Angels and Demons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?