it is by guilt and loneliness – the love of Elizabeth Abbot (Tilda Swinton) a married woman eager to have an affair, in search of her own destiny, intrigued by the man/boy Benjamin, who's now a tugboat man in Russia. But this kind of love can only be for a moment; she leaves Benjamin a note under his door and with that, she's gone, only to be seen years later in TV news - she finally did it (and you'll have to see the movie to discover her accomplishment).

The theme is time … beginning with a blind New Orleans clockmaker who loses his son in WW1, and when commissioned to build a clock for a railway station, he carefully crafts a masterpiece, but when unveiled and started, everyone is shocked to see the secondhand running backward, trying to undo time and its horrors and sadness. That’s when Benjamin is born, and while he grows younger, the rest of the world can only grow older.

Ultimately, he and Daisy meet somewhere in the middle (she, now a talented dancer in Europe – done so well by Cate Blanchett) – their love for one another, not quite in sync, but as the story unfolds from a hospital bed in New Orleans with Hurricane Katrina bearing down, a love that finally connected, but with the strangest of results.

The story unfolds with a Daisy’s daughter (Julie Ormond) reading Benjamin’s diary – reading aloud to her mother in the hospital … her voice blending with Benjamin’s, and the scene shifting from now to then.

In one of the most remarkable moments in film, a car accident is analyzed backward … if so-and-so had left but a moment later, if the driver had looked this way rather than that way, and if … ah, the vagaries of time.

I suppose we all learn, sooner or later, that love can be had only on its own terms – that love and all of its desires will have its own way with us, but Benjamin is no mere victim, and neither are we. Decisions can and must be made on behalf of things greater than ourselves.

Across the broad horizon of this remarkable story – nobility in love and loss. A simple reminder to each of us that our humanity is quite extraordinary, that we’re capable of great love and sacrifice.

In the end, to have loved and be loved. Isn’t this the sum of it all?

Rarely as we hope, but if we have the eyes to see and the ears to hear, it will be just fine.

A film extraordinary in breadth of story and depth of meaning. I loved it, and will see it again, and likely again and again.

This is a must-see film.

The Wrestler

2008-12-22T06:57:00.000-08:00

What an amazing film, poignant story, actor-driven ... mesmerizing ... sort of like watch a train wreck in slow motion, and unexpectedly seeing survivors.

Mickey Rourke is at the top of his form, and so is Marisa Tomei.

Both are at the end of the road, so to speak, for their respective "careers" - he, a wrestler, and she, a stripper.

Both struggle alone - she has a young son for whom she's working hard and hopes to go to school soon, and he, a broken relationship with an adult daughter (Evan Rachel Wood) for whom he's missed too many birthdays. She doesn't want to see him any more.

His effort to reach out is poignant, to say the least. And for a few moments, it works. In one of the most touching scenes I've ever seen, the two of them are walking through an abandoned amusement park on the boardwalk. He's walking toward the camera, she following behind, and then, with quickened pace, she catches up and loops her arm through her father's arm and leans her head on his shoulder.

His daughter's heart is reachable, but she knows the terrain of her father's heart, too.

At the end of the career road, he doesn't want to be alone; she says, "You just want someone to take care of you." In the end, he blows it again - did we expect anything else? Perhaps in a fairy tale, but a tiger doesn't change it stripes, and neither does Randy "The Ram" Robinson.

A heart attack finishes him. No more wrestling, so he ups his hours at the local grocery store, taking a weekend job in the deli. If there's ever been a better portrait of the humiliation of the worker, I've yet to see it. He gives it his best shot, but in the end, he can't take the humiliation, so he quits, and quits with style - his pride intact. I'm not gonna take this any more.

Meanwhile, at a local strip club, he's formed a "relationship" with an aging stripper. For her, he's a customer, but he'd like it to be more, and, as we discover, so would she.

In one of the best plot devices I've seen, they're like two ships passing in the night - needing love and companionship, but unable to connect, unable to be anything else then what they're doing. Are they trapped? Sort of! But they are who and what they are - a combination of choice and circumstance.

Both end up rebuffing one another - she at her work when he asks her for something more, and he, when he decides against doctor's orders, to enter the ring once again - she left work early to stop him before he wrestles, prepared to tell him, "Yes," but he enters the ring instead.

This story is about redemption - not the kind we'd like to see, what with a "they lived happily ever after" - but something simpler, and more profound at the same time - grace within the boundaries of our life; mostly a life accidental, a life of mistakes and short-sighted decisions, but it's the only life we've got.

Theologically, I ask, Where's God?

The film suggests (in a purely secular fashion) that God is found where we are, not where we're supposed to be, and likely, there is no "supposed to be" - there is only, Where we are! And that's the hope we see at the end - God with Randy "The Ram" in the ring, and with Cassidy in the stip club.

This is terrific film in all regards ... sad, but not a tear-jerker. A bit violent, that's for sure, as we get a picture of the professional wrestler playing all the American legion halls - wherever they can, for the love of the game, and whatever money they can make. Some of the scenes are "rather graphic," but don't let that deter you. This is a story worth knowing and a film worth seeing.

Gran Torino

2008-12-18T07:13:00.000-08:00

“Gran Torino,” directed by and starring Clint Eastwood and a host of unknowns (we will be seeing more of them) portraying the Hmong family next door and the members of a Hmong gang, is a remarkable story and a very good film.

It’s a story about redemption!

Filmed in the Detroit area, it was fun for me (having lived there 16 years) to see the homes and streets so typical of this workingman’s city, and a few remarks about the cold weather uttered by Walt (Eastwood) – weather that ought to keep the foreigners out.

Which brings me to the heart of the story: Walt is a retired autoworker who put the steering column into his pride and joy, a mint-condition, 1972 Gran Torino. His is the story of Detroit – the auto industry waning, the population flux overwhelming, and the world Walt knew is no more – he’s a stranger in a strange land, right in his own neighborhood.

His wife of many years died, his children don’t understand him, and he sits on his porch, guns ready, drinking gallons of beer and smoking, grumbling and mumbling to himself about the “slopes” next door and the general condition of the world he no longer understands.

The story is really very funny much of the time as the script unloads virtually ever racial and ethnic slur in the American vocabulary (with the exception of the “n” word, for which I was grateful). Walt doesn’t know how to talk about anyone different than him other than in crude ways. Even his barber who’s been cutting his hair for years is greeted with a string of ethnic epithets and curses, and gladly returned by the barber. As Eastwood delivers these lines, the audience is heartily laughing, though guardedly, I noticed.

As Eastwood grudgingly gets to know the family next door, and grumpily befriends the young man, they both go to the barber shop where Eastwood is going to school him in the fine art of man-talk. It’s comedic energy reminded me of the scene in “The Bird Cage,” when Robin Williams tries to teach Nathan Lane how to walk like a man. Enough said. It’s great and full of belly laughs.

But Eastwood is doing more than an Archie Bunker routine; Eastwood captures the alienation of an American workingman who sees his world fading away. It’s a lonely, angry, time.

The Hmong family next door and their traditions is a highlight of the film – there are other cultures and other worlds, and these days, the borders between are growing thin. What will we do?

Religion plays an interesting role here. Fr. Janovich (Cristopher Carley) is young and “just-outta-priest-school” befriended by Walt’s wife in her dying days. She made the young priest promise to get Walt to confession, and he works at it with considerable pastoral skill. Though collared and liturgically garbed some of the time, much of time the young priest is dressed casually. Does this young priest represent a new world as well?

Being a pastor myself, I’m sensitive to the stereotypes that mostly show up on the tube and the silver screen – no stereotypes here – a well-done job by the writers and Eastood.

The most striking feature of the story is the ending, and I won’t give it away, other than to say it’s a real surprise – a moment of redemption and love, and as every religion knows, redemption and love are costly! But the price is worth it!

An entertaining film with a very good story – the price of seeing this film is worth it.

Doubt

2008-12-17T08:28:00.000-08:00

No doubt about “Doubt.”

A remarkable film – actor-driven … great story … a parable about doubt – the doubt we have about others, and the doubt of our doubt.

Starring Phillip Seymour Hoffman (as Fr. Brendan Flynn) and Meryl Streep (as Sister Aloysius Beauvier), the film adaptation of the drama (click HERE for a March, 2005 review of the Broadway play) by John Patrick Shanley is filmed during a dreary Bronx winter – as is the story, so the setting: cold, damp, without much light … and a few blown light bulbs along the way.

Hoffman is his usual best – he always surprises me with how effectively his lines are delivered – always the emotion, tuned so finely to convey the power and despair of the moment.

Streep is equally good, but not as consistent. They were times I knew she was acting, and that was getting in the way of her character. At the risk of being a bit too critical, I’ve always felt this was her burden in an otherwise brilliant career (her work in “Out of Africa” remains her high water mark for me; and who could beat her in "Mama Mia").

At the risk of giving the story away, Sr. Aloysius has her doubts about Fr. Flynn. Has he or has he not. As the story unfolds, we see her determination grow stronger, convincing herself, and others, of the Fr.’s guilt, slowly building a case against him in her own mind, involving others in her effort to snare the priest and compel him to confession.

We learn along the way that she herself has suffered serious loss. A WW2 widow who then, for whatever reason, became a nun, fierce in her determination to run the school and destroy this bad priest.

Set at St. Nicholas church and school, 1964, it’s a story about changing times and the clash of cultures. The priest represents change; Sr. is tradition, and never the two shall meet.

Sr. James (brilliantly played by Amy Adams), a sweet and innocent nun caught right in the middle – wavers constantly between her trust of the priest and her grudging admiration for Sr., trying to be as tough as Sr., at one point in a difficult classroom, but failing miserably and disgusted with herself, she apologizes to the student.

The film ends dramatically, leaving one with all the questions, and none of the answers, as a good parable often does.

When seeing it, don’t be sidetracked with the wrong questions – one of the first lessons learned when reading and interpreting parables. This is NOT a film about religion, although religion is the context. It's not about gender issues, although they flavor the story. It's not about race, though race has a major role to play. It's about the darker side of the soul, obsession, and the power we have to assassinate someone's character.

The film reminded me of a David Mamet play, "Oleanna," wherein a student accuses a professor of impropriety and destroys his chances for tenure. At the end of the play, as here with "Doubt," we're left wondering just what it was the priest did, if anything, and if something was done earlier in his career, was it related to Sr.'s suspicion, or something not even connected.

Be focused on the central issue, not sidebar questions that cannot be answered, or, if answered, will only lead to further misleading questions.

This is a fine film, but not one for holiday jollies. If you want to think, try “Doubt.”

De-Lovely - 2004

2008-12-14T17:03:00.000-08:00

Kevin Klein is just one of the best, and his portrayal of Cole Porter is amazing.

A gentle-souled man, hugely talented, looking for love - Porter says: I wanted every kind of love that was available; I could never find it in the same person, or the same sex.”

The film’s clever story-line: an aging Cole Porter, sitting in a empty theater with Gabe (Jonathan Pryce), a director, watching himself on stage, rehearsing a three-act show – his life story, told through his music.

The central feature is his meeting with and marrying Linda - as he sits in the theater, watching rehearsal, the actors gather on stage to rehearse "Anything Goes" - and then, emerging from the dancers, Linda (Ashley Judd).

Judd is terrific - portraying a woman deeply in love, but profoundly realistic about Porter: “You don’t have to love me the way I love you Cole. Just love me.” Judd demonstrates a great deal of maturity in this challenging role.

In three acts: (1) Porter and Linda meet in Paris, and they marry, in spite of her knowledge that he’s gay. (2) On to New York and Hollywood, and fame, with all the attendant joys and sorrows, including a good many young men who capture Porter’s attention. (3) A brutal horse-riding accident leaves Porter seriously injured, and in months of therapy and surgeries, Cole and Linda are drawn ever closer together.

The film is all about music, but it’s also a love story – messy, chaotic and ultimately beautiful. As one of Porter's songs asks, "What is this thing called love?"

Yet as Gabe says to Linda during rehearsal, “Have you eve seen a musical without a happy ending?”

When it comes to love, the pathway is often tortured, but love endures, as the Bible says. And here’s a love that endures every test and emerges the winner. So, "let's fall in love ...

The most refined lady bu-u-ugs do it 
When a gentleman calls 
Moths in your rugs do it 
What's the use of moth balls 

locusts in trees do it
bees do it
even over-educated fleas do it
let's do it, let's fall in love!

let's do it le-e-et's fall in love
let's do it, let's fall in love!

I absolutely love this film – the music and dancing, of course, are great, and happy, and profound, as is Porter’s music. The script is brilliant, loaded with marvelous throwaway lines that entertain and surprise with both wit and profundity.

Looking for something to do on a cold wintry night? Rent “De-Lovely. It’s de-lightful, it’s de-licious … it IS de-lovely!

Frost/Nixon

2008-12-12T05:50:00.000-08:00

Directed by Ron Howard and starring two first-class actors, Frank Langella (Richard Nixon) and Michael Sheen (David Frost), this is a remarkable film with a remarkable story. Prior to seeing the film, and having seen only the trailers, I was a tad bit concerned that Nixon would be mocked, his mannerisms lifted up for ridicule, but such was not the case. Langella's performance is worthy of an Academy nomination, if not the award for best actor.

The story itself is riveting!

A brash and somewhat superficial British talk show host suddenly gets a brainstorm - interview Richard Nixon. Putting together the cash to pull it off is a long-shot, but to make a long story short, it's done.

The heart of the story, however, is the interview itself. Nixon, the consummate interviewee, playing Frost like Fritz Chrysler played the violin. Nixon's advisers, skillful in manipulating the truth, help him trump Frost in the first three two-hour taping segments. Frost is visibly slumping under the Nixon onslaught; it looks like all is lost, and the interview nothing more than a puff piece.

But Frost gathers his wits, and relying on his own advisers, especially James Reston, Jr. (Sam Rockwell), Frost finally engages Nixon about when Nixon knew about Watergate, and if the timing issue was right, then, in fact, Nixon had engaged in a cover-up.

The moment of confrontation - a Nixon adviser interrupts the taping and calls for a timeout. Nixon returns from the conference room deeply sobered. The interview continues, and Nixon comes as close as one can to an admission and an apology. It's a profound moment in the story.

I couldn't help but make comparisons to our current experience. Five years from now, will someone attempt an interview with Bush, and will we hear from this addled little man any admission about the Iraq war, the bungled economy and the pillaging of the environment?

Having recently seen "W," another terrific film, I measured my reactions: for Bush, a sense of sorrow (not sympathy), a man way over his head, a man of limited intelligence driven by a need to win his father's approval.

Nixon, on the other hand, a tragic figure. A man of considerable intelligence who understood much of the world, whose achievement with China will stand the test of time, but driven by demons. While "W" is much more a study of Bush, "Frost/Nixon" is a moment in time, with only hints at the personalities. Though in one remarkable scene, a drunk Nixon calls Frost in the middle of the night, and in a powerfully delivered monologue, reveals something of his soul - an outsider, perpetually the outsider looked down upon by the privileged wealthy, a man rejected by his father.

I left the theater with an appreciation for Nixon - a consummate politician, a man with a grasp of the world, but driven by fear, willing to do anything to protect his hold on the government.

A Shakespearian tragedy if ever there was - a man doomed to fall, brought down by his own demons.

The last few moments are touching - Frost visits Nixon one last time in San Clemente - Nixon, just off the links, apologizes for his casual dress, "what the retired wear." Frost gives Nixon a pair of "Italian shoes" (without laces) which he mistakenly thinks Nixon admired. Frost takes his leave and Nixon stands on the balcony of his home overlooking the Pacific - alone, with a pair of shoes, and the darkness descending - the end of a career.

A great film to see.

Slumdog Millionaire

2008-12-01T09:05:00.000-08:00

"Slumdog Millionaire" - an amazing film ... awesome music, great acting ... cinematography ... a jewel of a film.

Incredible scenes - poverty, slums ... that anyone should live like this ...

Congestion unlike anything any American has ever experienced - think rush-hour on the 405 around the clock, every day, world without end.

And the power of love in a little boy who was born with a determination gene - e.g. the moment of decision - trapped in an outhouse suspended over the river by his older brother when a movie star pays a visit to their slum, he holds in his hand a photo of the star, hoping to get his autograph. But what to do - he can't break through the outhouse walls ... looking downward into the shit and refuse, he makes his decision ...

Powerful acting by children - trapped in poverty, orphaned by the death of their mother in vicious inter-religious conflict, victimized by ruthless professionals who organize the children as professional beggars, often disfiguring them to make them a more sympathetic figure - or putting them to work as sex slaves - a hideous, horrible, picture - a world of unimaginable sorrow and violence.

But at the heart of it all, a love story - one of the most unique I've ever seen - beginning in childhood - a time of suffering, fear, loyalty and tragedy - but the love persists, growing deeper. The film juxtaposes the dark and the light, the terrible and the wonderful - a profoundly difficult challenge, but here, brought off with total success.

I found myself cheering them on ... though the odds against it were stupendously high. My heart followed their journey ... the move had me.

By hook and by crook, the young man lands a spot on "You Want to be a Millionaire" - and ...
Do the lovers meet again?
Will she escape her enslavement to a brutal gangster?
Will the young man win the game?

Well, you'll have to see it for yourself.

The film ends with one of the most imaginative ending endings ever ... but I'll not tell.

Go see it!

Australia

2008-11-29T17:39:00.000-08:00

A big film with big ideas: love, loyalty, greed and betrayal - all the romance anyone could want, and a powerful social message wrapped up in one of this year's best performances - the charmer of the story, Nullah, a "creamy" - a half-breed Aborigine - 12-year old Brandon Walters.

The Australian outback (is that the term?) has the same sweeping vistas of a "Lawrence of Arabia" - and I think the film tried to capture something of this epic-sized film. Not sure it entirely succeeded, but the message and the acting are superb.

Surely "Gone with the Wind" was another inspiration - note how similar is the accompanying poster is similar to one featured on IMDB for "Gone with the Wind." And Kidman and Jackman are a romantic paradigm, like Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable.

Kidman, the proper English lady goes to Australia to find her husband, sell the ranch, and return home. Jackman, "the Drover" - brawny, tough and independent - no one hires him, no one fires him ... he's his own man.

From the moment she sets foot in Australia, we know what's going to unfold for this proper lady - mostly comedic at first - what's a proper lady like this doing here - the story soon turns dramatic. Upon her arrival at the "ranch," she learns of her husband's murder. Now what? Cheated by the competitor, King Carney, sold out by one of her own men, she grits her teeth and sets her face to save the ranch, including an Aborigine family and the little boy Nullah, who's wisdom and grit win Kidman's heart.

With Jackman on the scene, there's hope - drive their good cattle to Darwin for the army more critically in need of beef as World War 2 heats up. With a rag tag band of drovers, including Kidman who's a horse lady trained in England, they get under way.

But what's a good cattle drive without King Carney, the only other competitor for the army contract, sending his bad guys to stampede the cattle off a cliff ... and what's a stampede without the good guys valiantly standing in the way to save the herd - it's all there - with an Indiana Jones like feel - what with special effects and literal cliff-running drama.

I think of John Wayne's "Red River" as the quintessential image of the cattle drive, surely an image here. Filled with lots of adventure, odd characters and drama, this 165 minute film passed quickly - I was surprised when it ended.

I enjoyed myself, had some good laughs, loved Kidman and Jackman, but will not likely forget the little boy, Nullah, and the horrors of the Australian effort to "breed out the blacks" by taking "creamies" from their families, bringing them to a mission run by the church (what else?) to separate them from their Aboriginal moorings. Once again, the church posts the lowest possible score for humanity. As the close of the film, this note - it was only in the early 70s that the Anglican Church finally ended this mission effort.

The film successfully stitches together odd images: that of the outback, what with horses and ranches, and the Japanese, Pearl Harbor-like attack on Darwin. When I first saw the previews, I wondered how this would be done, and it was done well. Another arresting juxtaposition: Jackman the Drover, roughly dressed and unshaven, and Jackman the clean-shaven man in the white tuxedo - not sure that juxtaposition made it, but it was enough to send the romance meter sky high - the closest this film came to the afternoon soap operas.

But if you like romance without bodice ripping, if you like manly-man adventure, if you like a blend of comedic and dramatic, if you like a big film with big ideas and a social message, go see "Australia."

Transporter 3

2008-11-29T17:33:00.000-08:00

Fun, action, story ... sure, it's a formula, but what fun.

A roller coaster ride ... it's over when it's over, but what a ride.

Great special effects ... good acting ... Jason Statham is the Transporter ... tough, gritty, but with a heart.

Great performances by everyone ... but especially one to watch for: Natalya Rudakova.

Enjoy.

Milk

2008-11-29T16:36:00.000-08:00

One of the best ... and Sean Penn is the best, with a tremendous supporting roles, including Josh Brolin (what a roll he's on - as Dan White), Emile Hirsh, and James Franco.

In all regards, editing, music, script, acting - an Academy Award level film ... but more importantly, this is a film that takes the soul on a journey.

Stylistically, the film moves alongside scenes of Milk taping a message to be played only if he's assassinated - sort of a narration as the story unfolds.

Milk was 40 when he finally came out of the closet and moved to San Francisco. Determined to do something, he began to work for gay rights, ultimately becoming a San Francisco supervisor, the first openly gay person elected to office anywhere in the United States.

Hats off to Penn for taking on this role - nothing is held back in his portrayal of a gay man, his love, his passion, his hopes and dreams - finally, one gets the impression: guess what, gays, like anyone else, want to love and be loved. It's as simple and as powerful as that.

The film is all the more poignant in view of California's recent passing of Prop 8. That California could defeat Prop 6 in 1978 and then pass Prop 8 in 2008 is beyond me. This will go down as a black mark on California's spirit. Yet I hope that either through the state Supreme Court, or another Prop measure, we'll be able to correct this hideous mistake.

In terms of a message - our American Constitution provides and protects equal rights for all, including gays ... and conservative Christians are at the root of the effort to restrict or deny those rights because "it's God's law."

As a life-long Christian who has championed the cause of social freedom, it's heartbreaking and maddening to see the arrogance of an Anita Bryant and others who so easily claim god for their side - made all the more clear because of the film's use of archival footage.

Upon seeing and hearing Bryant, my first thought - Palin!

Where do they come from? How do they think? And how can Christians see these folks as heroes of the faith (for an example of this, click HERE)? Thankfully, Bryant's career tanked, and so has her life. While one hates to see anyone suffer, I can only be grateful that her presence has been essentially removed from the American scene.

But thinking is not to be found in their ranks, only prejudice and the overwhelming confidence that their take on things is the right and only way - as god would have it!

To think, even for a moment, would bring down the house of cards, and that's what it is - an inherently unstable world view trequiring enormous amounts of energy to keep it propped up - is it any wonder fundamentalists/evangelicals are so edgy? They talk but to themselves, endlessly congratulating one another on their faithfulness to God while deriding and debasing anyone who calls them into question.

Go see the movie! It is a journey for the soul.

Twilight

2008-11-22T08:49:00.001-08:00

A movie theater filled with young teen girls ...

"Twilight" - hmmm ...

I was incredibly glad to get out of there ... the film left me cold much of the time (is that a pun?) - felt disconnected, campy, often the feel of a 50s B movie.

The girls in the audience were going crazy ...

Having not read the books, the film has some very important messages:

Edward (Robert Pattinson) the vampire, along with his "family," have chosen to be "vegetarians" - that is to live on the blood of animals, not humans. The live in the Pacific Northwest - so little sun - not that sun destroys them (one of the "myths" dispelled), but rather they glisten in sunlight, as if covered in diamond dust.

In their posh home in the woods, I noticed a cross as part of the decor - another dispelled myth?

His family: a group of "vegetarian" vampires - the "father," a local physician, and the rest of the family - diverse and mostly loving - much like any family anywhere.

Edward's the quintessential hero/lover for a young girl's imagination, but so important for these days, he's in control of his passions, protective of Bella, with something more on his brain than boobs and bodies. No doubt, in a time when young girls are bombarded with pretty dysfunctional images and messages of who they need to be, a film like this must feel so very safe ... and maybe for boys, too.

I can't say this film is well done, but the story trumps the medium.

Bella, played by Kristen Stewart, is a smart, savvy, young lady, not interested in being a part of the crowd. She reminded me a bit of Juno.

Lots of young actors, each of whom show promise. I think we'll be seeing a lot of them in the years ahead.

Supporting roles were all well done ... and, of course, Pacific Northwest scenery - unbeatable, with evocative music.

Will this be a hit?

With the teen-girl crowd, for sure.

Worth seeing? I'm glad I went - it's a cultural thing, for sure. I was glad to leave the theater, but appreciated the message!

And as I think about it, it might be worth seeing again ... though I doubt I'll do it.