TERMINATOR SALVATION 2.5*** This is one of those “sound and fury” sequel movies signifying nearly nothing”..a lot of action, great special effects, booming sound and a fast pace. However, and maybe partly because it was directed by someone who goes by the name “McG”, it comes across as a “fast food” version of the other Terminator Movies…a lot of razzle-dazzle but when you get right down to it, you ask: “where’s the beef”…where’s a solid story with good character development…I guess the evil machines gobbled it up.
This is the 4th movie in the Terminator series. It all started with a big bang with Terminator(T-1) (1984) which was a truly ground breaking film with never-before seen special effects and a story at least 10 years ahead of its time. It and the next one, “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” (T-2) (1991) were directed by the James Cameron, a genius at this type of film. T-2 expanded upon the ground breaking features of T-1, and then took it to another level with a stellar cast and one of the most iconic performances ever by Arnold Schwarzenegger. “Terminator 3:The Rise of the Machines” (T-3) (2003) was a disappointment, but somewhat understandable..no James Cameron and all new writers, new director, new cast except for the big and bad Arnold. That brings us to “Terminator Salvation” (T-4) with Christian Bale, Sam Worthington and, believe it or not, Moon Bloodgood (and she’s hot and “bad”).
In this sequel, it’s 2018 and Judgment Day is over. John Conner and the rest of the survivors are locked in a war with the ruthless machines which are out to annihilate what’s left of the human race. The plot and characters are as one-dimensional as the robots they fight. The dialogue is wooden and devoid of the type of humor that turned "I'll be back" into a career-launching catchphrase.
But none of that should matter right? The Terminator series has always been fun action flicks about almost indestructible robots on a tear…. dazzling us with their “stuff”. Sadly, T4 disappoints in this respect. Not that there's anything wrong technically with the special effects. The giant destroyer ships that snatch people up and release motorcycle cyborgs, and the of the action scenes are well crafted and exciting. But we've seen this before. The appeal of the Terminator action sequences has always been about putting a really mean killer robot in the middle of our everyday world and watching it go on a rip-roaring tear causing chaos and destruction. But T-4 is set in a post-apocalyptic world where earth has been devastated….. where everything is totally in ruin. So, there’s nothing to tear up and destroy…where’s the fun in that.
Bottom line.. if you simply want a “fast and furious” action film with a bit of a tribute to its predecessors, then go. But if you're hoping to get a meaningful sequel to those Terminator classics, you’ll be disappointed. I was.
Clark
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
FUNNY GAMES (2007;a rental) 0.0**** ( My first “0***” movie) “Funny Games” is definitely NOT funny…not for one minute. In fact, the title is totally misleading in that the movie is a cruel, sadistic, torture flick of the worst kind. The torture and violence turns into a relentless assault on your mind and senses. This is one of the most unsettling movies I have ever seen. AND the primary purpose of this review is to spare you that awful experience…to warn you to stay the heck away UNLESS you are a tested and tough torture/horror movie veteran and, even then, you’ll be shaken.
“Games” shows two psychotic young men who appear harmless…the nice young preppie next-door types…who cleverly and stealthfully trick their way into expensive vacation homes in a remote gated community, going from home to home, family to family, torturing and coldly murdering the helpless people…adults and children alike. Once inside, they restrain or disable the people and force them to engage in sadistic and loathsome games where death is the inevitable outcome. In this story, we get to watch the entire process as they gain access to Ann and George’s ( Naomi Watts and Tim Roth) house. The next 90 minutes are pure horror as the 2 psychopaths hold them and their 11 year old son hostage and physically and mentally torture them. We see the family forced into “playing” the pointless cruel games, unable to escape, looking terrified and paralyzed, bearing the torture between cries and screams, wishing somehow it could just end..quickly. This is driven home where in one scene the father asks why the invaders don't just go ahead and kill them. The more vicious of the two cruelly replies: "You should not forget the importance of entertainment."…i.e. the “fun” of the games.
If any movie deserves the genre title "torture", this one certainly deserves does along with the wretched crown. Because that's what sitting through this movie feels like -pure torture. It's ironical because the director’s goal was to create a movie that mocks America’s fascination with violence – but, instead, the movie ends up feeling like is a long, slow, and terrible death. It doesn’t mock violence..it glorifies it. What can we learn from this sick film? Absolutely nothing. Watching the misery and terror of a family being held hostage and seeing them and their child horribly tortured and killed does not need to be made into a film. So, it bears repeating….this is one of the most repugnant, unpleasant, sadistic movies I’ve ever seen. No matter what virtues of craft can be found within, no matter what themes lie beneath, “Funny Games” is purely and simply indefensible.
Clark
“Games” shows two psychotic young men who appear harmless…the nice young preppie next-door types…who cleverly and stealthfully trick their way into expensive vacation homes in a remote gated community, going from home to home, family to family, torturing and coldly murdering the helpless people…adults and children alike. Once inside, they restrain or disable the people and force them to engage in sadistic and loathsome games where death is the inevitable outcome. In this story, we get to watch the entire process as they gain access to Ann and George’s ( Naomi Watts and Tim Roth) house. The next 90 minutes are pure horror as the 2 psychopaths hold them and their 11 year old son hostage and physically and mentally torture them. We see the family forced into “playing” the pointless cruel games, unable to escape, looking terrified and paralyzed, bearing the torture between cries and screams, wishing somehow it could just end..quickly. This is driven home where in one scene the father asks why the invaders don't just go ahead and kill them. The more vicious of the two cruelly replies: "You should not forget the importance of entertainment."…i.e. the “fun” of the games.
If any movie deserves the genre title "torture", this one certainly deserves does along with the wretched crown. Because that's what sitting through this movie feels like -pure torture. It's ironical because the director’s goal was to create a movie that mocks America’s fascination with violence – but, instead, the movie ends up feeling like is a long, slow, and terrible death. It doesn’t mock violence..it glorifies it. What can we learn from this sick film? Absolutely nothing. Watching the misery and terror of a family being held hostage and seeing them and their child horribly tortured and killed does not need to be made into a film. So, it bears repeating….this is one of the most repugnant, unpleasant, sadistic movies I’ve ever seen. No matter what virtues of craft can be found within, no matter what themes lie beneath, “Funny Games” is purely and simply indefensible.
Clark
Monday, May 25, 2009
NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM: BATTLE OF THE SMITHSONIUM 3.5*** This is one of those rare instances of where the sequel is better than the original. It is BIGGER and BETTER and so much more fun. BIGGER by having the hugely popular museums of the Smithsonian and Washington Monuments as the story’s playground which provides a far greater variety of exhibits, including famous pictures, that can come to life. It’s BETTER because Stiller and the rest of the gang is back, the new wonderful additions of Amy Adams and Hank Azaria, the special effects are more awesome and the action is well paced.
The story’s premise is simple but brilliant. The Museum of Natural History in NYC where the first “Museum” movie took place is being closed for upgrades and renovations, and most of the museum pieces are being boxed up and moved into permanent storage at the famous Smithsonian. Larry (Ben Stiller) learns of this and sets off for Washington with a rescue mission in mind. The centerpiece of the film becomes the Smithsonian which houses the world's largest collection of items…more than136 million …a very, very fertile ground for this “exhibits coming to life” extravaganza.
Ben Stiller continues his perfected deadpan straight man routine. Amy Adams is sparkling, exhilarating and sexy as Amelia Earhart and provides just the right feisty female counterpart to Stiller. Hank Azaria plays the evil Pharaoh Kahmunrah and is amazing in how he voices his role with a cheap Boris Karloff imitation overlaid with a heavy effeminate lisp….it is hilarious. Added to the mix are General Custer, Al Capone, Ivan The Terrible and Napoleon.
There are so many funny and fascinating sequences in this story of magic, mayhem and mirth. There is one scene in particular that highlights the flavor of the film when the evil "Pharaoh" sits in Archie Bunker's chair, wearing Muhammad Ali's robe and throwing away Judy Garland's Wizard of Oz slippers, all of which are actually on display at the Smithsonian!
The other really nice thing about this film is that the whole family can see it…no bad scenes, language or anything offensive, and whether 3 or 93, you can follow the story. Also, it is showing at the IMAX theatres where I saw it and that adds an extra WOW factor.
The story’s premise is simple but brilliant. The Museum of Natural History in NYC where the first “Museum” movie took place is being closed for upgrades and renovations, and most of the museum pieces are being boxed up and moved into permanent storage at the famous Smithsonian. Larry (Ben Stiller) learns of this and sets off for Washington with a rescue mission in mind. The centerpiece of the film becomes the Smithsonian which houses the world's largest collection of items…more than136 million …a very, very fertile ground for this “exhibits coming to life” extravaganza.
Ben Stiller continues his perfected deadpan straight man routine. Amy Adams is sparkling, exhilarating and sexy as Amelia Earhart and provides just the right feisty female counterpart to Stiller. Hank Azaria plays the evil Pharaoh Kahmunrah and is amazing in how he voices his role with a cheap Boris Karloff imitation overlaid with a heavy effeminate lisp….it is hilarious. Added to the mix are General Custer, Al Capone, Ivan The Terrible and Napoleon.
There are so many funny and fascinating sequences in this story of magic, mayhem and mirth. There is one scene in particular that highlights the flavor of the film when the evil "Pharaoh" sits in Archie Bunker's chair, wearing Muhammad Ali's robe and throwing away Judy Garland's Wizard of Oz slippers, all of which are actually on display at the Smithsonian!
The other really nice thing about this film is that the whole family can see it…no bad scenes, language or anything offensive, and whether 3 or 93, you can follow the story. Also, it is showing at the IMAX theatres where I saw it and that adds an extra WOW factor.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
ANGELS AND DEMONS 3.0*** This is one of those fast action/tight suspense movies where you need to do the potty stop before you take your seat and buckle-in because this is one heck of a roller-coaster ride from shortly after the movie begins to right on up until the end.
Tom Hanks is back as Dr. Robert Langdon and fortunately has a better hair-do, and Director, Ron Howard, learned his lesson well from the too slow and too much of a "stick-to-the-book" movie version of the "Da Vinci Code". Then too, Ron Brown's book of the same name is way more action oriented as compared to the more cerebral "Da Vinci Code".
The story takes place within about a 12 hour time span and is centered around the Vatican but also encompasses several locations in Rome.The Pope has just died, the Cardinals have convened to elect a new pope and then all hell breaks loose...the demons of the ancient ILLUMINATI are seeking revenge for past misdeeds of the Catholic Church.
Although the Vatican officials begrudge Dr. Langdon (Hanks) for his involvement with the breaking of the Da Vinci Code, they, nonetheless, enlist his help to avert a disaster.( NOTE: Ron Howard chose to do this movie as a sequel to "Da Vinci Code" when, in fact, the book was written by Brown before the "Da Vinci Code" book). The horrible threat to the Vatican is that 4 of their most influential Cardinals, who have been kidnapped, will be murdered...one at a time..an hour at the time until midnight when a greater disaster is threatened. That's all you need to know and that is revealed in the first 10 minutes of the movie.
Although the emphasis is on the action ,you must keep the brain fully engaged to keep up with the on-rush of mind-boggling clues while knowing that all the time the clock is relentlessly ticking away toward death and destruction.
Tom Hanks does his usual Hanks-style good but not great job as does the rest of the cast none of whom were in the previous movie. But, the key to the enjoyment of the movie is the fast paced, breathless action style along with trying to decipher the who, what and where of the baffling mystery.
Clark
Tom Hanks is back as Dr. Robert Langdon and fortunately has a better hair-do, and Director, Ron Howard, learned his lesson well from the too slow and too much of a "stick-to-the-book" movie version of the "Da Vinci Code". Then too, Ron Brown's book of the same name is way more action oriented as compared to the more cerebral "Da Vinci Code".
The story takes place within about a 12 hour time span and is centered around the Vatican but also encompasses several locations in Rome.The Pope has just died, the Cardinals have convened to elect a new pope and then all hell breaks loose...the demons of the ancient ILLUMINATI are seeking revenge for past misdeeds of the Catholic Church.
Although the Vatican officials begrudge Dr. Langdon (Hanks) for his involvement with the breaking of the Da Vinci Code, they, nonetheless, enlist his help to avert a disaster.( NOTE: Ron Howard chose to do this movie as a sequel to "Da Vinci Code" when, in fact, the book was written by Brown before the "Da Vinci Code" book). The horrible threat to the Vatican is that 4 of their most influential Cardinals, who have been kidnapped, will be murdered...one at a time..an hour at the time until midnight when a greater disaster is threatened. That's all you need to know and that is revealed in the first 10 minutes of the movie.
Although the emphasis is on the action ,you must keep the brain fully engaged to keep up with the on-rush of mind-boggling clues while knowing that all the time the clock is relentlessly ticking away toward death and destruction.
Tom Hanks does his usual Hanks-style good but not great job as does the rest of the cast none of whom were in the previous movie. But, the key to the enjoyment of the movie is the fast paced, breathless action style along with trying to decipher the who, what and where of the baffling mystery.
Clark
ROMEO & JULIET 3.5*** (out of 4****) “Romeo, Romeo where forth art thou”…well to heck with Romeo, although Kyle Perrin does a fine job as Romeo. This R & J is about the fair maiden Juliet, or I should say, Evan Rachel Wood playing Juliet. And she is absolutely stunning in the part displaying an exquisite beauty and a remarkable and gene loaded gift for acting. Her beauty reminds me of a young but more beautiful Nicole Kidman with the red hair and gorgeous complexion. Her presence is such that whenever she’s on stage it’s as if a spotlight is constantly on her though none is used except once when she surprisingly but wonderfully sings “My Funny Valentine” in the scene at a party gathering where she meets Romeo for the first time.
Her brother, Ira David Wood IV, does double duty as a strong Mercutio and as the Director and succeeds at both. He chose to put the play in a 1930’s setting in Verona, Italy. He uses music for background purposes and mixes the classics with other contemporary songs such Dean Martin’s “Everybody Loves Somebody Sometimes”. ERW’s dad, Ira David Wood III, plays her father, Lord Capulet, and does his usual fine job. Lastly, as an interesting touch, the Director added a neat ending to the production…as the actors are taking their bows to a standing ovation, the somber mood is changed to upbeat by the playing of the 1964 song “(Just Like) Romeo and Juliet” by the Reflections..a one-hit wonder group.
BRAVO to Evan Rachel Wood and her brother and father and the rest of the very fine cast…Shakespeare would be proud.
Although the production continues its run through Tuesday, May 19, unfortunately it is sold out…however if you have a chance at getting a ticket, grab it and go, and if you have that chance and do not want to go, PLEASE contact me as I know at least six people who are dying to go.
CREDITS for EVAN RACHEL WOOD:
1. In Raleigh : The Ghost of Christmas Past in “A Christmas Carol” and Helen Keller in “The Miracle Worker”..all before she was 10 years old.
2. After move to California:
a. TV: “Once and Again”; “Little Secrets”; “”Practical Magic” and “S1m0ne”
b. Movies; some, but not all: “Thirteen”; “Pretty Persuasion”; “Down in the Valley”; “Running with Scissors”; “Across the Universe” and “The Wrestler”.
c. Forthcoming: Woody Allen’s new film, “Whatever Works’” with Larry David; and on Broadway in the musical version of “Spiderman” where she’ll play the part of Mary Jane, the girlfriend of Spiderman..scheduled for July-August, 2009.
Her brother, Ira David Wood IV, does double duty as a strong Mercutio and as the Director and succeeds at both. He chose to put the play in a 1930’s setting in Verona, Italy. He uses music for background purposes and mixes the classics with other contemporary songs such Dean Martin’s “Everybody Loves Somebody Sometimes”. ERW’s dad, Ira David Wood III, plays her father, Lord Capulet, and does his usual fine job. Lastly, as an interesting touch, the Director added a neat ending to the production…as the actors are taking their bows to a standing ovation, the somber mood is changed to upbeat by the playing of the 1964 song “(Just Like) Romeo and Juliet” by the Reflections..a one-hit wonder group.
BRAVO to Evan Rachel Wood and her brother and father and the rest of the very fine cast…Shakespeare would be proud.
Although the production continues its run through Tuesday, May 19, unfortunately it is sold out…however if you have a chance at getting a ticket, grab it and go, and if you have that chance and do not want to go, PLEASE contact me as I know at least six people who are dying to go.
CREDITS for EVAN RACHEL WOOD:
1. In Raleigh : The Ghost of Christmas Past in “A Christmas Carol” and Helen Keller in “The Miracle Worker”..all before she was 10 years old.
2. After move to California:
a. TV: “Once and Again”; “Little Secrets”; “”Practical Magic” and “S1m0ne”
b. Movies; some, but not all: “Thirteen”; “Pretty Persuasion”; “Down in the Valley”; “Running with Scissors”; “Across the Universe” and “The Wrestler”.
c. Forthcoming: Woody Allen’s new film, “Whatever Works’” with Larry David; and on Broadway in the musical version of “Spiderman” where she’ll play the part of Mary Jane, the girlfriend of Spiderman..scheduled for July-August, 2009.
Here’s a new category…Top 10 Best Presidential Movies.
CRITERIA: The character of the President must play a central and prominent role in the movie…can’t just be a cameo
TOP 10 BEST PRESIENTIAL MOVIES in order of best to least best. ( The actor in the role of President is shown)
1.The American President..Michael Douglas (1995)
2. Thirteen Days…Bruce Greenwood (2000)
3. Air Force One…Harrison Ford (1997)
4. Dave…Kevin Klein (1993)
5. West Wing…Martin Sheen (I know this was a TV show but it is so outstanding and the first three years it was on was one of the BEST dramas ever and Sheen was terrific as the President) 1999-2006
6. Nixon…Anthony Hopkins (1995)
7. W…Josh Brolin (2008)
8. Independence Day…Bill Pullman (1996)
9. Fail Safe…Henry Fonda (1964)
10. The Contender…Jeff bridges (2000)
10. Dr. Strangelove Or How I learned To Stop Worrying And Love the Bomb…Peter Sellers (1963)
OTHER NOTABLES:
Absolute Power…Gene Hackman (1997)
Primary Colors…John Travolta (1998)
Deep Impact…Morgan Freeman (1998)
Idiocracy…Terry Crews (the President’s name is this movie is President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camancho) 2006
It is interesting to note how many of these films were done in the 1990s… 8 of the 15 listed.
CRITERIA: The character of the President must play a central and prominent role in the movie…can’t just be a cameo
TOP 10 BEST PRESIENTIAL MOVIES in order of best to least best. ( The actor in the role of President is shown)
1.The American President..Michael Douglas (1995)
2. Thirteen Days…Bruce Greenwood (2000)
3. Air Force One…Harrison Ford (1997)
4. Dave…Kevin Klein (1993)
5. West Wing…Martin Sheen (I know this was a TV show but it is so outstanding and the first three years it was on was one of the BEST dramas ever and Sheen was terrific as the President) 1999-2006
6. Nixon…Anthony Hopkins (1995)
7. W…Josh Brolin (2008)
8. Independence Day…Bill Pullman (1996)
9. Fail Safe…Henry Fonda (1964)
10. The Contender…Jeff bridges (2000)
10. Dr. Strangelove Or How I learned To Stop Worrying And Love the Bomb…Peter Sellers (1963)
OTHER NOTABLES:
Absolute Power…Gene Hackman (1997)
Primary Colors…John Travolta (1998)
Deep Impact…Morgan Freeman (1998)
Idiocracy…Terry Crews (the President’s name is this movie is President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camancho) 2006
It is interesting to note how many of these films were done in the 1990s… 8 of the 15 listed.
STAR TREK 3.5***
“Space: The final frontier. These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise. Its 5 year mission. To explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man has gone before.”
This is what “Star Trek” is all about…then (40 years ago when it all started) and now with this amazing prequel.
A disclaimer: I am not a Trekker. I’m not even a Trekkie. So aside from catching a few minutes of the original TV series and seeing a couple of the films, this “Star Trek” was a new and exciting voyage for me. Thus, I cannot critique the movie with the fervor of a devotee. I can only judge it as a mostly new fan, who didn’t know his Romulans from Klingons . And the verdict is that it’s quite good. From what little I do know of Trek lore, the movie does a remarkable job of blending just enough of the traditions of the old with the sparkling excitement of the new. This blending has the effect of creating a sense of experiencing an alternating panorama of both the old and the new. Also, the good news is that you don’t need to know about the Romulans or the Klingons, or what a “tribble” is,or the secret handshakes of the Federation or be able to repeat the Vulcan blessing: "Live long and prosper" to enjoy this thrill ride….because, regardless of your level of Trek knowledge or devotion, this film is engrossing and, most of all, a lot of FUN.
What a grand idea: To boldly go back in time to when James Tiberius Kirk was a rebel without a cause and a half-human, half Vulcan whiz-kid named Spock was staring down the illogic of bullies. So climb aboard and join the early days of a newly good looking James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) as he not so gracefully takes his place as Captain of the USS Enterprise. Meet the new youthful versions of Spock (Zachary Quinto), Scotty (Simon Pegg) and Sulu (John Cho) as they meet and bond with begrudging respect. Grip your seat as Nero (Eric Bana), a vicious time travelling Romulan, attempts to start a war in space with only young Kirk and his merry band to stop him.
And as you probably know, and even if you didn’t, it doesn’t spoil anything to know that Leonard Nimoy shows up as the old Spock, and he's not just there for a cameo. He serves both a story function and an emotional function. At 78 (and looking not a day older than 79), Nimoy, just standing there, is a remarkable reminder of the passage of time and the glory of it all. He helps give this movie and the new series that will probably follow, a kickoff that it justly deserves
So, people, it's time for warp drive, and you should beam yourself to a wide-screen theatre with surround sound where with other fellow travelers you can share the dazzling ride and the wonder of it all.
Clark
“Space: The final frontier. These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise. Its 5 year mission. To explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man has gone before.”
This is what “Star Trek” is all about…then (40 years ago when it all started) and now with this amazing prequel.
A disclaimer: I am not a Trekker. I’m not even a Trekkie. So aside from catching a few minutes of the original TV series and seeing a couple of the films, this “Star Trek” was a new and exciting voyage for me. Thus, I cannot critique the movie with the fervor of a devotee. I can only judge it as a mostly new fan, who didn’t know his Romulans from Klingons . And the verdict is that it’s quite good. From what little I do know of Trek lore, the movie does a remarkable job of blending just enough of the traditions of the old with the sparkling excitement of the new. This blending has the effect of creating a sense of experiencing an alternating panorama of both the old and the new. Also, the good news is that you don’t need to know about the Romulans or the Klingons, or what a “tribble” is,or the secret handshakes of the Federation or be able to repeat the Vulcan blessing: "Live long and prosper" to enjoy this thrill ride….because, regardless of your level of Trek knowledge or devotion, this film is engrossing and, most of all, a lot of FUN.
What a grand idea: To boldly go back in time to when James Tiberius Kirk was a rebel without a cause and a half-human, half Vulcan whiz-kid named Spock was staring down the illogic of bullies. So climb aboard and join the early days of a newly good looking James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) as he not so gracefully takes his place as Captain of the USS Enterprise. Meet the new youthful versions of Spock (Zachary Quinto), Scotty (Simon Pegg) and Sulu (John Cho) as they meet and bond with begrudging respect. Grip your seat as Nero (Eric Bana), a vicious time travelling Romulan, attempts to start a war in space with only young Kirk and his merry band to stop him.
And as you probably know, and even if you didn’t, it doesn’t spoil anything to know that Leonard Nimoy shows up as the old Spock, and he's not just there for a cameo. He serves both a story function and an emotional function. At 78 (and looking not a day older than 79), Nimoy, just standing there, is a remarkable reminder of the passage of time and the glory of it all. He helps give this movie and the new series that will probably follow, a kickoff that it justly deserves
So, people, it's time for warp drive, and you should beam yourself to a wide-screen theatre with surround sound where with other fellow travelers you can share the dazzling ride and the wonder of it all.
Clark
LAST CHANCE HARVEY 3.0***(close to 3.5***on the “feel good” scale) [ A 2008 RENTAL..out of the theatres] This may not be your last chance but perhaps it is your best chance to see a very fine movie about how difficult but very special love can be for older adults who may think love is over for them. We have the marvelous combination of Dustin Hoffman as the divorced and disillusioned “last chance” Harvey and Emma Thompson as the over 40yish and still single Kate. He’s American, she’s British and the venue is beautiful London. Nothing more about the story. You really need to see it without any more clues…this is so much about the journey and not the destination.
It is interesting however to know how the film came to be with Hoffman and Thompson in it. It was an outgrowth of their having a great time together making “Stanger Than Fiction” in which they had supporting roles…Will Ferrell was the lead. The young Australian writer, Joel Hopkins, and friend and admirer of Thompson started writing this story with Thompson in mind and when she suggested to him that Hoffman be the male lead, he wrote the rest of the story for both of them and they both agreed to do it. Hopkins also became the Director and was wise enough to let H and T play themselves for the most part rather than devise characters and also gave them much freedom to improvise the dialogue. These decisions make the film and the characters right on and remarkably realistic. Hoffman and Thompson are simply wonderful..they capture the loneliness and quiet desperation of people looking for that last chance…. they do it perfectly and in the process generate a warm, comfortable, “just right” chemistry.
Their romance, with resonances of “An Affair to Remember”, is strangely sweet, even though they are certainly an odd couple (she towers over him). But they’re both so very good that the film is immensely likeable. They do not do anything remarkable: they walk and talk, go shopping, sit by a fountain and throw up issues of logic and nonsense. “Last Chance Harvey” is a love story primarily for grownups and one that lingers, like a good book or a good wine that leaves its distinctive taste even after the glass is finished. Finally, It's wonderful to watch young people falling in love for the first time. But it is even more wonderful to see people falling in love for the last time.
If you’ve been looking for a well done “feel good” movie, this is it. And although the over 40 crowd will definitely enjoy this, the younger crowd could learn a thing or two about love and romance too from spending a few film days with Harvey and Kate.
THIS IS A RENTAL.
It is interesting however to know how the film came to be with Hoffman and Thompson in it. It was an outgrowth of their having a great time together making “Stanger Than Fiction” in which they had supporting roles…Will Ferrell was the lead. The young Australian writer, Joel Hopkins, and friend and admirer of Thompson started writing this story with Thompson in mind and when she suggested to him that Hoffman be the male lead, he wrote the rest of the story for both of them and they both agreed to do it. Hopkins also became the Director and was wise enough to let H and T play themselves for the most part rather than devise characters and also gave them much freedom to improvise the dialogue. These decisions make the film and the characters right on and remarkably realistic. Hoffman and Thompson are simply wonderful..they capture the loneliness and quiet desperation of people looking for that last chance…. they do it perfectly and in the process generate a warm, comfortable, “just right” chemistry.
Their romance, with resonances of “An Affair to Remember”, is strangely sweet, even though they are certainly an odd couple (she towers over him). But they’re both so very good that the film is immensely likeable. They do not do anything remarkable: they walk and talk, go shopping, sit by a fountain and throw up issues of logic and nonsense. “Last Chance Harvey” is a love story primarily for grownups and one that lingers, like a good book or a good wine that leaves its distinctive taste even after the glass is finished. Finally, It's wonderful to watch young people falling in love for the first time. But it is even more wonderful to see people falling in love for the last time.
If you’ve been looking for a well done “feel good” movie, this is it. And although the over 40 crowd will definitely enjoy this, the younger crowd could learn a thing or two about love and romance too from spending a few film days with Harvey and Kate.
THIS IS A RENTAL.
-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE 2.5**** To begin with, I am not an X-Men fan and have only seen one of the other movies. I have not read the comic books or other comic “lore” on X-Men, so I don't have any preconceived notions about how the story should have been done to be true to the Marvel Comics version. You’ll have to be the judge of that.
A movie is good…is memorable when there are touching, thoughtful moments, interesting characters, funny or “feel-good” scenes, great action or remarkable cinematography. “Iron Man” and “Dark Knight” were such movies. “Wolverine” is not although it’ does manage to shine in the first 20 minutes with the montage of the 4 or more wars Wolverine ( Hugh Jackman, of course) and his brother, Victor ( Live Schreiber), fought in ( Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korean and Viet Nam)…how do they do that you ask…well they are pretty much indestructible because they are mutants. Also, in the “shine” category is an early sequence involving an elite team of mutants that includes Wolverine and Victor. The team goes on special forces type missions that become more and inhumane and result in Wolverine leaving the team. This was a fairly good story line that unfortunately was too short-lived.
The relationship between Wolverine and brother Victor is the backbone of the story. It’s a modern day Cain v. Able! They get to where they hate each other and fight constantly over many things….even, it seems, over who has the best looking press-on nails and animal howl…and this goes on in scene after scene with them repeatedly facing off, charging, colliding and scratching and clawing each other..and this eventually left me scratching my head. These Battling Blade Brother's feud never really makes much sense and just when it seems to, it contradicts itself.
Hugh Jackman (Wolverine) was voted the Sexiest Men Alive in 2008, and the Marvel Movie Machine obviously decided to capitalize on this as Jackman spends most of the movie shirtless, greased up with muscles rippling ….much to the delight I’m sure of the female movie goers. Admittedly Jackman is one handsome, marvelous physical specimen, and it is fine to have a great looking star for a movie but it still comes down to having a good script and story which is missing here. Nonetheless, Jackman is top-notch. He effectively captures the internal struggle between Wolverine's human side and animal instincts and provides great action scenes in this big, loud blockbuster movie. Liev Schreiber is also great as Victor (a/k/a Sabertooth). He is mean and vicious without going over-the top, witty without being pretentious. Both Jackman and Schreiber are the glue that holds this film together and provide most of the sparkling moments.
“Wolverine” is good but it could have been a lot better particularly when compared to “Batman Begins” and “Superman Returns”…perhaps the problem with is that there are just too many cooks or mutants in the kitchen ??? And it seemed too much of a “been there, seen that” for me and I’ve only seen 1 of the other 3 X-Men movies.
Clark
A movie is good…is memorable when there are touching, thoughtful moments, interesting characters, funny or “feel-good” scenes, great action or remarkable cinematography. “Iron Man” and “Dark Knight” were such movies. “Wolverine” is not although it’ does manage to shine in the first 20 minutes with the montage of the 4 or more wars Wolverine ( Hugh Jackman, of course) and his brother, Victor ( Live Schreiber), fought in ( Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korean and Viet Nam)…how do they do that you ask…well they are pretty much indestructible because they are mutants. Also, in the “shine” category is an early sequence involving an elite team of mutants that includes Wolverine and Victor. The team goes on special forces type missions that become more and inhumane and result in Wolverine leaving the team. This was a fairly good story line that unfortunately was too short-lived.
The relationship between Wolverine and brother Victor is the backbone of the story. It’s a modern day Cain v. Able! They get to where they hate each other and fight constantly over many things….even, it seems, over who has the best looking press-on nails and animal howl…and this goes on in scene after scene with them repeatedly facing off, charging, colliding and scratching and clawing each other..and this eventually left me scratching my head. These Battling Blade Brother's feud never really makes much sense and just when it seems to, it contradicts itself.
Hugh Jackman (Wolverine) was voted the Sexiest Men Alive in 2008, and the Marvel Movie Machine obviously decided to capitalize on this as Jackman spends most of the movie shirtless, greased up with muscles rippling ….much to the delight I’m sure of the female movie goers. Admittedly Jackman is one handsome, marvelous physical specimen, and it is fine to have a great looking star for a movie but it still comes down to having a good script and story which is missing here. Nonetheless, Jackman is top-notch. He effectively captures the internal struggle between Wolverine's human side and animal instincts and provides great action scenes in this big, loud blockbuster movie. Liev Schreiber is also great as Victor (a/k/a Sabertooth). He is mean and vicious without going over-the top, witty without being pretentious. Both Jackman and Schreiber are the glue that holds this film together and provide most of the sparkling moments.
“Wolverine” is good but it could have been a lot better particularly when compared to “Batman Begins” and “Superman Returns”…perhaps the problem with is that there are just too many cooks or mutants in the kitchen ??? And it seemed too much of a “been there, seen that” for me and I’ve only seen 1 of the other 3 X-Men movies.
Clark
DIRTY FILTHY LOVE (2004 British TV movie…now available in DVD rental) 3.0*** I know what you thinking but you’re wrong. This movie is neither dirty nor filthy.. It is however about love…love lost and the hope of love again. It is mostly about the sometimes terrible affliction of Tourettes Syndrome which is a brain disorder that causes involuntary uncontrollable “tics”…. sudden, rapid, repeated movements or voice sounds/outbursts and can include: arm thrusting, eye blinking, head twitching, shoulder shrugging, repeated throat clearing or sniffing, and when vocalized can include crude curse words or other inappropriate words or phrases. Tics may occur many times a day but often intensify in degree and frequency due to stress or high emotions. It sometimes occurs in combination with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD).
The main character in this movie is Mark who is on the downward slide of what once was a happy life. He has just lost his job as a successful architect and is in the process of losing his lovely wife to divorce. The movie doesn’t reveal what precipitated the fall from well being. The decline is sad and depressing although some comedy is mixed in for relief..but to walk in his shoes is to see through his eyes the shock and, at times, disgust of other reacting to his behavior, and how horrible that can be
Mark twitches his head, makes facial grimaces, flails his arms, barks like a dog, and shouts out profanities or insults ..that’s for starters. His OCD manifest itself in that he can’t go up more than four stairs without going back down one and the rituals of how he sits down and gets out of bed. Mark is marvelously played by the British actor, Michael Sheen (The Queen and Frost/Nixon) and he is supported by a wonderful British cast. Sheen gives a tour de force performance, accurate in showing what Tourettes and OCD look like without going overboard or hamming it up. Sheen’s focus and attention to detail in portraying the affliction is masterful.
There is one scene that captures the awfulness of Tourettes very simply but quite effectively…one morning we see Mark with his face all lathered up with shaving cream and his hand poised with the razor, and there is the suspense and dread as you hold your breath to see if he can smoothly shave his face or whether his hand or arm will jerk at just the wrong moment and he cuts himself.
As hard as it is to watch, there is a glimmer of hope that comes forth to encourage you…that being that sometimes an ugly duckling can find happiness with another ugly duckling !?!
You may have to look hard to find Dirty Filthy Love on the video shelf, but this is an affecting film that deserves to be discovered.
Clark
The main character in this movie is Mark who is on the downward slide of what once was a happy life. He has just lost his job as a successful architect and is in the process of losing his lovely wife to divorce. The movie doesn’t reveal what precipitated the fall from well being. The decline is sad and depressing although some comedy is mixed in for relief..but to walk in his shoes is to see through his eyes the shock and, at times, disgust of other reacting to his behavior, and how horrible that can be
Mark twitches his head, makes facial grimaces, flails his arms, barks like a dog, and shouts out profanities or insults ..that’s for starters. His OCD manifest itself in that he can’t go up more than four stairs without going back down one and the rituals of how he sits down and gets out of bed. Mark is marvelously played by the British actor, Michael Sheen (The Queen and Frost/Nixon) and he is supported by a wonderful British cast. Sheen gives a tour de force performance, accurate in showing what Tourettes and OCD look like without going overboard or hamming it up. Sheen’s focus and attention to detail in portraying the affliction is masterful.
There is one scene that captures the awfulness of Tourettes very simply but quite effectively…one morning we see Mark with his face all lathered up with shaving cream and his hand poised with the razor, and there is the suspense and dread as you hold your breath to see if he can smoothly shave his face or whether his hand or arm will jerk at just the wrong moment and he cuts himself.
As hard as it is to watch, there is a glimmer of hope that comes forth to encourage you…that being that sometimes an ugly duckling can find happiness with another ugly duckling !?!
You may have to look hard to find Dirty Filthy Love on the video shelf, but this is an affecting film that deserves to be discovered.
Clark
STATE OF PLAY 3.5*** Congressional sex scandals, greedy, ominous military contractors, political corruption, a financially failing newspaper and a serial killer are all entangled in “State of Play”. Such political thrillers come and go, but most just fade away except for the great ones like “All the President's Men”, the “Manchurian Candidate” (the 1962 version) and “Three Days of the Condor”. “State of Play” measures up well as an interesting and suspenseful stew of political intrigue all astir in the nation’s capitol..
The story begins with a double homicide of two unrelated young men in a back alley in fashionable Georgetown and continues the next day when a young, attractive congressional aide mysteriously falls in front of a Metro subway - two seemingly unrelated deaths. But not to the veteran newspaper reporter, Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe) who senses a conspiracy waiting to be uncovered. With the aid of rookie blog writer Della Frye (Rachel McAdams), Cal begins uncovering clues that point toward a cover-up full of insiders, informants, and assassins.
"Play" has a diverse but killer cast. We have a very classy Helen Mirren who plays a "Devil Wears Prada"-ish editor who runs The Washington Globe. Russell Crowe is the type of gutsy newspaper reporter everyone can admire. He’s teamed up with the Globe’s young and hard-charging blogger (Rachel McAdams) who dares to see herself as his equal. Together they doggedly investigate what turns into a dangerous situation that involves the young and powerful Congressman Stephen Collins ( Ben Affleck.) who is married but was having an affair with the dead aide. Russell Crowe delivers yet another powerhouse performance that makes investigative journalism feel exciting, dangerous and, at times, immoral.
“Play" hooks you quickly and keeps you guessing. And it manages to keep the characters intimate and worth caring about while also making sure the story steadily winds tighter and gains velocity. This is a thriller that is smart and never blows itself out of proportion or reality. Also, most investigative thrillers focus on detectives digging around for the answers, but “Play" opts to focus on the hard working reporter. There’s a difference…a detective who solves the case is just doing his/her job -- a journalist who does the same is helping sell newspapers and can end up being something of a hero and potential candidate for a Pulitzer Prize.
NOTE: You may wonder where they came up with such a bland and ambiguous title. Well I sure did until I found out the movie is based upon a popular and successful BBC mini-series of the same name….so they decided to leave well-enough alone.
The story begins with a double homicide of two unrelated young men in a back alley in fashionable Georgetown and continues the next day when a young, attractive congressional aide mysteriously falls in front of a Metro subway - two seemingly unrelated deaths. But not to the veteran newspaper reporter, Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe) who senses a conspiracy waiting to be uncovered. With the aid of rookie blog writer Della Frye (Rachel McAdams), Cal begins uncovering clues that point toward a cover-up full of insiders, informants, and assassins.
"Play" has a diverse but killer cast. We have a very classy Helen Mirren who plays a "Devil Wears Prada"-ish editor who runs The Washington Globe. Russell Crowe is the type of gutsy newspaper reporter everyone can admire. He’s teamed up with the Globe’s young and hard-charging blogger (Rachel McAdams) who dares to see herself as his equal. Together they doggedly investigate what turns into a dangerous situation that involves the young and powerful Congressman Stephen Collins ( Ben Affleck.) who is married but was having an affair with the dead aide. Russell Crowe delivers yet another powerhouse performance that makes investigative journalism feel exciting, dangerous and, at times, immoral.
“Play" hooks you quickly and keeps you guessing. And it manages to keep the characters intimate and worth caring about while also making sure the story steadily winds tighter and gains velocity. This is a thriller that is smart and never blows itself out of proportion or reality. Also, most investigative thrillers focus on detectives digging around for the answers, but “Play" opts to focus on the hard working reporter. There’s a difference…a detective who solves the case is just doing his/her job -- a journalist who does the same is helping sell newspapers and can end up being something of a hero and potential candidate for a Pulitzer Prize.
NOTE: You may wonder where they came up with such a bland and ambiguous title. Well I sure did until I found out the movie is based upon a popular and successful BBC mini-series of the same name….so they decided to leave well-enough alone.
17 AGAIN..1.0*** Deja Boo: “17 Again”…NO, never again…you couldn’t pay me to see this awful movie a second time. It is a shameful take-off on the “body-swap”/ “time-travel” themes that have been so well done in some very fine movies such as “Big”, “Peggy Sue Got Married”, “Freaky Friday” and “Back to the Future”. Historically, films like this have been better (and funnier) when the tables are turned and it's the kid finding himself or herself in a older body or when there is the time travel element, neither of which occur in this film.
So, how did I get snookered into going to see this?? Well, the premise sounded interesting: 35 year old Mike O'Donnell (Matthew Perry), who has always been unhappy with his after high school life, gets his wish and becomes his 17-year-old self (Zac Efron), but he doesn't actually go back in time to the days when he was 17. Instead, he becomes his former 17 year old self in the same current time era (2009) with all his 35 years’ of memories and everyone else remains the same….his wife is still 35… and his daughter, 17, and son, 15, and they are in the same high school that he returns to. Another allure was Matthew Perry ( TV’s “Friends”) and Zac Efron ( of the super popular “High School Musical” franchise).
Well it was the classic “bait and switch” come-on and the movie ended up falling on its face and its derriere…it was neither funny nor endearing....in fact it was awkward and creepy . The truth is, at times it got so uncomfortable( you’ll know the moments when they occur..I won’t give them away.), I wanted to leave. This is an unpleasant little “body swap” comedy that will make you groan at times but seldom laugh.
Who is to blame ??? Chiefly the writer (Jason Filardi) who is worst than sophomoric here…his story is contrived, uncomfortable and just plain dumb.. Also to blame is the director (Burr Steers) for not doing something about the script as well as the actors for not being savvy enough to run like hell from the script.
Do yourself a big favor and skip this one and use your money instead to rent one of the good ones referred to above and you’ll have a much more enjoyable time.
Clark
So, how did I get snookered into going to see this?? Well, the premise sounded interesting: 35 year old Mike O'Donnell (Matthew Perry), who has always been unhappy with his after high school life, gets his wish and becomes his 17-year-old self (Zac Efron), but he doesn't actually go back in time to the days when he was 17. Instead, he becomes his former 17 year old self in the same current time era (2009) with all his 35 years’ of memories and everyone else remains the same….his wife is still 35… and his daughter, 17, and son, 15, and they are in the same high school that he returns to. Another allure was Matthew Perry ( TV’s “Friends”) and Zac Efron ( of the super popular “High School Musical” franchise).
Well it was the classic “bait and switch” come-on and the movie ended up falling on its face and its derriere…it was neither funny nor endearing....in fact it was awkward and creepy . The truth is, at times it got so uncomfortable( you’ll know the moments when they occur..I won’t give them away.), I wanted to leave. This is an unpleasant little “body swap” comedy that will make you groan at times but seldom laugh.
Who is to blame ??? Chiefly the writer (Jason Filardi) who is worst than sophomoric here…his story is contrived, uncomfortable and just plain dumb.. Also to blame is the director (Burr Steers) for not doing something about the script as well as the actors for not being savvy enough to run like hell from the script.
Do yourself a big favor and skip this one and use your money instead to rent one of the good ones referred to above and you’ll have a much more enjoyable time.
Clark
15 BEST WAR MOVIES; 10 MOST ENJOYABLE WAR MOVIES Clark
TOP 15 BEST WAR MOVIES
1.Saving Private Ryan (1998)
2.Schinler’s List (1993)
3. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
4. Apocalypse Now (1979)
5. Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
6. Das Boot (1981)
7. The Longest Day (1962)
8. Patton (1986)
9. Glory ( !989)
10. Platoon (1986)
11. The Great Escape ( 1963)
12. The Caine Mutiny (!954)
13. From Here to Eternity (!953)
14. The Guns of Navarone (1961)
15. 12 O’Clock High (1949)
Honorable Mentions:
Black Hawk Down (2001)
All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)
Full Metal Jacket (1987)
Hunt for Red October (1990)
Crimson Tide (1995)
Stalag 17 (1953)
Catch 22 (1970)
TOP 10 MOST ENJOYABLE WAR MOVIES
1. MASH (1970)
2. Dr Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
3. Dirty Dozen (1967)
4. Kelly’s Heroes (1970)
5. Mister Roberts (1955)
6. Great Escape (1963)
7. Guns of Navarone (1961)
8. The Longest Day (1962)
9. Von Ryan’s Express (1967)
10. Sergeant York (1941)
TOP 15 BEST WAR MOVIES
1.Saving Private Ryan (1998)
2.Schinler’s List (1993)
3. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
4. Apocalypse Now (1979)
5. Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
6. Das Boot (1981)
7. The Longest Day (1962)
8. Patton (1986)
9. Glory ( !989)
10. Platoon (1986)
11. The Great Escape ( 1963)
12. The Caine Mutiny (!954)
13. From Here to Eternity (!953)
14. The Guns of Navarone (1961)
15. 12 O’Clock High (1949)
Honorable Mentions:
Black Hawk Down (2001)
All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)
Full Metal Jacket (1987)
Hunt for Red October (1990)
Crimson Tide (1995)
Stalag 17 (1953)
Catch 22 (1970)
TOP 10 MOST ENJOYABLE WAR MOVIES
1. MASH (1970)
2. Dr Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
3. Dirty Dozen (1967)
4. Kelly’s Heroes (1970)
5. Mister Roberts (1955)
6. Great Escape (1963)
7. Guns of Navarone (1961)
8. The Longest Day (1962)
9. Von Ryan’s Express (1967)
10. Sergeant York (1941)
THE GREAT BUCK HOWARD 3.0*** The truly great John Malkovich plays the not-so-great Buck Howard in "The Great Buck Howard," and manages to magically disappear into this larger-than-life character. Buck is a mentalist/magician with an old 1960’s act that is mildly entertaining. Buck hops from one small town to the next, hopping onstage each time bellowing "I love this town!" with genuine gusto. Buck charms his mostly elderly crowds, who remember him from the Johnny Carson TV show, with magic, mind-reading, hypnotism and an occasional song in the horrific style of Burt Bacharach. Buck is totally blind to the reality that he's not as big as he used to be and, in fact, probably never was.
We see this not-so-great Buck through the eyes of his newest road manager, Troy (Colin Hanks, and yes his dad is Tom Hanks, who also appears as his dad in the film). Troy is a law school dropout and a wanna-be writer who puts up with the Buck's egotistical outbursts and demands partly out of loyalty, partly for the sheer entertainment value and largely because he needs the job. Hanks plays well the part of an indecisive, directionless-type character who serves as a great foil, not only for Buck, but also for the beautiful up-and-coming Emily Blunt (famous for “The Devil Wears Prada”). She is hired by Buck to be his press agent… and once again, she gives an enjoyable, bright, quirky performance. And, she provides just the right touch of cynicism to Buck’s act to counter the “oh-golly-gee”, “it must be true magic” attitude of Troy.
What may seem like a very simple story is, in fact, a very simple story. It begins and ends as an upbeat, uncomplicated comedy. Easy to understand, easy to follow. It’s a small-scale indie charmer. And then there’s John Malkovich. . Malkovich has always been a great actor, always possessing a charisma that is unmistakable, and he is a perfect fit for the character of Buck Howard which is a nice, refreshing change for him from the dark, villainous character for which he’s chiefly known He is sometimes over the top, sometimes wildly eccentric, but that is Buck. And through it all he endears himself to you because he shows that Buck truly loves the fans who love his act, and it matters not that his audience is small, old or unfashionable… and that’s the true magic of Buck and his act.
Clark
We see this not-so-great Buck through the eyes of his newest road manager, Troy (Colin Hanks, and yes his dad is Tom Hanks, who also appears as his dad in the film). Troy is a law school dropout and a wanna-be writer who puts up with the Buck's egotistical outbursts and demands partly out of loyalty, partly for the sheer entertainment value and largely because he needs the job. Hanks plays well the part of an indecisive, directionless-type character who serves as a great foil, not only for Buck, but also for the beautiful up-and-coming Emily Blunt (famous for “The Devil Wears Prada”). She is hired by Buck to be his press agent… and once again, she gives an enjoyable, bright, quirky performance. And, she provides just the right touch of cynicism to Buck’s act to counter the “oh-golly-gee”, “it must be true magic” attitude of Troy.
What may seem like a very simple story is, in fact, a very simple story. It begins and ends as an upbeat, uncomplicated comedy. Easy to understand, easy to follow. It’s a small-scale indie charmer. And then there’s John Malkovich. . Malkovich has always been a great actor, always possessing a charisma that is unmistakable, and he is a perfect fit for the character of Buck Howard which is a nice, refreshing change for him from the dark, villainous character for which he’s chiefly known He is sometimes over the top, sometimes wildly eccentric, but that is Buck. And through it all he endears himself to you because he shows that Buck truly loves the fans who love his act, and it matters not that his audience is small, old or unfashionable… and that’s the true magic of Buck and his act.
Clark
SUNSHINE CLEANING 3.0*** (almost 3.5****)
Amy Adams has become one of my favorite young actresses ( “Junebug”, “Charlie Wilson’s War”,” Enchanted” and “Doubt”) and Emily Blount is fast becoming one too ( “The Devil Wears Prada”, “Dan in Real Life” and the soon to be released “”The Great Buck Howard” ). SO, imagine my delight when I saw they were co-starring in an indie film called “Sunshine Cleaning”. I was not disappointed because individually and as a duo they are fascinating…they make the movie “shine” when it otherwise could have been dull. They play sisters desperately struggling to make a living while subconsciously trying to overcome the emotional scars of the suicide of their mother when they were young girls.
Once the head cheerleader in high school, Rose (Adams) struggles to make it as a cleaning lady. Her younger sister, Norah (Blunt), is no better off, she can't hold down a job and lives at home with their father, (Alan Arkin). These sisters make for striking contrasts…Rose, the almost hyper-responsible one, and Norah, a rudderless ball of slack…yet they are bound by their sisterly love. When Rose hears about the good money that can be made from cleaning up scenes of violent crimes, she decides that’s the business she should be in. She enlists Norah, her reluctant, usually aimless sister, to help her. They are novices at this gruesome job, filled with bio-hazardous dangers and special rules and regulations.
Adams is simply extraordinary, an absolute delight, turning every moment into a highly affecting tug-of-war between hope and reality. Blunt proves to be an excellent foil for Adams. It's Blount’s sharp portrayal of the ne’er-do-well sister and her character's search for inner peace and meaning that provides the film’s emotional spark. "Sunshine" is ultimately about the changes that happen when people take ownership of the sadness they've always carried, and decide they deserve something better. The film does not dazzle you with fireworks or glitter, but, instead with its BIG heart and honesty.
The movie has an “R” rating because it doesn't shy away from some of the gorier aspects of the job ( there's a reason the work pays well). Also, while billed as a comedy-drama, it is dark and quirky and may not be as “sunny” as some folks prefer.
Amy Adams has become one of my favorite young actresses ( “Junebug”, “Charlie Wilson’s War”,” Enchanted” and “Doubt”) and Emily Blount is fast becoming one too ( “The Devil Wears Prada”, “Dan in Real Life” and the soon to be released “”The Great Buck Howard” ). SO, imagine my delight when I saw they were co-starring in an indie film called “Sunshine Cleaning”. I was not disappointed because individually and as a duo they are fascinating…they make the movie “shine” when it otherwise could have been dull. They play sisters desperately struggling to make a living while subconsciously trying to overcome the emotional scars of the suicide of their mother when they were young girls.
Once the head cheerleader in high school, Rose (Adams) struggles to make it as a cleaning lady. Her younger sister, Norah (Blunt), is no better off, she can't hold down a job and lives at home with their father, (Alan Arkin). These sisters make for striking contrasts…Rose, the almost hyper-responsible one, and Norah, a rudderless ball of slack…yet they are bound by their sisterly love. When Rose hears about the good money that can be made from cleaning up scenes of violent crimes, she decides that’s the business she should be in. She enlists Norah, her reluctant, usually aimless sister, to help her. They are novices at this gruesome job, filled with bio-hazardous dangers and special rules and regulations.
Adams is simply extraordinary, an absolute delight, turning every moment into a highly affecting tug-of-war between hope and reality. Blunt proves to be an excellent foil for Adams. It's Blount’s sharp portrayal of the ne’er-do-well sister and her character's search for inner peace and meaning that provides the film’s emotional spark. "Sunshine" is ultimately about the changes that happen when people take ownership of the sadness they've always carried, and decide they deserve something better. The film does not dazzle you with fireworks or glitter, but, instead with its BIG heart and honesty.
The movie has an “R” rating because it doesn't shy away from some of the gorier aspects of the job ( there's a reason the work pays well). Also, while billed as a comedy-drama, it is dark and quirky and may not be as “sunny” as some folks prefer.
GOMORRAH 1.5**** “Gomorrah” comes to U.S. with an impressive pedigree: it won the Grand Prize at Cannes and Best Pictureat the European Film Awards, and was nominated for a Golden Globe and several other awards Clearly, “Gomorrah” is supposed to represent the best of today’s Italian/European cinema...BUT, if this is the best, I would hate to imagine the worst!
Dark and downbeat, “Gomorrah” is a film that the critics are raving about but, on the other hand, most average moviegoers will be scratching their heads and saying “ What the heck is this”? …while feeling like they just get snookered – yet again – into coughing up the pricey cost of a movie ticket for a so-called “important” film.
I see a lot of movies and it's rare that one has me looking at the ceiling, at the audience, at the wall and at my watch.... but for the life of me, I couldn't find my way into this film and don’t think there was one. Billed as a "true" look at the mafia in Naples, Italy, it literally achieves the impossible by making the mafia look monotonous. A mob film that elicits yawns? Yes, “Gomorrah” does from start to finish and that covers a grueling 137 minutes. With about five or six subplot lines, it takes skill to interweave the elements and make it work…unfortunately that didn’t happen here. I was amazed at how awkward and clumsy this was done. For most of the movie, I didn’t know who was who or to whom they belonged or why they were warring with each other or what was at stake. And just what did the woman with the monkey have to do with...anything? It takes effort to mess up a movie that has a woman with a monkey.
“Gomorrah” is a joyless cinematic experience…. the movie pulls you into the mire of a hellish, hopeless environment and then just leaves you there to fend for yourself. It makes no accommodation for the viewer: gives no signposts, no markers, nothing to help you get your bearings in this dark and dour world where no matter what is done, the corrupting influence of the mob will cause it to turn to “merda”…(Italian for dog poop)
Clark
Dark and downbeat, “Gomorrah” is a film that the critics are raving about but, on the other hand, most average moviegoers will be scratching their heads and saying “ What the heck is this”? …while feeling like they just get snookered – yet again – into coughing up the pricey cost of a movie ticket for a so-called “important” film.
I see a lot of movies and it's rare that one has me looking at the ceiling, at the audience, at the wall and at my watch.... but for the life of me, I couldn't find my way into this film and don’t think there was one. Billed as a "true" look at the mafia in Naples, Italy, it literally achieves the impossible by making the mafia look monotonous. A mob film that elicits yawns? Yes, “Gomorrah” does from start to finish and that covers a grueling 137 minutes. With about five or six subplot lines, it takes skill to interweave the elements and make it work…unfortunately that didn’t happen here. I was amazed at how awkward and clumsy this was done. For most of the movie, I didn’t know who was who or to whom they belonged or why they were warring with each other or what was at stake. And just what did the woman with the monkey have to do with...anything? It takes effort to mess up a movie that has a woman with a monkey.
“Gomorrah” is a joyless cinematic experience…. the movie pulls you into the mire of a hellish, hopeless environment and then just leaves you there to fend for yourself. It makes no accommodation for the viewer: gives no signposts, no markers, nothing to help you get your bearings in this dark and dour world where no matter what is done, the corrupting influence of the mob will cause it to turn to “merda”…(Italian for dog poop)
Clark
DUPLICITY 2.0 Unfortunately, in trying to be an adult mystery/thriller, "Duplicity" ends up being too smart for its own good. A big part of the too smart result is the repeated use of flashbacks that create more confusion than they clear up while, at the same time, destroying whatever continuity the story has…it’s like one step up and two steps back. Time jumps around so erratically that most viewers will get lost along the way. And, after a while, "Duplicity" becomes annoying, even though it boasts splendid photography, scenic settings, and slick editing.
In the movie Julia Roberts is supposed to be a seasoned CIA agent, and Clive Owen is her cloak & dagger counterpart at British MI-6. The role fits Owen like a glove, but, conversely, Roberts looks like she ought to be selling Tupperware. The action opens five years in the past when Roberts and Owen meet for the first time at a 4th of July party in Dubai. Owen picks her up, but she outwits him and steals top-secret Egyptian air defense codes that he had stashed under his mattress. Actually she drugged him, and he thereafter bears a hugh grudge and terribly wants payback. He finally catches up with her five years later (or does he) in New York City's Grand Central Station. Since their initial encounter in Dubai, they have retired from international intrigue and have become agents in industrial intrigue.
"Duplicity" concerns the cutthroat competition between two multinational corporations each of which is determined to corner world markets. In fact, they worry more about what the other is doing than what they ought to be doing. Think of them as the fictional equivalents of Pepsi and Coke. The feuding CEOs are wonderfully played by Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson. The movie opens with a terrific sequence highlighting the bitterness of these two rivals…they are on the runway of an airport each with his on sleek corporate jet and lackey staff . They scream and yell at each other at first from a distance, then charge each other like mad bulls and end up tangling like inept wrestlers while their staffs watch in horror and disbelief. This scene was almost worth the price of admission
In the end, "Duplicity" is a harmless but unrewarding exercise in silliness…harmless in that it contains no sexually revealing scenes and none of the violence that it so prevalent these days….unrewarding in that it lacks the action and sensibility of other and better such films.
Clark
In the movie Julia Roberts is supposed to be a seasoned CIA agent, and Clive Owen is her cloak & dagger counterpart at British MI-6. The role fits Owen like a glove, but, conversely, Roberts looks like she ought to be selling Tupperware. The action opens five years in the past when Roberts and Owen meet for the first time at a 4th of July party in Dubai. Owen picks her up, but she outwits him and steals top-secret Egyptian air defense codes that he had stashed under his mattress. Actually she drugged him, and he thereafter bears a hugh grudge and terribly wants payback. He finally catches up with her five years later (or does he) in New York City's Grand Central Station. Since their initial encounter in Dubai, they have retired from international intrigue and have become agents in industrial intrigue.
"Duplicity" concerns the cutthroat competition between two multinational corporations each of which is determined to corner world markets. In fact, they worry more about what the other is doing than what they ought to be doing. Think of them as the fictional equivalents of Pepsi and Coke. The feuding CEOs are wonderfully played by Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson. The movie opens with a terrific sequence highlighting the bitterness of these two rivals…they are on the runway of an airport each with his on sleek corporate jet and lackey staff . They scream and yell at each other at first from a distance, then charge each other like mad bulls and end up tangling like inept wrestlers while their staffs watch in horror and disbelief. This scene was almost worth the price of admission
In the end, "Duplicity" is a harmless but unrewarding exercise in silliness…harmless in that it contains no sexually revealing scenes and none of the violence that it so prevalent these days….unrewarding in that it lacks the action and sensibility of other and better such films.
Clark
KNOWING 2.0***(but barely..more like a 1.75***) Knowing what I know now, I’m not sure I’d go to see “Knowing”. But then, I already knew about Nicholas Cage and how he doesn’t know how to pick good films anymore. And, besides, I’m a sucker for numerology mystery movies…I think it has to do with my being a Math Major from college (loved those algebra equations) and my frustration with not getting the hang of those doggone SUDOKU puzzles. In any event, I went and can now say a little bit of “Knowing” goes a long way… more like way off into the incomprehensible.
As for Nicholas Cage, he has proved time and time again since winning an Oscar, that he no longer has much range as an actor, and once again here plays his patented role - an alcoholic, cynical, one-dimensional character, an MIT astrophysicist, with a knack for solving puzzles. The unearthing of a 50-year old time capsule and the subsequent discovery of a list of numbers from the capsule that have predicted every major disaster on earth for the past 50 years, including 9/11, suddenly turns Cage's world upside down. As he seeks answers to what's happening, the plot thickens, excitement ensues...until the plot and genre go off into several perplexing and confusing directions.
The movie starts as a suspenseful mystery, a psychological thriller, then shifts gears and moves through action/catastrophe sequences into nightmarish fantasy, and ends up with a blend of rather extreme science fiction and religious themes…CONFUSED..well so was I and that’s the major problem with the film…apparently the 4 to 5 writers of the story ( always a BAD sign with multiple writers) and the Director couldn’t decide what they wanted it to be so they just threw in everything but the kitchen sink… although I think I saw that too in one of the foggy forest scenes.
I will give credit for some amazing action/disaster sequences - a shocking plane crash and a devastating subway derailment that are done with keen attention to horrifying detail and ear-piercing sound effects. BUT, even a well done action film requires a shred of plausibility to avoid becoming an unintentional joke. But “Knowing” is so unrealistic, so silly at times, that it not only strains believability—it shatters it and then stomps the heck out of it into infinitesimal piece. If you can get through the movie without suppressing a laugh or giggle or several “Are You Kidding Me’s””, you’re a better person than I . And, if you can figure out the logic of the plot even after you have left the theatre, you deserve some sort of prize….perhaps one of those little black rocks that keep showing up inexplicably in the movie.
Well, now that you know something about this movie, you can decide if you really want to see and know more about “Knowing”…I don’t think so.
As for Nicholas Cage, he has proved time and time again since winning an Oscar, that he no longer has much range as an actor, and once again here plays his patented role - an alcoholic, cynical, one-dimensional character, an MIT astrophysicist, with a knack for solving puzzles. The unearthing of a 50-year old time capsule and the subsequent discovery of a list of numbers from the capsule that have predicted every major disaster on earth for the past 50 years, including 9/11, suddenly turns Cage's world upside down. As he seeks answers to what's happening, the plot thickens, excitement ensues...until the plot and genre go off into several perplexing and confusing directions.
The movie starts as a suspenseful mystery, a psychological thriller, then shifts gears and moves through action/catastrophe sequences into nightmarish fantasy, and ends up with a blend of rather extreme science fiction and religious themes…CONFUSED..well so was I and that’s the major problem with the film…apparently the 4 to 5 writers of the story ( always a BAD sign with multiple writers) and the Director couldn’t decide what they wanted it to be so they just threw in everything but the kitchen sink… although I think I saw that too in one of the foggy forest scenes.
I will give credit for some amazing action/disaster sequences - a shocking plane crash and a devastating subway derailment that are done with keen attention to horrifying detail and ear-piercing sound effects. BUT, even a well done action film requires a shred of plausibility to avoid becoming an unintentional joke. But “Knowing” is so unrealistic, so silly at times, that it not only strains believability—it shatters it and then stomps the heck out of it into infinitesimal piece. If you can get through the movie without suppressing a laugh or giggle or several “Are You Kidding Me’s””, you’re a better person than I . And, if you can figure out the logic of the plot even after you have left the theatre, you deserve some sort of prize….perhaps one of those little black rocks that keep showing up inexplicably in the movie.
Well, now that you know something about this movie, you can decide if you really want to see and know more about “Knowing”…I don’t think so.
Time for My TOP FIFTEEN EPIC MOVIES
My concept of an EPIC is that it must be extraordinary in size and scope and have a unique and dynamic story; and may or may not have heroes or legends and be longer than usual provided it holds your interest.( This list is limited to American movies as I don’t feel qualified to pick Foreign Films for this category)
1. Gone With the Wind (1939)
2. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
3. Dr. Zhivago (1965)
4. Titanic (1997)
5. Star Wars (1977)
6. Ben Hur (1959)
7. Braveheart (1995)
8. Godfather II (1974)
9. Longest Day (1962)
10. 2001 A Space Odyssey (1968)
11. Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
12. Dances with Wolves (1990)
13. Schindler’s list (1993)
14. Giant (1956)
15. Saving Private Ryan (1998)
HONORABLE MENTIONS (in no ranked order)
Apocalypse Now (1979)
Gladiator (2000)
How the West was Won (1962)
Patton (1970)
Reds (1981)
Ten Commandments (1956)
Jurassic Park I (1993)
Greatest Show on Earth (1952)
Spartacus (1960)
The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965)
The Lord of the Rings (2001)
The Great Escape
My concept of an EPIC is that it must be extraordinary in size and scope and have a unique and dynamic story; and may or may not have heroes or legends and be longer than usual provided it holds your interest.( This list is limited to American movies as I don’t feel qualified to pick Foreign Films for this category)
1. Gone With the Wind (1939)
2. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
3. Dr. Zhivago (1965)
4. Titanic (1997)
5. Star Wars (1977)
6. Ben Hur (1959)
7. Braveheart (1995)
8. Godfather II (1974)
9. Longest Day (1962)
10. 2001 A Space Odyssey (1968)
11. Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
12. Dances with Wolves (1990)
13. Schindler’s list (1993)
14. Giant (1956)
15. Saving Private Ryan (1998)
HONORABLE MENTIONS (in no ranked order)
Apocalypse Now (1979)
Gladiator (2000)
How the West was Won (1962)
Patton (1970)
Reds (1981)
Ten Commandments (1956)
Jurassic Park I (1993)
Greatest Show on Earth (1952)
Spartacus (1960)
The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965)
The Lord of the Rings (2001)
The Great Escape
THE CLASS (ENTRE LES MURS) 3.5*** Sit still now and pay attention because class is now in session. The 2008 winner at Cannes for the Palmes d’Or and an Academy Award Nominee for Best Foreign Language Film, ENTRE LES MURS (THE CLASS), is a surprisingly engaging experience considering what you are actually watching unravel on screen. Francois Bégaudeau is a real teacher and a novelist. He wrote a book about his experiences teaching teenagers in a troubled Parisian neighborhood, translated the book into a screenplay and now finds himself playing, “Francois Marin” a version of himself in the film. It is now our turn to attend his French class and watch in amazement as the games play out. The students are 13 to15 year-olds, a mini-“United Nations” of insolent, sarcastic and hormonal teenagers from everywhere French is spoken — Morocco to China to Mali and the Caribbean. But for all their problems, the kids come off as distinct personalities — difficult, insufferable at times, culturally handicapped but human and vulnerable. .
Calling what happens in Marin’s classroom a game is a gross understatement. It is more like a war of minds and egos. Not surprisingly, the students care more about social status and fitting in than learning. So they spend much of the class time coming up with witty quips and trying to look smart and tough in front of their classmates. .
The entire cast is stellar which is is all the more impressive considering that a majority of them are real students and have never acted before, including Bégaudeau himself. “The Class” is a great film, funny one minute as the banter flies through the room like a renegade spitball and distressing the next, when you realize that scenarios just like this are happening all over the world. "The Class" is also strikingly authentic in its details. That ranges from the behavior in Marin's intense classroom to the teachers' lounge where some are more concerned about their snacks and coffee than the curriculum or the students.
Appropriately, the movie is in French with subtitles…and since the exchanges between teacher and students are fast and furious, you have to be a quick reader…so be prepared !!!
Aller voir ce film excellent
Au revoir
Calling what happens in Marin’s classroom a game is a gross understatement. It is more like a war of minds and egos. Not surprisingly, the students care more about social status and fitting in than learning. So they spend much of the class time coming up with witty quips and trying to look smart and tough in front of their classmates. .
The entire cast is stellar which is is all the more impressive considering that a majority of them are real students and have never acted before, including Bégaudeau himself. “The Class” is a great film, funny one minute as the banter flies through the room like a renegade spitball and distressing the next, when you realize that scenarios just like this are happening all over the world. "The Class" is also strikingly authentic in its details. That ranges from the behavior in Marin's intense classroom to the teachers' lounge where some are more concerned about their snacks and coffee than the curriculum or the students.
Appropriately, the movie is in French with subtitles…and since the exchanges between teacher and students are fast and furious, you have to be a quick reader…so be prepared !!!
Aller voir ce film excellent
Au revoir
The overall Oscar Contest winner, Chris Page, got to pick a movie for me to review and his choice was “Das Boot”…a rental, but relatively easy to find. Below is my review.
DAS BOOT 4.0**** Das Boot'' was first released in the United States in 1981, it ran 2hr. 25 min. and won huge audiences and no less than 6 Oscar nominations. It was re-released in 1997 in Wolfgang Petersens's Director's cut, which added 65 minutes for a total running time of 3 hrs. and 30 min..also the sound was digitally re-mastered (has great surround sound and gives the woofers quite a work-out) and scenes were re-edited …they did a masterful job. (Nonetheless, if 3 hrs. 30 min. is too intimidating, the original version is great and probably overall the better of the two as it has a tighter, more suspenseful feel to it.
While it had been a while (1981) since I had seen this movie, it didn’t take long to become re-immersed in this intensely gripping story of war from a submariner’s perspective and be reminded that "war is hell", no matter from which side you look at it and no matter where the battlefield is located. Das Boot has been touted as the best WW II submarine film of all time, and it's not difficult to understand why. Everything's top notch in this German-made film…best seen in subtitles.
You follow the exploits of the crew of German U-boat U-96 on its mission in 1941 to destroy Allied convoys. You see the frustrations of long spells of inaction and the lonely, crowded, monotonous life aboard a submarine. More than anything, you experience the intense claustrophobic feel of those older WW II submarines which were only 10 feet wide and 150 long. What's particularly gripping in this film is when the action starts to pick up. We see that German U-boats, when discovered, were like sitting ducks as Allied destroyers criss-crossed above them dropping multiple deadly depth charges trying to destroy their underwater prey. The U-boat starts as the hunter, but once it has hunted, it becomes the prey. When so, the film very effectively…in fact marvelously.. captures the overwhelming fear of the crew as revealed in their eyes, as they huddle in silence each time the enemy lurks above. The suspense literally keeps you at the edge of your seat, the silence is truly deafening until the depth charges commence, and these sequences with the hugh underwater explosions and jarring impact on the U-boat jar you to the point where you literally want to scream out "stop it, Stop It, STOP IT….that's how real it felt.
I could go on and on. But I will close by saying that the story, direction, cinematography, acting, sound, music, editing are ALL top notch, and this is one of the few movies that I can easily and truly rate a full 4 out of 4****..
DAS BOOT 4.0**** Das Boot'' was first released in the United States in 1981, it ran 2hr. 25 min. and won huge audiences and no less than 6 Oscar nominations. It was re-released in 1997 in Wolfgang Petersens's Director's cut, which added 65 minutes for a total running time of 3 hrs. and 30 min..also the sound was digitally re-mastered (has great surround sound and gives the woofers quite a work-out) and scenes were re-edited …they did a masterful job. (Nonetheless, if 3 hrs. 30 min. is too intimidating, the original version is great and probably overall the better of the two as it has a tighter, more suspenseful feel to it.
While it had been a while (1981) since I had seen this movie, it didn’t take long to become re-immersed in this intensely gripping story of war from a submariner’s perspective and be reminded that "war is hell", no matter from which side you look at it and no matter where the battlefield is located. Das Boot has been touted as the best WW II submarine film of all time, and it's not difficult to understand why. Everything's top notch in this German-made film…best seen in subtitles.
You follow the exploits of the crew of German U-boat U-96 on its mission in 1941 to destroy Allied convoys. You see the frustrations of long spells of inaction and the lonely, crowded, monotonous life aboard a submarine. More than anything, you experience the intense claustrophobic feel of those older WW II submarines which were only 10 feet wide and 150 long. What's particularly gripping in this film is when the action starts to pick up. We see that German U-boats, when discovered, were like sitting ducks as Allied destroyers criss-crossed above them dropping multiple deadly depth charges trying to destroy their underwater prey. The U-boat starts as the hunter, but once it has hunted, it becomes the prey. When so, the film very effectively…in fact marvelously.. captures the overwhelming fear of the crew as revealed in their eyes, as they huddle in silence each time the enemy lurks above. The suspense literally keeps you at the edge of your seat, the silence is truly deafening until the depth charges commence, and these sequences with the hugh underwater explosions and jarring impact on the U-boat jar you to the point where you literally want to scream out "stop it, Stop It, STOP IT….that's how real it felt.
I could go on and on. But I will close by saying that the story, direction, cinematography, acting, sound, music, editing are ALL top notch, and this is one of the few movies that I can easily and truly rate a full 4 out of 4****..
WATCHMEN 3.0*** Let's get this out of the way from the get-go… I have not read nor did I know anything about the famous graphic novel that this movie is based upon. So I cannot make any comparisons.
Set in a bizarre and historically different 1985 world where the USA won the Vietnam War and Richard Nixon has been elected for his 5th term as President ( I know that sounds more like a “horror” film), the movie depicts extremely hard times for a group of costumed superheroes known as the “Watchmen” (the BIG difference here from other comic-book superheroes is that, except for one, they don’t have super powers..they’re more like Jason Bourne or James Bond on steroids) They’ve been outlawed by Nixon -- despite having helped him win the Vietnam War. When the Comedian, one of their group, is murdered, Rorschach, whose cloth mask keeps changing from one “Rorschach” image to another, becomes concerned that someone is out to kill them all. He contacts other former Watchmen, including Dr. Manhattan, Ozymandias, Nite Owl II( looks a lot like Batman) and Silk Spectre II. All the other Watchmen are dead or in asylums. Finding the answer to this murder mystery forms the main story line, but philosophical/political issues also receive intense emphasis. For example: Does the end justify the means? Should you destroy millions of lives to save billions of lives?
In flashbacks, we learn how the Comedian became obsessed with violence and how, because of an incredible accident, Dr. Manhattan was changed into a glowing blue godlike man-creature with awesome powers who spends the entire movie in the nude…a “blue nude” but nude nonetheless -- but he’s growing more and more distant…here it’s a “blue mood” , which causes distress for Silk Spectre II, his gorgeous girlfriend. Ozymandias, a super genius, seems more interested in his business ventures. Nite Owl II worries and frets about things including his attraction to Silk Spectre II. And Rorschach wants to wreak revenge against all bad guys. Can this motley crew reunite to solve the murder mystery -- and, in the process, prevent a nuclear war between Russia and the United States.
All the Watchmen actors give solid performances but Jackie Earle Haley is blistering as Rorschach and steals the acting honors. His is not a lovable character but is quite memorable…especially in the scenes of him in prison.. As for Malin Akerman, as Silk Spectre II, although her acting is at best, adequate, it’s obvious that she’s in the film as eye candy, at which she definitely succeeds (she wears skin-tight vinyl costumes that are stunning)
Watchmen is a dark, deep, complex look at a perplexing world of superheroes. It has a R rating which is well deserved due to the heavy violence and sex….it is NOT a kid’s movie…..it is adult fare and even then many adults may be shocked or repulsed…not for the faint at heart.
Clark
Set in a bizarre and historically different 1985 world where the USA won the Vietnam War and Richard Nixon has been elected for his 5th term as President ( I know that sounds more like a “horror” film), the movie depicts extremely hard times for a group of costumed superheroes known as the “Watchmen” (the BIG difference here from other comic-book superheroes is that, except for one, they don’t have super powers..they’re more like Jason Bourne or James Bond on steroids) They’ve been outlawed by Nixon -- despite having helped him win the Vietnam War. When the Comedian, one of their group, is murdered, Rorschach, whose cloth mask keeps changing from one “Rorschach” image to another, becomes concerned that someone is out to kill them all. He contacts other former Watchmen, including Dr. Manhattan, Ozymandias, Nite Owl II( looks a lot like Batman) and Silk Spectre II. All the other Watchmen are dead or in asylums. Finding the answer to this murder mystery forms the main story line, but philosophical/political issues also receive intense emphasis. For example: Does the end justify the means? Should you destroy millions of lives to save billions of lives?
In flashbacks, we learn how the Comedian became obsessed with violence and how, because of an incredible accident, Dr. Manhattan was changed into a glowing blue godlike man-creature with awesome powers who spends the entire movie in the nude…a “blue nude” but nude nonetheless -- but he’s growing more and more distant…here it’s a “blue mood” , which causes distress for Silk Spectre II, his gorgeous girlfriend. Ozymandias, a super genius, seems more interested in his business ventures. Nite Owl II worries and frets about things including his attraction to Silk Spectre II. And Rorschach wants to wreak revenge against all bad guys. Can this motley crew reunite to solve the murder mystery -- and, in the process, prevent a nuclear war between Russia and the United States.
All the Watchmen actors give solid performances but Jackie Earle Haley is blistering as Rorschach and steals the acting honors. His is not a lovable character but is quite memorable…especially in the scenes of him in prison.. As for Malin Akerman, as Silk Spectre II, although her acting is at best, adequate, it’s obvious that she’s in the film as eye candy, at which she definitely succeeds (she wears skin-tight vinyl costumes that are stunning)
Watchmen is a dark, deep, complex look at a perplexing world of superheroes. It has a R rating which is well deserved due to the heavy violence and sex….it is NOT a kid’s movie…..it is adult fare and even then many adults may be shocked or repulsed…not for the faint at heart.
Clark
TOP FIFTEEN FOREIGN LANGUAGE MOVIES.
TOP FIFTEEN FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILMS listed in alphabetical order…not by rank.
1. Amelie (2001) France/Ger.
2. Babbette’s Feast (1987) Denmark
3. Cinema Paradiso (1988) Italy
4. City of GOD (2002) Brazil
5. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000( China
6. Das Boot (1982) Germany
7. Il Postino (1994) France/Belgium/Italy
8. Jules and Jim (1961) France
9. La Dolce Vita (1954) Italy
10. Life is Beautiful (1998) Italy
11. Pans Labyrinth (2006) Mexico/Spain
12. Ran (1985) Japan
13. Seven Samurai (1954) Japan
14. Tin Drum (1979) West Germany
15. Z (1969) Algeria
Honorable mentions:
Lives of Others (2006) German
A Man and a Woman (1966) France
Umbrella of Cherboug (1964) West Germany/France
Like Water for Chocolate (1992) Mexico
Raise the Red Latern (1991) China
My Life as a Dog (1987) Sweden
TOP FIFTEEN FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILMS listed in alphabetical order…not by rank.
1. Amelie (2001) France/Ger.
2. Babbette’s Feast (1987) Denmark
3. Cinema Paradiso (1988) Italy
4. City of GOD (2002) Brazil
5. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000( China
6. Das Boot (1982) Germany
7. Il Postino (1994) France/Belgium/Italy
8. Jules and Jim (1961) France
9. La Dolce Vita (1954) Italy
10. Life is Beautiful (1998) Italy
11. Pans Labyrinth (2006) Mexico/Spain
12. Ran (1985) Japan
13. Seven Samurai (1954) Japan
14. Tin Drum (1979) West Germany
15. Z (1969) Algeria
Honorable mentions:
Lives of Others (2006) German
A Man and a Woman (1966) France
Umbrella of Cherboug (1964) West Germany/France
Like Water for Chocolate (1992) Mexico
Raise the Red Latern (1991) China
My Life as a Dog (1987) Sweden
THE INTERNATIONAL 2.5*** “The International “is a good example of how a film can come so close to realizing its potential but ultimately falls below what it could've been. Most of the fundamentals are present: an interesting premise, a couple of good stars and great cinematography . However, what holds this film back is a confusing, complicated plot whose pieces just don’t come together very well.
A world-weary but determined INTERPOL agent (Clive Owen) teams with a District Attorney from New York City (Naomi Watts) to try to bring down a corrupt international power-house bank which, among many other bad things, is funding huge multinational arms deals. Along with some good but not so great acting from the two leads, one of the big draws to this underwhelming action thriller is the stunning cinematography of some the world’s finest cities such as Milan, Berlin, Luxembourg, and New York.
Although there is enough action to recall Jason Bourne's globetrotting shootouts, nothing here seems important enough. However, there is an amazing action sequence worthy of the price of admission…..a shootout in Frank Lloyd Wright's Guggenheim Museum. Not really there but the set, built in Germany, is an impressive facsimile. This is a smartly executed all-out action sequence with bullets flying and bodies falling, an outlandish and wildly entertaining shoot-out in such an usual pristine setting.. The 5-story museum literally becomes a target gallery right down to the ending crescendo of the falling glass ceiling….shades of “Phantom of the Opera”.
“The International” is a film that “coulda been a contender” but stumbles along the way and ends up being a punch drunk cousin to Jason Bourne. Even so, the Guggenheim shoot-out sequence still made it worth seeing..
A world-weary but determined INTERPOL agent (Clive Owen) teams with a District Attorney from New York City (Naomi Watts) to try to bring down a corrupt international power-house bank which, among many other bad things, is funding huge multinational arms deals. Along with some good but not so great acting from the two leads, one of the big draws to this underwhelming action thriller is the stunning cinematography of some the world’s finest cities such as Milan, Berlin, Luxembourg, and New York.
Although there is enough action to recall Jason Bourne's globetrotting shootouts, nothing here seems important enough. However, there is an amazing action sequence worthy of the price of admission…..a shootout in Frank Lloyd Wright's Guggenheim Museum. Not really there but the set, built in Germany, is an impressive facsimile. This is a smartly executed all-out action sequence with bullets flying and bodies falling, an outlandish and wildly entertaining shoot-out in such an usual pristine setting.. The 5-story museum literally becomes a target gallery right down to the ending crescendo of the falling glass ceiling….shades of “Phantom of the Opera”.
“The International” is a film that “coulda been a contender” but stumbles along the way and ends up being a punch drunk cousin to Jason Bourne. Even so, the Guggenheim shoot-out sequence still made it worth seeing..
LARS AND THE REAL GIRL 4**** This is one of the most remarkably original films that I have ever seen, providing a refreshing comment about what we can learn from one another if we approach each other's frailties with kindness and understanding. It is a funny but gentle and thought-provoking movie.
It has a central premise that sounds so odd on the surface that I suspect many potential viewers will simply recoil from it in distaste. After all, how would you react if I only told you that this was a film about a painfully shy young man who embarks on a deeply serious and heartfelt relationship with a life-size doll? I suspect that many of you might be inclined to say "no thanks". That may be true but it would be your unfortunate loss because this movie is about so much more than an unusual premise–it is a sweet, hilarious and surprisingly moving fable that is not only one of the best films that I have seen so far this year, it may well be one of the finest, strangest and most emotional romantic comedy-dramas to come along in a while.
Our hero is Lars Lindstrom (Ryan Gosling), a young man living in a small town. At first glance, Lars appears to be normal enough–he is polite and presentable–but as we soon discover, a crucial switch in his head has never flipped and, as a result, he has been stuck with an extreme case of shyness. Despite the fact that everyone who knows him adores him, he spends virtually all of his time hunkered down in his garage apartment, while trying to dodge nightly dinner invitations from his well-meaning sister-in-law who lives in the main house with his brother. One night Lars comes to their house to introduce them to his new girlfriend, Bianca, and to ask them if she can stay with them since he and she are deeply religious and don't believe in sex before marriage. They agree. To Lars, Bianca is a beautiful, special woman he can finally open up to; but, in fact, she is a plastic, anatomically correct sex doll purchased on the Internet. If that weren’t strange enough, Lars treats her as though she were a real person–he has conversations with her and even pushes her around in a wheelchair.
The next day, his brother takes Lars and Bianca to the local doctor (Patricia Clarkson, who is terrific in this part), ostensibly to give Bianca a check-up but actually to see if Lars has finally cracked up. Her diagnosis is that there is nothing actually wrong with him at all and that the best thing to do regarding Bianca is to pretend she is real and simply let it play out over time.
An intriguing aspect of the story is what happens when Lars takes Bianca to church, to the local mall, and even to an office party. I won't tell because a big part of the joy of this movie is experiencing these scenarios and the people's reactions. As time goes on, the relationship between Lars and Bianca changes and evolves in surprising ways before concluding in a unique and heartfelt manner.
The greatest single element in the picture’s success is Ryan Gosling, who makes Lars sympathetic rather than simply pathetic and captures the character’s pain and neediness with consummate skill. Pay special attention to his scenes with Bianca...they are exceptionally well done. It’s a rich and endearing performance. Like the film it supports, his work is a strange and quirky treasure that is not to be missed.
NOTE: This is a PG-13 and only has very mild sexual references. There is no sex.. real or implied. The movie isn't about sex despite the fact it involves a "sex doll". It's about emotional connections and the la
It has a central premise that sounds so odd on the surface that I suspect many potential viewers will simply recoil from it in distaste. After all, how would you react if I only told you that this was a film about a painfully shy young man who embarks on a deeply serious and heartfelt relationship with a life-size doll? I suspect that many of you might be inclined to say "no thanks". That may be true but it would be your unfortunate loss because this movie is about so much more than an unusual premise–it is a sweet, hilarious and surprisingly moving fable that is not only one of the best films that I have seen so far this year, it may well be one of the finest, strangest and most emotional romantic comedy-dramas to come along in a while.
Our hero is Lars Lindstrom (Ryan Gosling), a young man living in a small town. At first glance, Lars appears to be normal enough–he is polite and presentable–but as we soon discover, a crucial switch in his head has never flipped and, as a result, he has been stuck with an extreme case of shyness. Despite the fact that everyone who knows him adores him, he spends virtually all of his time hunkered down in his garage apartment, while trying to dodge nightly dinner invitations from his well-meaning sister-in-law who lives in the main house with his brother. One night Lars comes to their house to introduce them to his new girlfriend, Bianca, and to ask them if she can stay with them since he and she are deeply religious and don't believe in sex before marriage. They agree. To Lars, Bianca is a beautiful, special woman he can finally open up to; but, in fact, she is a plastic, anatomically correct sex doll purchased on the Internet. If that weren’t strange enough, Lars treats her as though she were a real person–he has conversations with her and even pushes her around in a wheelchair.
The next day, his brother takes Lars and Bianca to the local doctor (Patricia Clarkson, who is terrific in this part), ostensibly to give Bianca a check-up but actually to see if Lars has finally cracked up. Her diagnosis is that there is nothing actually wrong with him at all and that the best thing to do regarding Bianca is to pretend she is real and simply let it play out over time.
An intriguing aspect of the story is what happens when Lars takes Bianca to church, to the local mall, and even to an office party. I won't tell because a big part of the joy of this movie is experiencing these scenarios and the people's reactions. As time goes on, the relationship between Lars and Bianca changes and evolves in surprising ways before concluding in a unique and heartfelt manner.
The greatest single element in the picture’s success is Ryan Gosling, who makes Lars sympathetic rather than simply pathetic and captures the character’s pain and neediness with consummate skill. Pay special attention to his scenes with Bianca...they are exceptionally well done. It’s a rich and endearing performance. Like the film it supports, his work is a strange and quirky treasure that is not to be missed.
NOTE: This is a PG-13 and only has very mild sexual references. There is no sex.. real or implied. The movie isn't about sex despite the fact it involves a "sex doll". It's about emotional connections and the la
THE SECRET LIFE OF BEES 3.0 *** You would expect a movie with the name "The Secret Life of Bees" to be sweet. Well, it is and it will be charmingly sweet for some and bittersweet for others who may shed a tear or two during this southern melodrama. There is also some sting because of the hateful racial attitudes that existed in South Carolina in 1964 which is the place and time of the story.
“Bees” follows the run-away from home by 14-year-old Lily (Dakota Fanning) after one more beating from her abusive father….her mother died by a tragic accident when Lily was only 4 years old . With nanny Rosaleen (Jennifer Hudson) in tow, she discovers that the makers of a popular brand of honey live nearby in a small town in South Carolina. After introducing themselves, Lily and Rosaleen are warmly welcomed into a “Pepto-Bismol pink” house by August Boatwright (Queen Latifah) and her sisters—independent minded June (Alicia Keyes) and a neurotically sensitive May (Sophie Okonedo) ( they were named after the months of the year). As Lily helps out with the bee hives, she responds to the love that warmly glows among the sisters and spreads to her, particularly from August—who maintains that bees, like any other living thing, need love.
All the performers are quite good. Fanning plays Lily with soulful eyes and a big, aching heart ….she will grow up to be an even better actress than she already is, if that's possible. And Latifah is, as always, pure pleasure to watch. She is wonderful as the wise head of the household who recognizes her role as the queen bee in the lives of those who swarm around her. Her portrayal of August is the kind of performance that keeps us going to the movies in the first place.
To see “Bee” or not to see “Bee”…. the answer is yes and it’s one the whole family will enjoy.
“Bees” follows the run-away from home by 14-year-old Lily (Dakota Fanning) after one more beating from her abusive father….her mother died by a tragic accident when Lily was only 4 years old . With nanny Rosaleen (Jennifer Hudson) in tow, she discovers that the makers of a popular brand of honey live nearby in a small town in South Carolina. After introducing themselves, Lily and Rosaleen are warmly welcomed into a “Pepto-Bismol pink” house by August Boatwright (Queen Latifah) and her sisters—independent minded June (Alicia Keyes) and a neurotically sensitive May (Sophie Okonedo) ( they were named after the months of the year). As Lily helps out with the bee hives, she responds to the love that warmly glows among the sisters and spreads to her, particularly from August—who maintains that bees, like any other living thing, need love.
All the performers are quite good. Fanning plays Lily with soulful eyes and a big, aching heart ….she will grow up to be an even better actress than she already is, if that's possible. And Latifah is, as always, pure pleasure to watch. She is wonderful as the wise head of the household who recognizes her role as the queen bee in the lives of those who swarm around her. Her portrayal of August is the kind of performance that keeps us going to the movies in the first place.
To see “Bee” or not to see “Bee”…. the answer is yes and it’s one the whole family will enjoy.
HAPPY GO LUCKY 3.5**** If ever a film was wonderfully captured in its title, it is “Happy-Go-Lucky”. Those five syllables perfectly describe the light and breezy tone of this film and how you will feel as you leave. This is a movie that celebrates optimism which is a welcome relief from the Hollywood blockbusters of late that tend to be so dark and cynical. At last a “feel good” movie from 2008.
Often characters in movies who appear to be happy are not portrayed as regular people but , instead, as idiots, buffoons or self-indulgent . But here the main character is not only genuinely happy, but also intelligent, generous, compassionate, loving and gentle. She is Poppy (played brilliantly by the British actress, Sally Hawkins). She is a 30ish single British school teacher who lives in a small flat with a fellow teacher. She enjoys having a fun time but is also serious about her job. When somebody steals her bicycle, she begins taking driving lessons from a driving instructor, Scott , who is a sad, bitter, wholly unhappy man. They are diametric opposites. Poppy flits through life like a exuberant butterfly while Scott trudges through it like a constipated badger, angry at the world. Poppy tries to help Scott, but he resists. A confrontation is inevitable and from it intriguing questions arise.
Sally Hawkins delivers a utterly captivating tour de force performance as Poppy, displaying an indomitable spirit and persistently cheerful outlook on life, even when life punches you in the face She should have been nominated for Best Actress for the Oscars but lost out to bigger pictures and more popular actresses. She reminded me in a physical sense of a British version of a thinner, slightly taller and less busty Jennifer Love Hewitt, but with the skill to act up a storm and literally shine and glow at the same time. With Poppy, we have one of the screen's most memorable and courageous characters. A young woman whose seemingly endless good cheer is actually an extraordinary act of will and self-fulfillment. "Happy-Go-Lucky" is an ode to joy and happiness, not as a mindless bliss but as something of deep seriousness, something that comes from within not from without ... from a positive outlook on life, a trusting stance towards life, and a willingness to change the things we can change and accept the things we can't.
I left this movie with a big smile on my face, feeling very “happy” and quite “lucky”……so thumps up to “Happy Go Lucky” !!!
NOTE: You’ll have to RENT this one…it was a British Indie film that didn’t last long in the theatres. Find it…it’s worth the effort.
Often characters in movies who appear to be happy are not portrayed as regular people but , instead, as idiots, buffoons or self-indulgent . But here the main character is not only genuinely happy, but also intelligent, generous, compassionate, loving and gentle. She is Poppy (played brilliantly by the British actress, Sally Hawkins). She is a 30ish single British school teacher who lives in a small flat with a fellow teacher. She enjoys having a fun time but is also serious about her job. When somebody steals her bicycle, she begins taking driving lessons from a driving instructor, Scott , who is a sad, bitter, wholly unhappy man. They are diametric opposites. Poppy flits through life like a exuberant butterfly while Scott trudges through it like a constipated badger, angry at the world. Poppy tries to help Scott, but he resists. A confrontation is inevitable and from it intriguing questions arise.
Sally Hawkins delivers a utterly captivating tour de force performance as Poppy, displaying an indomitable spirit and persistently cheerful outlook on life, even when life punches you in the face She should have been nominated for Best Actress for the Oscars but lost out to bigger pictures and more popular actresses. She reminded me in a physical sense of a British version of a thinner, slightly taller and less busty Jennifer Love Hewitt, but with the skill to act up a storm and literally shine and glow at the same time. With Poppy, we have one of the screen's most memorable and courageous characters. A young woman whose seemingly endless good cheer is actually an extraordinary act of will and self-fulfillment. "Happy-Go-Lucky" is an ode to joy and happiness, not as a mindless bliss but as something of deep seriousness, something that comes from within not from without ... from a positive outlook on life, a trusting stance towards life, and a willingness to change the things we can change and accept the things we can't.
I left this movie with a big smile on my face, feeling very “happy” and quite “lucky”……so thumps up to “Happy Go Lucky” !!!
NOTE: You’ll have to RENT this one…it was a British Indie film that didn’t last long in the theatres. Find it…it’s worth the effort.
MY TOP FIFTEEN FEEL GOOD MOVIES listed from best to nearly best.
1. LOVE ACTUALLY
2. AMERICAN PRESIDENT
3. SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE
4. BIG
5. ET
6. ROCKY I
7. AUGUST RUSH
8. ENCHANTED
9. FORREST GUMP
10. SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION
11. MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING
12. PRETTY WOMEN
13. GREASE
14. WHEN HARRY MET SALLY
15. SOUND OF MUSIC
15. LARS AND THE REAL GIRL
HONORABLE MENTIONS IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER..JUST A LISTING.
ONCE
POLAR EXPRESS
SHREK I
LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE
FULL MONTY
FERRIS BUELLER’S DAY OUT
FRIED GREEN TOMATOES
CHARIOTS OF FIRE
SAME TIME NEXT YEAR
AS GOOD AS IT GETS
GOODBYE GIRL
MY COUSIN VINNEY
SHAKESPEAR IN LOVE
SPLASH
RUDY HOOSIERS
FIELD OF DREAMS
BREAKFAST AT TIFFANYS
DIRTY DANCING BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID
HEAVEN CAN WAIT
1. LOVE ACTUALLY
2. AMERICAN PRESIDENT
3. SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE
4. BIG
5. ET
6. ROCKY I
7. AUGUST RUSH
8. ENCHANTED
9. FORREST GUMP
10. SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION
11. MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING
12. PRETTY WOMEN
13. GREASE
14. WHEN HARRY MET SALLY
15. SOUND OF MUSIC
15. LARS AND THE REAL GIRL
HONORABLE MENTIONS IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER..JUST A LISTING.
ONCE
POLAR EXPRESS
SHREK I
LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE
FULL MONTY
FERRIS BUELLER’S DAY OUT
FRIED GREEN TOMATOES
CHARIOTS OF FIRE
SAME TIME NEXT YEAR
AS GOOD AS IT GETS
GOODBYE GIRL
MY COUSIN VINNEY
SHAKESPEAR IN LOVE
SPLASH
RUDY HOOSIERS
FIELD OF DREAMS
BREAKFAST AT TIFFANYS
DIRTY DANCING BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID
HEAVEN CAN WAIT
THE WRESTLER 3.5+**** “The Wrestler” is a drama centered around an aging professional wrestler well past his prime. Randy "The Ram" played by Mickey Rourke, is struggling to hold onto the very last thread of his fame in the bottom ranks of the sport. His struggles however can be translated to most anyone who has passed their prime and can't quite let go. He's a lonely guy whose life seems to have passed him by. He's a wrestler who needs wrestling more than wrestling needs him. He needs it to feel important because he really has nothing else to show for himself… no wife and a daughter he abandoned early on. Health problems begin to compromise his wrestling career as he tries to deal with the real world and rebuild his relationship with his daughter played by Evan Rachel Wood in another superb performance by her.
Rourke's portrayal of the Randy is one of the best in a long time. He's not just acting, he transforms into the character on screen. It's amazing to watch. Picking Rourke for this role was a masterstroke. Some years ago he went through a mid-life crisis, played with bodybuilding and steroids, attempted professional boxing and generally screwed up his whole career while turning his body into an unnatural freak show. He looks the pathetic personification of Ram and does a masterful job bringing him to life.
Marisa Tomei is terrific as Cassidy, the romantic interest of Randy. Tomei is a perfect physical fit for the role of the aging stripper. She's still gorgeous, but there are just enough lines on her face to make her character’s age (early 40s) believable. Tomei completely knocks this one out of the park. Her Cassidy hurts as much on the inside as Randy “The Ram” hurts on the outside, and they have much in common. They live in a world where corruption of the body is a part of their trade. And, like Randy, her best days were in the 80's when metal bands ruled and her body was in top form.
The film does a great job of showing professional wrestling with realism without mocking it and highlights its humor, but never makes fun of it. It reveals the truth behind the wrestlers' performances and also destroys the facade of their apparent rage towards each other…it’s all a part of the act….the “showbiz”. It becomes clear through the film that these guys are friends--they care about and respect each other. The film respects them and their world, and demands the same from the audience.
The title of this film has a double meaning. Going in, you know the title refers to the profession of the main character. Upon exiting, you come to understand that the title also refers to what the main character must do every day……. wrestle with life.
Rourke's portrayal of the Randy is one of the best in a long time. He's not just acting, he transforms into the character on screen. It's amazing to watch. Picking Rourke for this role was a masterstroke. Some years ago he went through a mid-life crisis, played with bodybuilding and steroids, attempted professional boxing and generally screwed up his whole career while turning his body into an unnatural freak show. He looks the pathetic personification of Ram and does a masterful job bringing him to life.
Marisa Tomei is terrific as Cassidy, the romantic interest of Randy. Tomei is a perfect physical fit for the role of the aging stripper. She's still gorgeous, but there are just enough lines on her face to make her character’s age (early 40s) believable. Tomei completely knocks this one out of the park. Her Cassidy hurts as much on the inside as Randy “The Ram” hurts on the outside, and they have much in common. They live in a world where corruption of the body is a part of their trade. And, like Randy, her best days were in the 80's when metal bands ruled and her body was in top form.
The film does a great job of showing professional wrestling with realism without mocking it and highlights its humor, but never makes fun of it. It reveals the truth behind the wrestlers' performances and also destroys the facade of their apparent rage towards each other…it’s all a part of the act….the “showbiz”. It becomes clear through the film that these guys are friends--they care about and respect each other. The film respects them and their world, and demands the same from the audience.
The title of this film has a double meaning. Going in, you know the title refers to the profession of the main character. Upon exiting, you come to understand that the title also refers to what the main character must do every day……. wrestle with life.
DOUBT.. 4.0*** “Doubt” is an fascinating movie transferred to the big screen from a Pulitzer-Prize winning stage play and features one of the best , if not the best, acting ensembles seen in 2008. It explores complex issues and emotions in astounding ways. The purposeful ambiguities that flow through causes the audience to do what every great movie does: THINK.
The story takes place in 1964, at St. Nicholas Catholic School in the Bronx. Among those in charge there are conflicting ideologies. In one corner, we have Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep)., the school’s principal. She's cut from the classic tyrannical mold, as she frowns upon insubordination of any kind. Think of her as Sister Ratchet,(shades of “One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest”) always wanting things done her way. By and large, she rules with an iron fist. In the other corner, we have the priest, Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman). who believes the church should change its approach and interact more with its students. He believes they should be more like a family, and make an effort to truly listen to the children.
At the center of "Doubt" is the mystery of whether or not Father Flynn, is guilty of taking advantage of an altar boy. The priest's prosecutor is Sister Aloysius.. The movie purposely never clarifies the ambiguity of the charges -- is Hoffman's priest truly guilty of something, or is Sister Aloysius simply on a mad witch hunt? Sister James is the one who first brings suspicions about the Flynn to Aloysius and then sees them become Frankenstein’s monster.
Meryl Streep takes on the role of Sister Aloysius with a mesmerizing balance of poise and perplexity. Without a doubt, Streep has created one of the most compelling characters of the year. Foil and fodder to Aloysius is Father Flynn, played superbly by the incomparable Phillip Seymour Hoffman who exhibits emotion so perfectly that his collision with Sister Aloysius is utterly fascinating. Sister James is played by the lovely and talented Amy Adams. And then there’s Viola Davis as the alter boy's mother who in only 10 to 15 minutes of screen time, brings the movie to a complete and exhilarating halt by providing a genuine, raw performance. YES, "Doubt's" ensemble is breathtakingly talented as evidenced by the fact that all four of these performers were nominated for Oscars: Streep for Best Actress and the others for Best Supporting.
Doubt warns of the dangers of blindly following assumptions based on circumstances rather than the truth and the serious consequences of making such assumptions Right or wrong, fact or fiction, we are all led by our values and our moral convictions on the way to achieving greater knowledge - namely, the truth. Doubting is the first part of the equation. After all "Doubt is the beginning, not the end of wisdom"
The story takes place in 1964, at St. Nicholas Catholic School in the Bronx. Among those in charge there are conflicting ideologies. In one corner, we have Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep)., the school’s principal. She's cut from the classic tyrannical mold, as she frowns upon insubordination of any kind. Think of her as Sister Ratchet,(shades of “One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest”) always wanting things done her way. By and large, she rules with an iron fist. In the other corner, we have the priest, Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman). who believes the church should change its approach and interact more with its students. He believes they should be more like a family, and make an effort to truly listen to the children.
At the center of "Doubt" is the mystery of whether or not Father Flynn, is guilty of taking advantage of an altar boy. The priest's prosecutor is Sister Aloysius.. The movie purposely never clarifies the ambiguity of the charges -- is Hoffman's priest truly guilty of something, or is Sister Aloysius simply on a mad witch hunt? Sister James is the one who first brings suspicions about the Flynn to Aloysius and then sees them become Frankenstein’s monster.
Meryl Streep takes on the role of Sister Aloysius with a mesmerizing balance of poise and perplexity. Without a doubt, Streep has created one of the most compelling characters of the year. Foil and fodder to Aloysius is Father Flynn, played superbly by the incomparable Phillip Seymour Hoffman who exhibits emotion so perfectly that his collision with Sister Aloysius is utterly fascinating. Sister James is played by the lovely and talented Amy Adams. And then there’s Viola Davis as the alter boy's mother who in only 10 to 15 minutes of screen time, brings the movie to a complete and exhilarating halt by providing a genuine, raw performance. YES, "Doubt's" ensemble is breathtakingly talented as evidenced by the fact that all four of these performers were nominated for Oscars: Streep for Best Actress and the others for Best Supporting.
Doubt warns of the dangers of blindly following assumptions based on circumstances rather than the truth and the serious consequences of making such assumptions Right or wrong, fact or fiction, we are all led by our values and our moral convictions on the way to achieving greater knowledge - namely, the truth. Doubting is the first part of the equation. After all "Doubt is the beginning, not the end of wisdom"
MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3D 3.0*** ( for its genre) “My Bloody Valentine” is one of those really rare kinds of horror flicks. It delivers buckets of gore, fast pacing, and a lot of in your face 3D which may be the best I’ve seen outside I-MAX.. Brutality reigns in king size portions, sure to satisfy the most hardcore of horror fans. There are hearts ripped out, jaws ripped off, and eyes gouged out. The film-makers also went to considerable lengths to come up with some of the most unique and fun scenes to grace or , better yet, to gore the big screen in some time….from a midget being done in to watching a semi-hot naked (fully and frontally) chick being highly pleasured and then running around and trying to hide from the killer for a full 5 minutes until…and a dirt bag truck driver getting what’s coming to him….and these are only a few of a multitude of extreme expirations mostly by pick axe..the weapon of skillful choice.
Perhaps most importantly though, the film makers were aware of what it what it was they were making. At its core, it’s a cheesy mindless slasher film, and rather than try to overcome this, “My Bloody Valentine” acknowledges this trait and works with it. It owns it. Never does it get bogged down trying to patch together an airtight story or worry about believability.. It just keeps its unrelenting pace up from start to finish, and delivers what the audience came out to see… gratuitous violence.
A film like this is quite refreshing for the genre, not because it is artful by any means, but because it embraces its inherent trashiness. By deliberately not taking itself seriously, “My Bloody Valentine” becomes something more than its peers can ever be. It becomes fun in the same way that a demolition derby is fun. Take my advice. First, you absolutely must see this thing on the big screen through 3D glasses even though you have to pay an extra $3.00 for them. And, second, enjoy it for what it is and don't worry about it having any socially redeeming value . This is escapism at its mindless best.
Perhaps most importantly though, the film makers were aware of what it what it was they were making. At its core, it’s a cheesy mindless slasher film, and rather than try to overcome this, “My Bloody Valentine” acknowledges this trait and works with it. It owns it. Never does it get bogged down trying to patch together an airtight story or worry about believability.. It just keeps its unrelenting pace up from start to finish, and delivers what the audience came out to see… gratuitous violence.
A film like this is quite refreshing for the genre, not because it is artful by any means, but because it embraces its inherent trashiness. By deliberately not taking itself seriously, “My Bloody Valentine” becomes something more than its peers can ever be. It becomes fun in the same way that a demolition derby is fun. Take my advice. First, you absolutely must see this thing on the big screen through 3D glasses even though you have to pay an extra $3.00 for them. And, second, enjoy it for what it is and don't worry about it having any socially redeeming value . This is escapism at its mindless best.
Gran Torino 4.0**** When Clint Eastwood makes a film about bigotry, he hits hard. Gran Torino pulls no punches in terms of language, prejudiced attitudes and violence. Fortunately, director Eastwood tempers all this with humor. And actor Eastwood delivers a stunning performance as an angry old man who slowly begins to question his negative ideas about other ethnic groups, especially his Hmong neighbors( Hmongs are a southeast Asian ethnic group).
Imagine the physical presence of an older “Dirty Harry” with an audible snarl and the attitude of an “Archie Bunker” on steroids for racial slurs, and that’s the character that Clint Eastwood plays in this movie.
Walt Kowalski (Eastwood), a Korean war veteran, finds little joy in life -- other than owning a 1972 Gran Torino. His wife of many years has just died; he’s practically estranged from his adult sons; and the cultural make-up of his neighborhood has changed. He was once surrounded by Polish neighbors but is now living among Hmongs, African-Americans, and Hispanics. One gets the impression that Walt lived in a isolated world with his wife. Now alone, he must confront his neighborhood which has radically changed. Walt sits on his front porch with his faithful old dog, mows his little patch of lawn, gripes about everything, and peppers his conversations with more derogatory racial comments than Archie Bunker at his worst.
Eastwood pulls out all the stops to give us an honest portrait of a basically good man who’s the victim of his age and time. He’s set in his ways, but not immune to human emotion nor to wanting justice and caring about others, regardless of cultural differences --and despite the offensive language he constantly utters. The movie has everything I relish in a movie: It made me laugh, it made me cry, it made me think, and it kept me entertained.
“Gran Torino” with the marvelous Clint Eastwood was more than able to “make my day”. It’s a memorable film .
Clark
Imagine the physical presence of an older “Dirty Harry” with an audible snarl and the attitude of an “Archie Bunker” on steroids for racial slurs, and that’s the character that Clint Eastwood plays in this movie.
Walt Kowalski (Eastwood), a Korean war veteran, finds little joy in life -- other than owning a 1972 Gran Torino. His wife of many years has just died; he’s practically estranged from his adult sons; and the cultural make-up of his neighborhood has changed. He was once surrounded by Polish neighbors but is now living among Hmongs, African-Americans, and Hispanics. One gets the impression that Walt lived in a isolated world with his wife. Now alone, he must confront his neighborhood which has radically changed. Walt sits on his front porch with his faithful old dog, mows his little patch of lawn, gripes about everything, and peppers his conversations with more derogatory racial comments than Archie Bunker at his worst.
Eastwood pulls out all the stops to give us an honest portrait of a basically good man who’s the victim of his age and time. He’s set in his ways, but not immune to human emotion nor to wanting justice and caring about others, regardless of cultural differences --and despite the offensive language he constantly utters. The movie has everything I relish in a movie: It made me laugh, it made me cry, it made me think, and it kept me entertained.
“Gran Torino” with the marvelous Clint Eastwood was more than able to “make my day”. It’s a memorable film .
Clark
REVOLUTIONARY ROAD 3.5+**** (almost 4***) This is a superb dark, disquieting drama about a troubled marriage with two awesome performances by Kate Winslet and Leonardo De Caprio. It is set in the 1950s in the typical suburbs of some typical big city with the typical family of four living in the typical nice suburban home on the typical shady street named Revolutionary Road. The problem for Frank and April is that their relationship started off as anything but typical…there was the excitement and wonder of a special love with all the extraordinary thrill and sizzle that goes with it.. There were also dreams of not being “typical”…of finding and living a life full of challenges and rewards. But, after marriage, two kids, a dull but adequate job and the move to the typical suburbs, the sizzle fades and the dreams get lost. Life has become a dull, empty routine…”typical” . This realization causes April to initiate an effort to rekindle the dreams and save their relationship and at first Frank is all for it . But, reality slowly returns with an unplanned pregnancy and a nice job promotion for Frank. He begins to question and reevaluate , and decides to back off . April is shocked and intensely disappointed to the point of becoming embittered and heartbroken which leads to deeply hurtful and highly emotional confrontations with Frank..
DiCaprio and Winslet nailed their characters. Both of them were phenomenal. The facial expressions, the gestures and the line delivery were all perfectly spot on. DiCaprio was excellent. He grasped the character perfectly and nailed every scene.
Kate Winslet is just breathtaking. I thought she was naturally subtle and haunting from beginning to end. But, in the second half of the movie she elevates her performance to a rarified level of excellence that both awed me on the one hand and haunted me on the other. Winslet shows layers of herself that I've never seen before, expressions on her face that I haven't seen before…she performs way beyond mere words as does De Caprio. The two of them together was even more powerful. Their chemistry was so smooth and perfect. Their interactions during the arguments were quite bone chilling and haunting.
This movie is not one that everyone will want to see. It isn't one that everyone will get or even WANT to get….. it is not your “typical” Hollywood fare. This movie will tear out the heart those who have been in a relationship that starts to go sour and were powerless to stop it. You try everything to halt the inevitable train wreck you see coming but yet, it still ends in a fiery crash and you stand and wonder how your life could end up that way. Frank and April are on this train and you’ll have to see the movie to find out whether they’ll able to hop off before the wreck.
Clark
DiCaprio and Winslet nailed their characters. Both of them were phenomenal. The facial expressions, the gestures and the line delivery were all perfectly spot on. DiCaprio was excellent. He grasped the character perfectly and nailed every scene.
Kate Winslet is just breathtaking. I thought she was naturally subtle and haunting from beginning to end. But, in the second half of the movie she elevates her performance to a rarified level of excellence that both awed me on the one hand and haunted me on the other. Winslet shows layers of herself that I've never seen before, expressions on her face that I haven't seen before…she performs way beyond mere words as does De Caprio. The two of them together was even more powerful. Their chemistry was so smooth and perfect. Their interactions during the arguments were quite bone chilling and haunting.
This movie is not one that everyone will want to see. It isn't one that everyone will get or even WANT to get….. it is not your “typical” Hollywood fare. This movie will tear out the heart those who have been in a relationship that starts to go sour and were powerless to stop it. You try everything to halt the inevitable train wreck you see coming but yet, it still ends in a fiery crash and you stand and wonder how your life could end up that way. Frank and April are on this train and you’ll have to see the movie to find out whether they’ll able to hop off before the wreck.
Clark
THE READER 3.5*** This is about a “coming of age “story… it’ll remind you, but only briefly, of the context of “The Summer of 42” in that it’s about a thirty or so year old woman and a fifteen year old sexual novice ; it’s about the Holocaust and those ordinary civilian German people who participated in certain monstrous events during the war and those post-World War II Germans who were either in denial or mystified about how such horrible things could have happened; and it’s about great pride and shame and how they can cause painful, unforgettable consequences.
It’s the summer of 1958 and Michael (David Kross), a young teenager meets by chance Hanna (Kate Winslet), a hard working woman who is twice his age. What begins innocently enough soon escalates into a seductive, forbidden affair that intensifies when Michael begins reading books to the distant, empty Hanna, who is deeply awakened by Michael's spoken literature, Michael is emotionally devastated when Hanna suddenly disappears. Nearly a decade later, unable to forget his passionate summer, and while studying law, he attends a Nazi war crimes’ trial, and to his shock and dismay, sees Hanna among several German women on trial for crimes committed while they were guards at a Jewish concentration camp. Surprisingly, though, "The Reader" isn't about her exposure as a war criminal but as an ordinary individual who took the wrong path. She's not an evil person. She simply made wrong choices. However, those bad choices become greatly magnified when they result your being involved in the Nazi's liquidation of the Jews… then it’s how much "wronger" can it be.
"The Reader" is a film that is driven by its raw, stunning performances. In one of her finest hours, Kate Winslet gives the performance of a lifetime. It's a haunting and heart-breaking. David Kross, who was only 18, is impressive as the teenager with raging hormones. Winslet and Kross bring this picture together and elevate it to a lofty level . Their performances are jaw-droppingly brilliant.
This is a serious drama for grownups only. It well deserves its "R" rating due to the explicit sex scenes including full frontal male nudity . But it is quite thought provoking well beyond the movie experience itself. And how you interpret the characters and whether you feel pity or scorn or both for either of them depends on your own personal assessment of their guilt and the shame and pride that motivated their decisions.
Clark
It’s the summer of 1958 and Michael (David Kross), a young teenager meets by chance Hanna (Kate Winslet), a hard working woman who is twice his age. What begins innocently enough soon escalates into a seductive, forbidden affair that intensifies when Michael begins reading books to the distant, empty Hanna, who is deeply awakened by Michael's spoken literature, Michael is emotionally devastated when Hanna suddenly disappears. Nearly a decade later, unable to forget his passionate summer, and while studying law, he attends a Nazi war crimes’ trial, and to his shock and dismay, sees Hanna among several German women on trial for crimes committed while they were guards at a Jewish concentration camp. Surprisingly, though, "The Reader" isn't about her exposure as a war criminal but as an ordinary individual who took the wrong path. She's not an evil person. She simply made wrong choices. However, those bad choices become greatly magnified when they result your being involved in the Nazi's liquidation of the Jews… then it’s how much "wronger" can it be.
"The Reader" is a film that is driven by its raw, stunning performances. In one of her finest hours, Kate Winslet gives the performance of a lifetime. It's a haunting and heart-breaking. David Kross, who was only 18, is impressive as the teenager with raging hormones. Winslet and Kross bring this picture together and elevate it to a lofty level . Their performances are jaw-droppingly brilliant.
This is a serious drama for grownups only. It well deserves its "R" rating due to the explicit sex scenes including full frontal male nudity . But it is quite thought provoking well beyond the movie experience itself. And how you interpret the characters and whether you feel pity or scorn or both for either of them depends on your own personal assessment of their guilt and the shame and pride that motivated their decisions.
Clark
Here are my Top Ten Movies for 2008 based upon the ones I have seen. Also, they are ones that I enjoyed the most for various reasons which may not always include those of the highest artistic value. They are ranked in order of the best to the 10th best.
MY TOP TEN FOR 2008
1) Curious Case of Benjamin Button
2) The Dark Knight
3) WALL-E
4) Slumdog Millionaire
5) Frost/Nixon
6) Iron Man
7) Tropic Thunder
8) Milk
9) The Visitor
10) Let The Right One In AND Definitely Maybe …a tie for 10th
Here are my Worst Five for 2008…again based upon those I have seen…I’m SURE there are many others that I managed to avoid…again listed in order of worstness. A short excerpt from my reviews appears below the list.
My WORST FIVE FOR 2008
1) Meet Bill
2) Blindness
3) Bangkok Dangerous
4) The Happening
5) Untraceable
Meet Bill …… No,don't "meet" Bill, don't even "mess around" with Bill...it's a bad movie...no, it's worse...it's a torturous viewing experience. What is so baffling is why they made it to begin with...maybe, "just because". It does have, at least per the credits, a capable cast and a moody little plot..yet it completely misses out ...and this is supposed to be a comedy.
Blindness …..I almost walked out of this movie and probably would have except I don't do that...I hang in there no matter what. I did cry "Uncle" a couple of times but to no avail since I was the only one in the theatre....perhaps that should have been a hint of things to come. "Blindness" is one of the most unpleasant viewing experiences of my life. Not only is it quite despairing and depressing, it's also ugly and sickening.
Bangkok Dangerous… For starters this movie was awful. Where to begin reviewing it ? Maybe with Nicholas Cage's bad acting and his ever-present voice over OR the tiresome recycled plot; OR Cage's awful hair-style (it's like he wanted it to be like Tom Hanks in ”The DaVinci Code” but it ends up looking like the three stooge with the bushy hair). Even if you see this movie with a caffeine-high you'll probably still fall asleep…at least snooze a bit.. The action is almost as boring and predictable as Cage's performance.
The Happening….. This is a "wanna-be" monster movie desperately seeking a monster. But, unfortunately, M. Shyamalan's The Happening doesn't have enough happening and doesn't make much sense, much less anything close to a "Sixth Sense".
Untraceable…. This is the sort of psychological thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat, mostly so you can bolt the hell out of the theatre as soon as it ends. It is a serial killer mystery that has a good cast and a reasonably good premise and it could have been an exciting story but for the the plot heading south in the last 1/3 to 1/2 of the movie. Diane Lane stars as an FBI agent whose specialty is Internet crime. She sits at a computer most of day and tracks down crooks .Unfortunately, it ends up being a "Hack job" about hacking, hackers and hackees and will leave many viewers "hacked-off".
MY TOP TEN FOR 2008
1) Curious Case of Benjamin Button
2) The Dark Knight
3) WALL-E
4) Slumdog Millionaire
5) Frost/Nixon
6) Iron Man
7) Tropic Thunder
8) Milk
9) The Visitor
10) Let The Right One In AND Definitely Maybe …a tie for 10th
Here are my Worst Five for 2008…again based upon those I have seen…I’m SURE there are many others that I managed to avoid…again listed in order of worstness. A short excerpt from my reviews appears below the list.
My WORST FIVE FOR 2008
1) Meet Bill
2) Blindness
3) Bangkok Dangerous
4) The Happening
5) Untraceable
Meet Bill …… No,don't "meet" Bill, don't even "mess around" with Bill...it's a bad movie...no, it's worse...it's a torturous viewing experience. What is so baffling is why they made it to begin with...maybe, "just because". It does have, at least per the credits, a capable cast and a moody little plot..yet it completely misses out ...and this is supposed to be a comedy.
Blindness …..I almost walked out of this movie and probably would have except I don't do that...I hang in there no matter what. I did cry "Uncle" a couple of times but to no avail since I was the only one in the theatre....perhaps that should have been a hint of things to come. "Blindness" is one of the most unpleasant viewing experiences of my life. Not only is it quite despairing and depressing, it's also ugly and sickening.
Bangkok Dangerous… For starters this movie was awful. Where to begin reviewing it ? Maybe with Nicholas Cage's bad acting and his ever-present voice over OR the tiresome recycled plot; OR Cage's awful hair-style (it's like he wanted it to be like Tom Hanks in ”The DaVinci Code” but it ends up looking like the three stooge with the bushy hair). Even if you see this movie with a caffeine-high you'll probably still fall asleep…at least snooze a bit.. The action is almost as boring and predictable as Cage's performance.
The Happening….. This is a "wanna-be" monster movie desperately seeking a monster. But, unfortunately, M. Shyamalan's The Happening doesn't have enough happening and doesn't make much sense, much less anything close to a "Sixth Sense".
Untraceable…. This is the sort of psychological thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat, mostly so you can bolt the hell out of the theatre as soon as it ends. It is a serial killer mystery that has a good cast and a reasonably good premise and it could have been an exciting story but for the the plot heading south in the last 1/3 to 1/2 of the movie. Diane Lane stars as an FBI agent whose specialty is Internet crime. She sits at a computer most of day and tracks down crooks .Unfortunately, it ends up being a "Hack job" about hacking, hackers and hackees and will leave many viewers "hacked-off".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)