TRUE GRIT 3.5***
“True Grit" 2 is the Coen Brothers' most heroic, straight forward tale yet from a long line of outstanding movies made by them .The original "True Grit" took liberties with the book. The Coens' remain true to the original book storyline, In the first "True Grit" John Wayne won his Academy Award for playing his larger than life self as Rooster Cogburn, an aging U.S. Marshall, with ease and grace. Contrastingly, Jeff Bridges authentically inhabits Cogburn as the drunken broken down man coming to terms with his own mortality, who still possesses the remnants of “true grit”. Mattie, a very smart and shrewd 14 year old girl, hires him mainly because she sees the “grit” in him.. Young Hailee Steinfeld is a revelation as Mattie. Steinfeld and understatedly and wonderfully captures the spirit and character of Mattie . She is no nonsense and razor sharp. Matt Damon solidly plays the somewhat pompous Texas Ranger LaBoeuf—the Glenn Campbell role in the first movie. Damon shows again how versatile he is as an actor. He is with Cogburn and Mattie off and on during the hunt for Chaney and at the end.
Mattie seeks vengeance for the murder of her father by Tom Chaney ( Josh Brolin) who hastily fled to join up with outlaw Ned Pepper and his crew in the Indian Nations . Mattie aims to see Chaney hanged in her home state or brought back dead. Mattie often has Cogburn and Le Boeuf on their intellectual heels, but she is beholding to them for her very life. And the unlikely trio find danger and surprises on their journey, and each has his or her "grit" tested.
“True Grit” crackles and pops across the sweeping vistas of the Wild West, a time where the frontier actually existed, where young girls could pursue their father's killer in the name of revenge, and a time where a U.S. Marshall could be judge, jury, and executioner without any real appeal. The Coen Brothers have crafted a Western adventure that is everything a great Western should be . They take us back to a simpler time, where men roamed the wilderness and where things were either good or bad, and it is this simplicity that makes “ True Grit “the superb achievement that it is. And Coen Brothers fans will not be disappointed because this film very definitely has the Coen touch and feel to it.
This is one of the best films of the year. However, the PG-13 rating is somewhat misleading as it is on the very cusp of being rated R for the violence.
Clark
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Sunday, December 19, 2010
THE TOURIST 3.0**** Barely
We're all used to seeing Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie in dramatic/action roles and it's so easy to forget that they can be lighthearted and funny. But they can be and are in this film.. Johnny shines, as he always does. Angelina Jolie looks glorious, and when she smiles, the screen lights up and I melt down.. They don't have chemistry, some critics say. Oh yes, they do. More importantly, they seem to be enjoying themselves.
Johnny plays an American math teacher called Frank who, while on holiday in Europe, is approached on a train by a mysterious and beautiful woman called Elise (Angie ). Little does he know, however, that he's actually being used by her as a decoy to shift police attention from her lover - a financial 'whizz-kid' who ripped off a scummy criminal and now owes the British government over 700 million Euros in taxable funds. In a case of mistaken identity, the angry defrauded criminal assumes Frank is her thieving lover and Frank ends up being plunged into a whole web of intrigue, pursued by both the cops and the robbers. At the same time, he's trying to battle his own increasing infatuation with Elise.
This is a rather sophisticated and old-fashioned movie and its all the better for it. It would be easy to imagine this being made in 60s with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn starring in the lead roles. As Frank, Johnny Depp once again shows us why he's one of the best out there. It's easy to imagine George Clooney – surely the aforementioned Grant's heir - playing this role, but Depp is more effective and brings a more earthy quality, able to play both plain and debonair at the drop of a hat. Similarly, Angelina Jolie is convincing as the conflicted mystery woman Elise, and puts in a nice understated performance while at the same time never looking better. The chemistry between them starts slowly and builds as they interact. In fact the interplay between them for the first 40 minutes is absolutely brilliant.
A PG-13 rating means there is little violence or sex or naughty words.
Clark
We're all used to seeing Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie in dramatic/action roles and it's so easy to forget that they can be lighthearted and funny. But they can be and are in this film.. Johnny shines, as he always does. Angelina Jolie looks glorious, and when she smiles, the screen lights up and I melt down.. They don't have chemistry, some critics say. Oh yes, they do. More importantly, they seem to be enjoying themselves.
Johnny plays an American math teacher called Frank who, while on holiday in Europe, is approached on a train by a mysterious and beautiful woman called Elise (Angie ). Little does he know, however, that he's actually being used by her as a decoy to shift police attention from her lover - a financial 'whizz-kid' who ripped off a scummy criminal and now owes the British government over 700 million Euros in taxable funds. In a case of mistaken identity, the angry defrauded criminal assumes Frank is her thieving lover and Frank ends up being plunged into a whole web of intrigue, pursued by both the cops and the robbers. At the same time, he's trying to battle his own increasing infatuation with Elise.
This is a rather sophisticated and old-fashioned movie and its all the better for it. It would be easy to imagine this being made in 60s with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn starring in the lead roles. As Frank, Johnny Depp once again shows us why he's one of the best out there. It's easy to imagine George Clooney – surely the aforementioned Grant's heir - playing this role, but Depp is more effective and brings a more earthy quality, able to play both plain and debonair at the drop of a hat. Similarly, Angelina Jolie is convincing as the conflicted mystery woman Elise, and puts in a nice understated performance while at the same time never looking better. The chemistry between them starts slowly and builds as they interact. In fact the interplay between them for the first 40 minutes is absolutely brilliant.
A PG-13 rating means there is little violence or sex or naughty words.
Clark
Thursday, December 9, 2010
BURLESQUE 3.0***
“Burlesque” is a dazzling movie musical.. a sensual delight.. not just because there are a bevy of beautiful women in very sexy costumes dancing and strutting their stuff… and there is a lot of fine stuff. But then, what else would you expect in a movie about burlesque. If you are offended or embarrassed by the beauty of the female body then go see “Toy Story 3” again.
The story is not unique and has been often used. Ali, a young talented, very attractive girl from Iowa (Christine Aguilera) decides to leave home and go to, where else, but Los Angeles and pursue a singing career She ends up at a burlesque theatre owned and operated by Tess (Cher). Tess initially flatly refuses to hire her but Ali ends up being a bar waitress and from there literally soaks up all she sees and hears on and off the stage. Backed by newfound friends amongst the theater's crew, she eventually manages to get on stage and dance and eventually sing. Things take a dramatic turn when Ali's big voice makes her become the main attraction of the burlesque revue.
The film has it’s good and bad points. First the Bad;
+ Historically and artistically the movie does not show TRUE burlesque which is usually a solo performance with a theme and with stripping although usually done with a lot of feathers and balloons or other obstructions. Instead this movie gives you Las Vegas style production numbers with lots of girls with burlesque as the ongoing theme. But the production numbers are terrific with a lot of energy, great music and sensational dancing…and of course gorgeous women.
+ Christina Aguilera is excellent in the movie but is overused ..too much singing from one performer, even a very good performer, become repetitious and tiresome. There should have been at least one more singer in addition to CA and Cher.
Now the Good;
+ It’s great to have Cher back in a role perfect for her. She does a great and shows that she can still belt out a tune like nobody’s business.
+Christine Aguilera, while overused for singing, is excellent and proves she can shake her stuff, i.e. “dance” with the best of them in addition to being a good actress. Of course, everyone knows or should know how well she sings.
+The film’s production, especially for the dance numbers, is sensational…on the same high scale as “Chicago” and “Nine”.
+It’s a lot of fun..it’s “feel good” and it’s sexy.. it doesn’t get much better than that.
Rated PG-13 for sexual content including several suggestive dance routines, partial nudity, and some language but overall it is relatively tame.
Clark
“Burlesque” is a dazzling movie musical.. a sensual delight.. not just because there are a bevy of beautiful women in very sexy costumes dancing and strutting their stuff… and there is a lot of fine stuff. But then, what else would you expect in a movie about burlesque. If you are offended or embarrassed by the beauty of the female body then go see “Toy Story 3” again.
The story is not unique and has been often used. Ali, a young talented, very attractive girl from Iowa (Christine Aguilera) decides to leave home and go to, where else, but Los Angeles and pursue a singing career She ends up at a burlesque theatre owned and operated by Tess (Cher). Tess initially flatly refuses to hire her but Ali ends up being a bar waitress and from there literally soaks up all she sees and hears on and off the stage. Backed by newfound friends amongst the theater's crew, she eventually manages to get on stage and dance and eventually sing. Things take a dramatic turn when Ali's big voice makes her become the main attraction of the burlesque revue.
The film has it’s good and bad points. First the Bad;
+ Historically and artistically the movie does not show TRUE burlesque which is usually a solo performance with a theme and with stripping although usually done with a lot of feathers and balloons or other obstructions. Instead this movie gives you Las Vegas style production numbers with lots of girls with burlesque as the ongoing theme. But the production numbers are terrific with a lot of energy, great music and sensational dancing…and of course gorgeous women.
+ Christina Aguilera is excellent in the movie but is overused ..too much singing from one performer, even a very good performer, become repetitious and tiresome. There should have been at least one more singer in addition to CA and Cher.
Now the Good;
+ It’s great to have Cher back in a role perfect for her. She does a great and shows that she can still belt out a tune like nobody’s business.
+Christine Aguilera, while overused for singing, is excellent and proves she can shake her stuff, i.e. “dance” with the best of them in addition to being a good actress. Of course, everyone knows or should know how well she sings.
+The film’s production, especially for the dance numbers, is sensational…on the same high scale as “Chicago” and “Nine”.
+It’s a lot of fun..it’s “feel good” and it’s sexy.. it doesn’t get much better than that.
Rated PG-13 for sexual content including several suggestive dance routines, partial nudity, and some language but overall it is relatively tame.
Clark
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
FAIR GAME 3.0*** (almost 3.5***)
This film, which is based upon actual events, sets out to accomplish two things—to expose the Bush Administration’s deliberate falsification and manipulation of info about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) to purposely bring about the Iraq War and to watch a married couple under intense pressure, Valerie Plame ( played by Naomi Watts) and Joe Wilson (Played by Sean Penn), get swept up in the Iraq controversy. The first half follows Valerie Plame as she goes about her work as a CIA covert operative. But she cares about the promises she makes to "assets" (people who are working undercover for the CIA) and she is dedicated to her country. She soon finds out that those who run the countrydon’t give a darn about her. She is dumped, fast and hard, when her name is purposely revealed to and reported by the media through revelations from a high ranking source in Vice President Chaney’s Office. She is dumped as retribution for her husband, Joe Wilson, having reported that the White House was lying about the WMDs. Friends and colleagues at work don't want anything else to do with her. They tell her to forget the promises she made to her “assets” whose lives depended on trusting her. But blustery Joe Wilson is fully prepared to fight back. It's his country, not Cheney's or Bush's, and he's going to stand up for the integrity of his name. As it turns out…Good Luck, Joe. When the White House is out to get you, consider yourself gotten. They'll use all their extensive powers to destroy you and your wife and children.
I have to confess that I am a harsh critic of the Bush Administration and the Iraq War, so viewing this movie I got all riled up and spitting mad all over again. Especially the scene of the real State of the Union speech by Bush when he informs the Country of a secret transaction between Iraq and Niger involving aluminum tubes which he said were for purposes of making WMDs. He and his War Hawks knew full well that the intelligence was false, but used it anyway to promote a declaration of war. We were manipulated, tricked, deceived. If they had not used false intelligence, Bush would probably not have gotten support for the war. The consequences of that deception affect us to this very day. ( I somewhat apologize for the editorial remarks here which I always try to avoid in a review, but this is one time and probably the only time I feel so strongly about an issue that I had to speak my mind). By the way, when Plame’s identity was disclosed , a dozen clandestine operations that she was overseeing were jeopardized, and a number of assets, including Iraqi weapons scientists, were killed. This action was unique, because no White House in the history of the United States had ever divulged the identity of our spies for any purpose.
The story, which is based upon actual events, is realistic and quite suspenseful, the acting is excellent and the overall look and feel of the film is top notch.
Clark
Bottom of Form
This film, which is based upon actual events, sets out to accomplish two things—to expose the Bush Administration’s deliberate falsification and manipulation of info about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) to purposely bring about the Iraq War and to watch a married couple under intense pressure, Valerie Plame ( played by Naomi Watts) and Joe Wilson (Played by Sean Penn), get swept up in the Iraq controversy. The first half follows Valerie Plame as she goes about her work as a CIA covert operative. But she cares about the promises she makes to "assets" (people who are working undercover for the CIA) and she is dedicated to her country. She soon finds out that those who run the countrydon’t give a darn about her. She is dumped, fast and hard, when her name is purposely revealed to and reported by the media through revelations from a high ranking source in Vice President Chaney’s Office. She is dumped as retribution for her husband, Joe Wilson, having reported that the White House was lying about the WMDs. Friends and colleagues at work don't want anything else to do with her. They tell her to forget the promises she made to her “assets” whose lives depended on trusting her. But blustery Joe Wilson is fully prepared to fight back. It's his country, not Cheney's or Bush's, and he's going to stand up for the integrity of his name. As it turns out…Good Luck, Joe. When the White House is out to get you, consider yourself gotten. They'll use all their extensive powers to destroy you and your wife and children.
I have to confess that I am a harsh critic of the Bush Administration and the Iraq War, so viewing this movie I got all riled up and spitting mad all over again. Especially the scene of the real State of the Union speech by Bush when he informs the Country of a secret transaction between Iraq and Niger involving aluminum tubes which he said were for purposes of making WMDs. He and his War Hawks knew full well that the intelligence was false, but used it anyway to promote a declaration of war. We were manipulated, tricked, deceived. If they had not used false intelligence, Bush would probably not have gotten support for the war. The consequences of that deception affect us to this very day. ( I somewhat apologize for the editorial remarks here which I always try to avoid in a review, but this is one time and probably the only time I feel so strongly about an issue that I had to speak my mind). By the way, when Plame’s identity was disclosed , a dozen clandestine operations that she was overseeing were jeopardized, and a number of assets, including Iraqi weapons scientists, were killed. This action was unique, because no White House in the history of the United States had ever divulged the identity of our spies for any purpose.
The story, which is based upon actual events, is realistic and quite suspenseful, the acting is excellent and the overall look and feel of the film is top notch.
Clark
Bottom of Form
Saturday, December 4, 2010
MORNING GLORY 3.0****
M
Rachel McAdams leads the way in this surprisingly refreshing flick as the workaholic television morning show producer, Becky, who lands the job of reorganizing "the worst morning show ever". She only has a short time to save the show because of it’s plummeting ratings, and in doing so must battle with low worker morale, highly conceited anchors, and poor working conditions. Desperate for a change, she recruits the legendary newscaster Mike Pomeroy, played by Harrison Ford, who is not willing to cover any story he does not consider "worthy of his reputation".
The film brings not just a comic story of working with grumpy people, but the beautiful emotional tale of a girl who desperately hopes to realize her dream of being a television producer by somehow pulling everyone together against the odds and creating a team, almost a family, in the process. Although the story is not unique, the chemistry between the impressive cast is the movie's redeeming quality. Across the board, the acting is quite good, but in all honesty the movie owes its success to McAdams and Ford. Rachel McAdams should be commended for playing the frustrated role of the driven and often frustrated Becky, and proves that she has much more to offer than a just pretty face. Harrison Ford fully embraces the character of Pomeroy and does a wonderful job being grumpy, conceited, and an all-around jerk in one of his best roles as of late. Diane Keaton is amazing. Her Colleen could have been a shallow beauty queen washout. Keaton gives Colleen a self awareness and whimsy.
Morning Glory is a nice tale that will leave you with a sweet taste in your mouth. Combined with some real solid acting, this is a movie you'll be glad you checked out.
M
Rachel McAdams leads the way in this surprisingly refreshing flick as the workaholic television morning show producer, Becky, who lands the job of reorganizing "the worst morning show ever". She only has a short time to save the show because of it’s plummeting ratings, and in doing so must battle with low worker morale, highly conceited anchors, and poor working conditions. Desperate for a change, she recruits the legendary newscaster Mike Pomeroy, played by Harrison Ford, who is not willing to cover any story he does not consider "worthy of his reputation".
The film brings not just a comic story of working with grumpy people, but the beautiful emotional tale of a girl who desperately hopes to realize her dream of being a television producer by somehow pulling everyone together against the odds and creating a team, almost a family, in the process. Although the story is not unique, the chemistry between the impressive cast is the movie's redeeming quality. Across the board, the acting is quite good, but in all honesty the movie owes its success to McAdams and Ford. Rachel McAdams should be commended for playing the frustrated role of the driven and often frustrated Becky, and proves that she has much more to offer than a just pretty face. Harrison Ford fully embraces the character of Pomeroy and does a wonderful job being grumpy, conceited, and an all-around jerk in one of his best roles as of late. Diane Keaton is amazing. Her Colleen could have been a shallow beauty queen washout. Keaton gives Colleen a self awareness and whimsy.
Morning Glory is a nice tale that will leave you with a sweet taste in your mouth. Combined with some real solid acting, this is a movie you'll be glad you checked out.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
UNSTOPPABLE 3.5****
Loosely based on a true story from 2001, “Unstoppable” is a tension packed, heart-racing roller-coaster of a movie about an unmanned, runaway train carrying a payload of highly flammable fuel and toxic waste that is heading straight for the densely populated of Stanton, Pennsylvania at 70mph. Several human errors by an incompetent train driver and his colleagues allows the out of control train to leave the train yard unmanned without brakes or an automatic cut off system … and from then on, the race is on to try and stop this out of control half-mile long train from devastating a city.
The true star is the train, a runaway monster ("a missile the size of the Chrysler Building" as one protagonist puts it) accelerates quickly to 70 m.p.h. along southern Pennsylvania, first through rural areas then into densely populated towns and cities, towards Stanton, PA and a fateful curve in on an elevated section of the rail with huge oil tanks underneath . Not enough? The train is carrying thousands of gallons of fuel and eight cars filled with highly toxic and explosive chemicals.
The pace of the film starts relatively slow but then quickly ratchets up until it is utterly, utterly relentless - there's no time to breathe here, just one near disaster after another… one heroic effort after another … all done in reality ( there is almost no computer generated special effects)…with frantic conversations intermixed to quickly set up the next danger faced by our blue-collar heroes. These are real huge trains and real flesh and blood people with lots of collisions, twisted metal and explosions. The key thing for the movie to succeed is that there be heroes that the audience can root for, and in that regard, I cannot think of anyone better than Denzel Washington. Teaming with him, co-star Chris Pine (Capt. Kirk in the recent remake of “Star Trek”) comes through with an excellent performance. The pair play the familiar know-it-all young guy vs. the wise, experienced veteran who start out with animosity and finish as…. well you have to see the movie but you’re allowed to guess.. They each have their own "human story" – a not-really-so-old engineer forced into early retirement with half-pension and a greenhorn conductor eager to prove himself (while troubled and distracted by marital problems). These background stories are necessary to lift the characters out of a single-dimension existence, but the focus is aptly placed on their exciting and heroic efforts to stop the runaway train.
Ably directed by Tony Scott (who has something of a history with trains and Denzel Washington – “Taking of Pelham 123”, “Man on Fire”), “Unstoppable” features some really good camera work, low ground shots, blur in movement, close-up action … and a very imaginative use of sound and music …all the things that really emphasize the feeling of locomotive power, speed and imminent destruction. Scott continues to be an in-demand action film director, and this film contributes to that winning streak. He applied that age old rule for success: “If it ain't broke, don't fix it”.
Clark
________________________________________
Loosely based on a true story from 2001, “Unstoppable” is a tension packed, heart-racing roller-coaster of a movie about an unmanned, runaway train carrying a payload of highly flammable fuel and toxic waste that is heading straight for the densely populated of Stanton, Pennsylvania at 70mph. Several human errors by an incompetent train driver and his colleagues allows the out of control train to leave the train yard unmanned without brakes or an automatic cut off system … and from then on, the race is on to try and stop this out of control half-mile long train from devastating a city.
The true star is the train, a runaway monster ("a missile the size of the Chrysler Building" as one protagonist puts it) accelerates quickly to 70 m.p.h. along southern Pennsylvania, first through rural areas then into densely populated towns and cities, towards Stanton, PA and a fateful curve in on an elevated section of the rail with huge oil tanks underneath . Not enough? The train is carrying thousands of gallons of fuel and eight cars filled with highly toxic and explosive chemicals.
The pace of the film starts relatively slow but then quickly ratchets up until it is utterly, utterly relentless - there's no time to breathe here, just one near disaster after another… one heroic effort after another … all done in reality ( there is almost no computer generated special effects)…with frantic conversations intermixed to quickly set up the next danger faced by our blue-collar heroes. These are real huge trains and real flesh and blood people with lots of collisions, twisted metal and explosions. The key thing for the movie to succeed is that there be heroes that the audience can root for, and in that regard, I cannot think of anyone better than Denzel Washington. Teaming with him, co-star Chris Pine (Capt. Kirk in the recent remake of “Star Trek”) comes through with an excellent performance. The pair play the familiar know-it-all young guy vs. the wise, experienced veteran who start out with animosity and finish as…. well you have to see the movie but you’re allowed to guess.. They each have their own "human story" – a not-really-so-old engineer forced into early retirement with half-pension and a greenhorn conductor eager to prove himself (while troubled and distracted by marital problems). These background stories are necessary to lift the characters out of a single-dimension existence, but the focus is aptly placed on their exciting and heroic efforts to stop the runaway train.
Ably directed by Tony Scott (who has something of a history with trains and Denzel Washington – “Taking of Pelham 123”, “Man on Fire”), “Unstoppable” features some really good camera work, low ground shots, blur in movement, close-up action … and a very imaginative use of sound and music …all the things that really emphasize the feeling of locomotive power, speed and imminent destruction. Scott continues to be an in-demand action film director, and this film contributes to that winning streak. He applied that age old rule for success: “If it ain't broke, don't fix it”.
Clark
________________________________________
Monday, November 15, 2010
THE GIRL WHO KICKED THE HORNET”S NEST 3.0***
Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace) is back in "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest", the third and final installment of the late Swedish author Stieg Larsson's trilogy. The first two were the "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" and "The Girl Who Played With Fire". But don't worry too much if you didn't see the first two films. There is a quick intro at the beginning that helps… but admittedly it is much better if you seen or read the first two.
The movie starts with Lisbeth is in the hospital, in critical condition. But there is little doubt for those who have come to know her fascinating character that nothing short of death itself can stop our tiny, but powerful, typhoon of a woman. Not only is she battling for her life from severe gunshot wounds, including one to her head, but also even if she recovers, she is going to trial for the attempted murder of her horribly abusive father. Once again, her only ally is journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist). But we've seen them team up twice before, and despite some hefty obstacles, they stand a good chance against bad odds.
Aside from the recovery time in the hospital, much of the film focuses on the ins and outs of the law and we’re talking about “Swedish” law which is much different from American law. The rest and best part of the film tales place in the court room and manages to not only keep your interest, but also be incredibly engaging. Maybe it's because everything comes together from the first two films This is not to say that “Hornet’s Nest” is as good as the first of the series..”The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo” .” There’s nothing like novelty to evoke special interest. Once you’ve marveled at the punk-Mohawk-haired-biker-clothed character of the lead girl, Lisbeth Salander, and her unbelievable physical and mental skills, you know you’ve seen something/someone completely new and original on the screen. But after those initial marvelous moments of discovery, and with time, the novelty wears off and you become somewhat accustomed to even this very unique character.
All in all, “The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest” is both a fitting end to and a last hurrah for a brilliant trilogy of first the 3 books and then the 3 Swedish films.
Clark
Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace) is back in "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest", the third and final installment of the late Swedish author Stieg Larsson's trilogy. The first two were the "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" and "The Girl Who Played With Fire". But don't worry too much if you didn't see the first two films. There is a quick intro at the beginning that helps… but admittedly it is much better if you seen or read the first two.
The movie starts with Lisbeth is in the hospital, in critical condition. But there is little doubt for those who have come to know her fascinating character that nothing short of death itself can stop our tiny, but powerful, typhoon of a woman. Not only is she battling for her life from severe gunshot wounds, including one to her head, but also even if she recovers, she is going to trial for the attempted murder of her horribly abusive father. Once again, her only ally is journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist). But we've seen them team up twice before, and despite some hefty obstacles, they stand a good chance against bad odds.
Aside from the recovery time in the hospital, much of the film focuses on the ins and outs of the law and we’re talking about “Swedish” law which is much different from American law. The rest and best part of the film tales place in the court room and manages to not only keep your interest, but also be incredibly engaging. Maybe it's because everything comes together from the first two films This is not to say that “Hornet’s Nest” is as good as the first of the series..”The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo” .” There’s nothing like novelty to evoke special interest. Once you’ve marveled at the punk-Mohawk-haired-biker-clothed character of the lead girl, Lisbeth Salander, and her unbelievable physical and mental skills, you know you’ve seen something/someone completely new and original on the screen. But after those initial marvelous moments of discovery, and with time, the novelty wears off and you become somewhat accustomed to even this very unique character.
All in all, “The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest” is both a fitting end to and a last hurrah for a brilliant trilogy of first the 3 books and then the 3 Swedish films.
Clark
HEREAFTER 2.0**
What is this movie about. Is it about the supernatural. Well only if you do not believe in an afterlife or the hereafter in which case you’d have to rely upon the idea of the supernatural to consider the concept. I think the subject of afterlife must have been on Director, Clint Eastwood’s mind. After all, he is rapidly approaching 80 years old and his own mortality. His last film, “Gran Torino” had so much story and feeling. So, I was surprised at how plodding this movie was… partly because it is way too long by at least 30 minutes. After a great opening (a simulation of what it must have been like for those caught in the 2004 tsunami), a young French woman briefly has what has become referred to as a near death experience (“NDE”). But the movie, unfortunately fails to capture this eventful moment. It's almost as if Eastwood has never read the numerous accounts of those who experienced near death. With all the new computer generation/special effects available, he could have done so much better…at a minimum, there should have been a glorious 'tunnel of light'… but all we get is out-of-focus silhouettes.
This drama is about three lonely people each living in different countries whose lives become connected in an unforeseeable, yet touching way. The story centers on Matt Damon, an American, who apparently has the psychic ability of contacting the recently departed, however, he believes that this "gift" is a "curse" because it renders him a social outcast. There is also the French woman who had the tsunami NDE and a troubled British boy grieving over the loss of his twin brother. The NDE was so life-altering to the young French lady that she leaves her primary job as a political reporter and writes a book about her NDE experience and how the media trivializes the phenomena. Her book references her research and discusses all the expert testimony that supports the persuasive facts about NDE experiences, and the correlation between science and the afterlife. And then…the movie tells us nothing. It simply glosses over anything substantial in the way of research. The question to me, and the main problem I had with the movie is why start the conversation, if you aren't going to offer even a small hint of the answers? From the testimonials/research of those who have experienced an NDE there is far more involved than just a chemical reaction to the body starting to shut down. Much more. But, all we are left with in this movie is the frustration of why not tell us more.
My reaction to this movie is in the minority compared with most of the critics who are giving the movie high praise. Well, it just didn’t move me. It was slow and it missed the chance to explore a fascinating subject. Instead, it only hinted at the “hereafter” and those who have possibly glanced at it in some fashion.
Clark
What is this movie about. Is it about the supernatural. Well only if you do not believe in an afterlife or the hereafter in which case you’d have to rely upon the idea of the supernatural to consider the concept. I think the subject of afterlife must have been on Director, Clint Eastwood’s mind. After all, he is rapidly approaching 80 years old and his own mortality. His last film, “Gran Torino” had so much story and feeling. So, I was surprised at how plodding this movie was… partly because it is way too long by at least 30 minutes. After a great opening (a simulation of what it must have been like for those caught in the 2004 tsunami), a young French woman briefly has what has become referred to as a near death experience (“NDE”). But the movie, unfortunately fails to capture this eventful moment. It's almost as if Eastwood has never read the numerous accounts of those who experienced near death. With all the new computer generation/special effects available, he could have done so much better…at a minimum, there should have been a glorious 'tunnel of light'… but all we get is out-of-focus silhouettes.
This drama is about three lonely people each living in different countries whose lives become connected in an unforeseeable, yet touching way. The story centers on Matt Damon, an American, who apparently has the psychic ability of contacting the recently departed, however, he believes that this "gift" is a "curse" because it renders him a social outcast. There is also the French woman who had the tsunami NDE and a troubled British boy grieving over the loss of his twin brother. The NDE was so life-altering to the young French lady that she leaves her primary job as a political reporter and writes a book about her NDE experience and how the media trivializes the phenomena. Her book references her research and discusses all the expert testimony that supports the persuasive facts about NDE experiences, and the correlation between science and the afterlife. And then…the movie tells us nothing. It simply glosses over anything substantial in the way of research. The question to me, and the main problem I had with the movie is why start the conversation, if you aren't going to offer even a small hint of the answers? From the testimonials/research of those who have experienced an NDE there is far more involved than just a chemical reaction to the body starting to shut down. Much more. But, all we are left with in this movie is the frustration of why not tell us more.
My reaction to this movie is in the minority compared with most of the critics who are giving the movie high praise. Well, it just didn’t move me. It was slow and it missed the chance to explore a fascinating subject. Instead, it only hinted at the “hereafter” and those who have possibly glanced at it in some fashion.
Clark
Sunday, October 31, 2010
WAITING FOR SUPERMAN 3.0***
This documentary sends out shock-waves of frustration and a sense of futility when it explores the state of America's public schools. Interviews with education specialists, school superintendents and even Bill Gates add up to an impressive assembly of informed adults who know what the problem is, but haven't figured out a way to fix it on a large scale.
Washington, D.C. schools superintendent Michelle Rhee says it well when she summarizes the basic problem: "Public schools fail when children's education becomes about the adults." The adults who fail these children are not limited to public officials and government bureaucrats although a large portion of the blame is reserved for ineffective teachers and the teachers' unions who ensure that those bad teachers receive tenure and cannot be removed from schools even for cause.. The documentary focuses on five public school children who represent inner-city kids with broken families and day-to-day financial struggles (except for a student of middle-class parents in the Silicon Valley). With that one exception, all are enrolled in failing public elementary schools and have little chance of graduating high school if they move on to the regularly assigned secondary schools in their districts. Often their only hope is to literally win the a lottery drawing for limited spaces at public charter schools and rare, effective public schools within or outside of their district. The film deals with a tangled web of adult issues that make a child's education more difficult, which probably puts it outside the spectrum of interest for most kids under age 12. .
Top of Form
Waiting for Superman is useful as a way to get people who have no idea what's going on what is going on to at least get the cliff-notes version of it. It is, in short, a good documentary but not quite a great
one, and will be a big upper or a big downer depending on who you are in the audience, if you have kids, if you're a teacher, or if you're a politician.
Clark
This documentary sends out shock-waves of frustration and a sense of futility when it explores the state of America's public schools. Interviews with education specialists, school superintendents and even Bill Gates add up to an impressive assembly of informed adults who know what the problem is, but haven't figured out a way to fix it on a large scale.
Washington, D.C. schools superintendent Michelle Rhee says it well when she summarizes the basic problem: "Public schools fail when children's education becomes about the adults." The adults who fail these children are not limited to public officials and government bureaucrats although a large portion of the blame is reserved for ineffective teachers and the teachers' unions who ensure that those bad teachers receive tenure and cannot be removed from schools even for cause.. The documentary focuses on five public school children who represent inner-city kids with broken families and day-to-day financial struggles (except for a student of middle-class parents in the Silicon Valley). With that one exception, all are enrolled in failing public elementary schools and have little chance of graduating high school if they move on to the regularly assigned secondary schools in their districts. Often their only hope is to literally win the a lottery drawing for limited spaces at public charter schools and rare, effective public schools within or outside of their district. The film deals with a tangled web of adult issues that make a child's education more difficult, which probably puts it outside the spectrum of interest for most kids under age 12. .
Top of Form
Waiting for Superman is useful as a way to get people who have no idea what's going on what is going on to at least get the cliff-notes version of it. It is, in short, a good documentary but not quite a great
one, and will be a big upper or a big downer depending on who you are in the audience, if you have kids, if you're a teacher, or if you're a politician.
Clark
Thursday, October 7, 2010
LET ME IN 4.0*** for the genre and 3.5*** overall
To begin with, I was quite skeptical at the thought of an American version/remake of the beautifully haunting Swedish film “Let The Right One”. But after seeing it, I'm happy to report that Director Matt Reeves has knocked it out of the park! This is an incredible movie... dare I say even as good as “Let The Right One In”. It is truly hard to believe that flawless adaptations ( it's based on the same book) of this great story could be done this well twice. But the level of skill on every point is startling. These are two of the best vampire film stories to come around in years. And since Director Reeves faithfully sticks to the story it means an audience who may not have watched the subtitled original will get a chance to take it in.
“Let Me In” is not the in-your-face horror movie as the previews would lead you to believe. “Let Me In” is actually a rather tender tale of boy meets vampire girl and how they come to bond with each other. Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is a twelve year-old who is constantly and brutally bullied at school and has no friends and lives with an alcoholic mother. One night, Owen meets a strange, but friendly girl who moves in next door. She is 12 (more or less) and appears perfectly normal except she walks around barefoot in the snow. Her name is Abby (Chloe Grace Moretz) and as Owen gradually learns, she is anything but normal… she is a 250 year old vampire who was frozen in time as a 12 year old girl when she was vampirized .
Nobody could have ever predicted that someone could reproduce “Let the Right One In” in a way that is both original and different but at the same time faithful to the story. The performances by Kodi Smit-Mcphee and Chloe Grace Moretz are absolutely stunning. The films directing is right on…he let the child actors teach him what 12 year olds are like and he learned well…and the sound track is awesome… somber and lilting during the quiet moments and “Psycho”- like during the horror moments…great contrast.
The story and the film are a wonderful study of human nature and asks important questions. Are there truly evil people in the world? And are they always evil, or can they actually be wonderful in the eyes of someone else ? One of the great strengths of this film is that it constantly moves between two worlds--the sweetness of youth, and the true horror of what a vampire really is. We get a front row seat to both you’re left to decide if the evil outweighs the good.
If you’re a vampire movie fan, it’s a must see. If you’re a novice at this kind of film, this is a good one to “cut your teeth on”.
Clak
To begin with, I was quite skeptical at the thought of an American version/remake of the beautifully haunting Swedish film “Let The Right One”. But after seeing it, I'm happy to report that Director Matt Reeves has knocked it out of the park! This is an incredible movie... dare I say even as good as “Let The Right One In”. It is truly hard to believe that flawless adaptations ( it's based on the same book) of this great story could be done this well twice. But the level of skill on every point is startling. These are two of the best vampire film stories to come around in years. And since Director Reeves faithfully sticks to the story it means an audience who may not have watched the subtitled original will get a chance to take it in.
“Let Me In” is not the in-your-face horror movie as the previews would lead you to believe. “Let Me In” is actually a rather tender tale of boy meets vampire girl and how they come to bond with each other. Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is a twelve year-old who is constantly and brutally bullied at school and has no friends and lives with an alcoholic mother. One night, Owen meets a strange, but friendly girl who moves in next door. She is 12 (more or less) and appears perfectly normal except she walks around barefoot in the snow. Her name is Abby (Chloe Grace Moretz) and as Owen gradually learns, she is anything but normal… she is a 250 year old vampire who was frozen in time as a 12 year old girl when she was vampirized .
Nobody could have ever predicted that someone could reproduce “Let the Right One In” in a way that is both original and different but at the same time faithful to the story. The performances by Kodi Smit-Mcphee and Chloe Grace Moretz are absolutely stunning. The films directing is right on…he let the child actors teach him what 12 year olds are like and he learned well…and the sound track is awesome… somber and lilting during the quiet moments and “Psycho”- like during the horror moments…great contrast.
The story and the film are a wonderful study of human nature and asks important questions. Are there truly evil people in the world? And are they always evil, or can they actually be wonderful in the eyes of someone else ? One of the great strengths of this film is that it constantly moves between two worlds--the sweetness of youth, and the true horror of what a vampire really is. We get a front row seat to both you’re left to decide if the evil outweighs the good.
If you’re a vampire movie fan, it’s a must see. If you’re a novice at this kind of film, this is a good one to “cut your teeth on”.
Clak
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
MY NAME IS KHAN 4.0***
If there is a movie worth watching this year, then it has to be this one as it contains a pure and simple message, not just for one person, or a religion, but for everyone, a message for humanity. The lead character, Rizvan Khan, suffers from Asperger Syndrome, a form of autism that allows the person to function more than otherwise. Born with this social interaction disability, Rizvan detests anything yellow or loud, but is gifted with the ability of repairing most any kind of appliance.. Events lead him to the US to live with his brother where he falls in love with and marries the vivacious Mandira who has a son by a prior marriage. Things change after 9/11 when Mandira’s son is killed as the outgrowth of intense communal hatred for Muslims and, therefore, his Muslim last name ‘Khan’. Heartbroken Mandira comes to hate her husband, Rizvan, for marrying her and giving her and her now dead son his Muslim last name. It is now up to Khan to regain his lost love!
The movie brings home very vividly the message that not every Muslim is a terrorist, and Rizvan’s mission, his obsession, is to tell this to the US President, and by doing so, he hopes to win back Mandira. Many obstacles are thrown in his path, including his being suspected of being a terrorist and the imprisonment and torture that follows. But nothing deters our undaunted hero who even generously offers to repair the air conditioner in the prison! Ah yes, he also teaches us about the correct pronunciation of his Muslim name “Khan”
Khan’s perception of life is as his beloved mother taught him: the world includes only two groups of people – good people and bad people. This may be overly general yet is so very true. The memory of his mother follows him always. The portrayal of Rizvan’s childhood is amazing. His relationship with the love of his life, Mandira who works as a hairdresser and who ultimately agrees to marry him, is totally charming. And his efforts to win her back are awe-inspiring and heartwarming, and are guaranteed to bring many tears to your eyes.
Simply stated this is a wonderful film that should not be missed. It comes out of India from the Bollywood franchise but is way beyond their usual fare. This is excellent and should be nominated for Best Foreign film and should probably win,
NOTE: You’ll have to rent this one as it came out earlier this year. Also, since it’s an authentic Indian film, you’ll have to read subtitles most of the time BUT it is worth it.
Clark
If there is a movie worth watching this year, then it has to be this one as it contains a pure and simple message, not just for one person, or a religion, but for everyone, a message for humanity. The lead character, Rizvan Khan, suffers from Asperger Syndrome, a form of autism that allows the person to function more than otherwise. Born with this social interaction disability, Rizvan detests anything yellow or loud, but is gifted with the ability of repairing most any kind of appliance.. Events lead him to the US to live with his brother where he falls in love with and marries the vivacious Mandira who has a son by a prior marriage. Things change after 9/11 when Mandira’s son is killed as the outgrowth of intense communal hatred for Muslims and, therefore, his Muslim last name ‘Khan’. Heartbroken Mandira comes to hate her husband, Rizvan, for marrying her and giving her and her now dead son his Muslim last name. It is now up to Khan to regain his lost love!
The movie brings home very vividly the message that not every Muslim is a terrorist, and Rizvan’s mission, his obsession, is to tell this to the US President, and by doing so, he hopes to win back Mandira. Many obstacles are thrown in his path, including his being suspected of being a terrorist and the imprisonment and torture that follows. But nothing deters our undaunted hero who even generously offers to repair the air conditioner in the prison! Ah yes, he also teaches us about the correct pronunciation of his Muslim name “Khan”
Khan’s perception of life is as his beloved mother taught him: the world includes only two groups of people – good people and bad people. This may be overly general yet is so very true. The memory of his mother follows him always. The portrayal of Rizvan’s childhood is amazing. His relationship with the love of his life, Mandira who works as a hairdresser and who ultimately agrees to marry him, is totally charming. And his efforts to win her back are awe-inspiring and heartwarming, and are guaranteed to bring many tears to your eyes.
Simply stated this is a wonderful film that should not be missed. It comes out of India from the Bollywood franchise but is way beyond their usual fare. This is excellent and should be nominated for Best Foreign film and should probably win,
NOTE: You’ll have to rent this one as it came out earlier this year. Also, since it’s an authentic Indian film, you’ll have to read subtitles most of the time BUT it is worth it.
Clark
Monday, October 4, 2010
WALL STREET MONEY NEVER SLEEPS 3.5***
Oliver Stone's 1987 film "Wall Street" took viewers into the exotic world of high finance and stock trading. Now, 23 years later, Oliver Stone returns with its sequel. This is the first ever sequel Stone has directed. The first movie was a huge hit as it came at time when financial news was just news and suddenly there was this movie on banking that was a thriller. This time there's nothing ground breaking about it except in gets into exotic mortgage securities and the outlandish sale of insurance to cover losses on them. This is the rare sequel that took its time (23 years) and not only advances the story but also has something new to say. Stone and his writers have crafted a tale that takes advantage of viewers' newfound knowledge and cynicism about banking and high finance and “being too big to fail.”.
Also, Stone brings Gordon Gekko back to the big screen with Michael Douglas reprising his screen-stealing role as Gekko. He is but one of many talented actors who make up the strong cast, which include Shia LeBeouf (Transformers, 2007), Carey Mulligan (An Education, 2009), Frank Langella (Frost/Nixon, 2008), Josh Brolin (No Country For Old Men, 2007), and Charlie Sheen, who played Bud Fox, a lead character in the first Wall Street, also makes a cameo appearance.
The story settles quickly on young proprietary trader Jake Moore (LaBeouf), who just happens to be in love with Winnie Gekko (Mulligan), Gekko’s estranged daughter. Despite Gekko's attempts to warn Wall Street of the economic downturn and impending stock market crash, no one takes him seriously because of his early crimes for insider trading. Then Gekko tries through Jake to rebuild his relationship with his daughter who blames him for her brother's suicide. In the mean while, the global economy is on the verge of disaster,
Can Douglas win two Oscars playing the same role? An actor rarely gets the opportunity to revive a breakthrough role in a way that allows him to rethink the character and to reflect on where fatal flaws once lay. Douglas does this brilliantly and, in my opinion, coupled with his probable death from throat cancer, he could win the Oscar posthumously. LaBeouf is top notch. He nicely balances his character's idealism and shrewdness. Mulligan and Brolin deliver strong supporting roles with attention-grabbing characters.
I say that you should go to this movie to experience Gordon Gekko after 23 years and to experience a well done classy movie by Oliver Stone. Oh too, it has a nice romantic story and is a thriller.
Clark
Oliver Stone's 1987 film "Wall Street" took viewers into the exotic world of high finance and stock trading. Now, 23 years later, Oliver Stone returns with its sequel. This is the first ever sequel Stone has directed. The first movie was a huge hit as it came at time when financial news was just news and suddenly there was this movie on banking that was a thriller. This time there's nothing ground breaking about it except in gets into exotic mortgage securities and the outlandish sale of insurance to cover losses on them. This is the rare sequel that took its time (23 years) and not only advances the story but also has something new to say. Stone and his writers have crafted a tale that takes advantage of viewers' newfound knowledge and cynicism about banking and high finance and “being too big to fail.”.
Also, Stone brings Gordon Gekko back to the big screen with Michael Douglas reprising his screen-stealing role as Gekko. He is but one of many talented actors who make up the strong cast, which include Shia LeBeouf (Transformers, 2007), Carey Mulligan (An Education, 2009), Frank Langella (Frost/Nixon, 2008), Josh Brolin (No Country For Old Men, 2007), and Charlie Sheen, who played Bud Fox, a lead character in the first Wall Street, also makes a cameo appearance.
The story settles quickly on young proprietary trader Jake Moore (LaBeouf), who just happens to be in love with Winnie Gekko (Mulligan), Gekko’s estranged daughter. Despite Gekko's attempts to warn Wall Street of the economic downturn and impending stock market crash, no one takes him seriously because of his early crimes for insider trading. Then Gekko tries through Jake to rebuild his relationship with his daughter who blames him for her brother's suicide. In the mean while, the global economy is on the verge of disaster,
Can Douglas win two Oscars playing the same role? An actor rarely gets the opportunity to revive a breakthrough role in a way that allows him to rethink the character and to reflect on where fatal flaws once lay. Douglas does this brilliantly and, in my opinion, coupled with his probable death from throat cancer, he could win the Oscar posthumously. LaBeouf is top notch. He nicely balances his character's idealism and shrewdness. Mulligan and Brolin deliver strong supporting roles with attention-grabbing characters.
I say that you should go to this movie to experience Gordon Gekko after 23 years and to experience a well done classy movie by Oliver Stone. Oh too, it has a nice romantic story and is a thriller.
Clark
Thursday, September 30, 2010
THE TOWN 4.0****
A bank robbery goes different than planned when one of the robbers takes a hostage. She is let go and Doug (Ben Affleck) has to duty to check up on the hostage to see if she knows anything about the crew. Surprise, no shock, but somehow it’s believable that they start dating. Can he continue his life of robbing banks and have a love life with the hostage? Will his crew accept that he is with her? Will she ever find out? This is a part of “The Town”.
“Gone Baby Gone was Affleck’s first directorial effort set in the city of Boston. “The Town” is his second. Ben obviously loves the city and if he keeps making films like these two, I'll be happy with more Boston Flick. And
this time Affleck is behind and in front of the camera. He seems to have left his pretty boy blockbuster image behind him. I'm thankful, I can only take so many Armageddon’s or Pearl Harbors. He's matured as an actor. Of course he's had some fun films in between, but he's probably the best thing about those.
For “The Town” he has assembled quite the cast. Jeremy Renner, who is hot off of “The Hurt Locker” plays his long time buddy with an attitude who won't think twice about pulling the trigger . TV’s “Mad Men's” Jon Hamm is the relentless, tough FBI agent on their trail. Blake Lively has a small but stunning role of the almost slutty ex-girlfriend. Rebecca Hall ( the brunette in “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”) has the difficult role of playing the woman who is dating her abductor. Things never really look promising for the relationship but…..
“The Town” also shows Affleck's ability at directing action sequences. The movie is full gunfights and car chases.. There are three separate heists in the film, the opening, the middle section and the climactic ending. All three are different from each other, one is in a bank, the other a armored truck and finally a baseball stadium. Each heist is tense and exciting.
The Town is a successful and suspenseful film made for adults. It's slick, well acted and has enough thrilling moments to keep you very entertained. “The Town” does its job as a movie quite well and Ben Affleck has found himself a new career.
NOTE: The title gets its name from the section of Boston where the movie takes place… Charlestown which in reality has the distinction of having more bank robbers from there than any other place in the world.
Clark
A bank robbery goes different than planned when one of the robbers takes a hostage. She is let go and Doug (Ben Affleck) has to duty to check up on the hostage to see if she knows anything about the crew. Surprise, no shock, but somehow it’s believable that they start dating. Can he continue his life of robbing banks and have a love life with the hostage? Will his crew accept that he is with her? Will she ever find out? This is a part of “The Town”.
“Gone Baby Gone was Affleck’s first directorial effort set in the city of Boston. “The Town” is his second. Ben obviously loves the city and if he keeps making films like these two, I'll be happy with more Boston Flick. And
this time Affleck is behind and in front of the camera. He seems to have left his pretty boy blockbuster image behind him. I'm thankful, I can only take so many Armageddon’s or Pearl Harbors. He's matured as an actor. Of course he's had some fun films in between, but he's probably the best thing about those.
For “The Town” he has assembled quite the cast. Jeremy Renner, who is hot off of “The Hurt Locker” plays his long time buddy with an attitude who won't think twice about pulling the trigger . TV’s “Mad Men's” Jon Hamm is the relentless, tough FBI agent on their trail. Blake Lively has a small but stunning role of the almost slutty ex-girlfriend. Rebecca Hall ( the brunette in “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”) has the difficult role of playing the woman who is dating her abductor. Things never really look promising for the relationship but…..
“The Town” also shows Affleck's ability at directing action sequences. The movie is full gunfights and car chases.. There are three separate heists in the film, the opening, the middle section and the climactic ending. All three are different from each other, one is in a bank, the other a armored truck and finally a baseball stadium. Each heist is tense and exciting.
The Town is a successful and suspenseful film made for adults. It's slick, well acted and has enough thrilling moments to keep you very entertained. “The Town” does its job as a movie quite well and Ben Affleck has found himself a new career.
NOTE: The title gets its name from the section of Boston where the movie takes place… Charlestown which in reality has the distinction of having more bank robbers from there than any other place in the world.
Clark
Monday, September 20, 2010
THE AMERICAN 2.75*** (almost 3.0***)
Before anybody goes to see "The American," let me give you a heads up. If you are expecting another Jason Bourne or James Bond-style of movie with a lot of action sequences ,you may want to stay home. The advertising campaign and previews give you the impression that George Clooney is taking on a role in a movie like Liam Neeson did in that marvelously powerful thriller "Taken". But that is not the case. "The American" was shot on a foreign location (Italy mostly), features a lot of foreign dialect, and was made by an Italian director with a mostly Italian cast. In other words, it's not really an American action film. It's an Italian melodrama.
We know and find out very little about our lead character (George Clooney) who goes by two names: Jack and Edward. All you know is that he's a trained killer, somebody hires him to custom make a special rifle for an assassination, and that's about it. Clooney is an American sent into an Italian town for a last assignment. While he is doing the work which is meticulous, he’s tries to avoid being killed by other trained killers who are after him for some unknown reason, and begins a special relationship with a beautiful prostitute….his almost only human contact is with prostitutes because in his line of work, there is too much risk in having any friends.
He does not relish the work, but is driven to do it well. This also requires that he constantly distance himself from others. Jack demonstrates this in the opening rather shocking scene set in Sweden in which his calculating actions are far more chilling than the frozen landscape where it takes place. Clooney, with an understated performance that registers mostly through his eyes and the tightening of his jaw, portrays a man who has literally grown afraid of human attachment. Here, Clooney is at his best when toggling between extremes - when urgency is required, he tacks toward watchful; when things seem mellow, he's on the verge of jumping out of his skin. It's been a while since he's let himself be alone at the center of a storm like this, and with his gun-metal gray hair and gaunt appearance, he's a far cry from the jovial ringmaster of the "Ocean's Eleven" films.
Rated “R” for strong violence , simulated sex including full female and partial male nudity, gory and bloody imagery, and scattered strong sexual language (profanity). Running time: 105 minutes.
Clark
Before anybody goes to see "The American," let me give you a heads up. If you are expecting another Jason Bourne or James Bond-style of movie with a lot of action sequences ,you may want to stay home. The advertising campaign and previews give you the impression that George Clooney is taking on a role in a movie like Liam Neeson did in that marvelously powerful thriller "Taken". But that is not the case. "The American" was shot on a foreign location (Italy mostly), features a lot of foreign dialect, and was made by an Italian director with a mostly Italian cast. In other words, it's not really an American action film. It's an Italian melodrama.
We know and find out very little about our lead character (George Clooney) who goes by two names: Jack and Edward. All you know is that he's a trained killer, somebody hires him to custom make a special rifle for an assassination, and that's about it. Clooney is an American sent into an Italian town for a last assignment. While he is doing the work which is meticulous, he’s tries to avoid being killed by other trained killers who are after him for some unknown reason, and begins a special relationship with a beautiful prostitute….his almost only human contact is with prostitutes because in his line of work, there is too much risk in having any friends.
He does not relish the work, but is driven to do it well. This also requires that he constantly distance himself from others. Jack demonstrates this in the opening rather shocking scene set in Sweden in which his calculating actions are far more chilling than the frozen landscape where it takes place. Clooney, with an understated performance that registers mostly through his eyes and the tightening of his jaw, portrays a man who has literally grown afraid of human attachment. Here, Clooney is at his best when toggling between extremes - when urgency is required, he tacks toward watchful; when things seem mellow, he's on the verge of jumping out of his skin. It's been a while since he's let himself be alone at the center of a storm like this, and with his gun-metal gray hair and gaunt appearance, he's a far cry from the jovial ringmaster of the "Ocean's Eleven" films.
Rated “R” for strong violence , simulated sex including full female and partial male nudity, gory and bloody imagery, and scattered strong sexual language (profanity). Running time: 105 minutes.
Clark
Thursday, September 9, 2010
GOING THE DISTANCE 2.5*** (but barely)
In “Going the Distance”, Garrett (Justin Long) and Erin (Drew Barrymore) meet while arguing over a computer game of Centipede at a bar. Video games turn into beer. Beers turn into beer bongs. Bongs turn drunk and drunk turns into sex at Garrett’s place. However, their initial one night stand turns into 6 incredible weeks. Unfortunately, 6 is all they get the easy way. Erin's internship at the New York Chronicle in NYC is soon over and she's headed back to San Francisco to finish grad school. Unwilling to call it quits, Garrett suggests that they have a long distance relationship to hold onto what they believe is a good thing.
Easier said than done as is shown by the many obstacles such as the long wait between visits, endless phone calls and Skyping, and the pain of loneliness. They even try phone sex which ends up as a funny disaster. Long distance relationships are nothing new in the realm of chick flicks. However the story is rather predictable and at times trite. But the comedy in the movie was fairly good so it was enjoyable at times but not enough times to be more than an average Rom-Com.
Drew Barrymore plays a less kooky character than usual and is all the more likable and believable for it. But I don't buy Justin Long as the leading man. He just seems too young for the part and is not believable in the role. I couldn’t get past this and it nagged at me during the whole movie.
There is a lot of profanity in the movie ( got a “R” rating) with heavy doses of the F-word which at times seems to be for the sole purpose of shocking or titillating the viewers. It also has toilet humor and some rather embarrassing sexual sequences. It may be a “chick” flick but with the “R” stuff, a lot of the guys will probably enjoy it.
Clark
In “Going the Distance”, Garrett (Justin Long) and Erin (Drew Barrymore) meet while arguing over a computer game of Centipede at a bar. Video games turn into beer. Beers turn into beer bongs. Bongs turn drunk and drunk turns into sex at Garrett’s place. However, their initial one night stand turns into 6 incredible weeks. Unfortunately, 6 is all they get the easy way. Erin's internship at the New York Chronicle in NYC is soon over and she's headed back to San Francisco to finish grad school. Unwilling to call it quits, Garrett suggests that they have a long distance relationship to hold onto what they believe is a good thing.
Easier said than done as is shown by the many obstacles such as the long wait between visits, endless phone calls and Skyping, and the pain of loneliness. They even try phone sex which ends up as a funny disaster. Long distance relationships are nothing new in the realm of chick flicks. However the story is rather predictable and at times trite. But the comedy in the movie was fairly good so it was enjoyable at times but not enough times to be more than an average Rom-Com.
Drew Barrymore plays a less kooky character than usual and is all the more likable and believable for it. But I don't buy Justin Long as the leading man. He just seems too young for the part and is not believable in the role. I couldn’t get past this and it nagged at me during the whole movie.
There is a lot of profanity in the movie ( got a “R” rating) with heavy doses of the F-word which at times seems to be for the sole purpose of shocking or titillating the viewers. It also has toilet humor and some rather embarrassing sexual sequences. It may be a “chick” flick but with the “R” stuff, a lot of the guys will probably enjoy it.
Clark
Monday, September 6, 2010
TAKERS 2.5*** (more like 2.8***)
Takers" is a story about a group of efficient, professional thieves who meticulously plan their robberies a year in an advance. They take their jobs very seriously and leave little room for error. There is no standout boss in this crew…. They each have a specialty, an equal voice and, most importantly, an equal cut of the loot.
After the dazzling opening bank robbery we are introduced to the team of Takers. These guys are suave and know how to present themselves. It was like watching a group of "Esquire" magazine models relax after a hard day at the office. They all wear expensive suits, drink high-end scotch and smoke fine cigars. They each retreat to their own slice of heaven to relax. . After the successful bank job they seem to revel in their male bonding and their exploits.
They decide, against their better judgment, to team up with an ex-partner of theirs who was just released from prison to do a dangerous armored truck heist, worth $20 million. The movie also focuses on an obsessed cop (Matt Dillon) hot on their trail and his seemingly more 'by the book' partner.
The cast adds a lot of sizzle and charm to their roles. And each actor is cast perfectly in his or her part. The action scenes are stunning. The two heists are extremely impressive and there's a breathtaking foot chase sequence which is by far one of the most spectacular I’ve ever seen The movie is entertaining as a action thriller
One thing that amazed and disturbed me about the movie or I should say movie audience…it’s one thing to pull for the bad guys and hope they can pull off a successful heist, but it’s another thing altogether for the audience to cheer and applaud when the bad guys coldly gun down a policeman who is only doing his job. They cheered I said… there is something wrong with moviegoers who do that…I was shocked and appalled.
Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, a sexual situation/partial nudity.
Clark
Takers" is a story about a group of efficient, professional thieves who meticulously plan their robberies a year in an advance. They take their jobs very seriously and leave little room for error. There is no standout boss in this crew…. They each have a specialty, an equal voice and, most importantly, an equal cut of the loot.
After the dazzling opening bank robbery we are introduced to the team of Takers. These guys are suave and know how to present themselves. It was like watching a group of "Esquire" magazine models relax after a hard day at the office. They all wear expensive suits, drink high-end scotch and smoke fine cigars. They each retreat to their own slice of heaven to relax. . After the successful bank job they seem to revel in their male bonding and their exploits.
They decide, against their better judgment, to team up with an ex-partner of theirs who was just released from prison to do a dangerous armored truck heist, worth $20 million. The movie also focuses on an obsessed cop (Matt Dillon) hot on their trail and his seemingly more 'by the book' partner.
The cast adds a lot of sizzle and charm to their roles. And each actor is cast perfectly in his or her part. The action scenes are stunning. The two heists are extremely impressive and there's a breathtaking foot chase sequence which is by far one of the most spectacular I’ve ever seen The movie is entertaining as a action thriller
One thing that amazed and disturbed me about the movie or I should say movie audience…it’s one thing to pull for the bad guys and hope they can pull off a successful heist, but it’s another thing altogether for the audience to cheer and applaud when the bad guys coldly gun down a policeman who is only doing his job. They cheered I said… there is something wrong with moviegoers who do that…I was shocked and appalled.
Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, a sexual situation/partial nudity.
Clark
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
THE OTHER GUYS 2.0***
The previews for this one looked promising but unfortunately all the good stuff was in the previews. It turned out to be a disappointment even with Will Ferrell in it…and I’m a fan of his. Main problem is awful writing and a Director that should have stuck to the basics and just made a comedy rather than a comedy with a couple of unnecessary albatrosses elaborated on below that drag it down.
Allen Gamble (Will Ferrell) is an accountant for the New York Police Department. His partner is detective Terry Hoitz (Mark Wahlberg), who is being punished for a particularly embarrassing incident at Yankee Stadium. The stars of the department are Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne Johnson, but Walberg hopes that he and his passive partner will be able to step up and be the next stars. They begin to investigate a scaffling permit violation ( I know…Huh), committed by billionaire businessman David Ershon , who may be involved in a massive investment corruption scheme of untold Billions . Of course, the comic cops constantly bungle things and get themselves in trouble. For example, Allen loses his firearm and his Captain gives him a wooden "practice" gun instead; later, he has that taken away and is given a whistle.
There are lots of supporting roles and cameos, notably an excellent Michael Keaton as the police captain, who must work a second job at Bed, Bath & Beyond to make ends meet. Eva Mendes stars as Allen's wife, and the running joke is that Ferrell thinks she's "plain," while Walberg can't stop ogling her, and she is very ogable in her part
When the movie focuses on Terry and Allen and their banter, the movie is sorta funny but not laugh out loud. And unfortunately the movie is full of too many other characters, has an unnecessarily complicated plot and subplots, and strays away from the movie as a comedy and tries unsuccessfully to blend in a cop thriller AND political statements. Thus we end up with car chase sequences and shootouts that are just plain awful and way too much seriousness about America’s financial and political woes. We surely don’t need to go to the movies to be reminded about that with ticket prices now up in the $10 range.
Comedy filmmakers should learn that comedies are better when they are short and lean, with more emphasis on jokes and characters than on plot. No one laughs at a plot. Nonetheless, there's enough good Will Ferrell material here, nicely matched by Wahlberg theatrics, to make at least half of a good movie…. and, therefore, wait and rent it for a $1.00 at Red Box are $3.00 at Blockbuster…or even go to the $1.50 movie in Raleigh on Blue Ridge Road..
Clark
The previews for this one looked promising but unfortunately all the good stuff was in the previews. It turned out to be a disappointment even with Will Ferrell in it…and I’m a fan of his. Main problem is awful writing and a Director that should have stuck to the basics and just made a comedy rather than a comedy with a couple of unnecessary albatrosses elaborated on below that drag it down.
Allen Gamble (Will Ferrell) is an accountant for the New York Police Department. His partner is detective Terry Hoitz (Mark Wahlberg), who is being punished for a particularly embarrassing incident at Yankee Stadium. The stars of the department are Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne Johnson, but Walberg hopes that he and his passive partner will be able to step up and be the next stars. They begin to investigate a scaffling permit violation ( I know…Huh), committed by billionaire businessman David Ershon , who may be involved in a massive investment corruption scheme of untold Billions . Of course, the comic cops constantly bungle things and get themselves in trouble. For example, Allen loses his firearm and his Captain gives him a wooden "practice" gun instead; later, he has that taken away and is given a whistle.
There are lots of supporting roles and cameos, notably an excellent Michael Keaton as the police captain, who must work a second job at Bed, Bath & Beyond to make ends meet. Eva Mendes stars as Allen's wife, and the running joke is that Ferrell thinks she's "plain," while Walberg can't stop ogling her, and she is very ogable in her part
When the movie focuses on Terry and Allen and their banter, the movie is sorta funny but not laugh out loud. And unfortunately the movie is full of too many other characters, has an unnecessarily complicated plot and subplots, and strays away from the movie as a comedy and tries unsuccessfully to blend in a cop thriller AND political statements. Thus we end up with car chase sequences and shootouts that are just plain awful and way too much seriousness about America’s financial and political woes. We surely don’t need to go to the movies to be reminded about that with ticket prices now up in the $10 range.
Comedy filmmakers should learn that comedies are better when they are short and lean, with more emphasis on jokes and characters than on plot. No one laughs at a plot. Nonetheless, there's enough good Will Ferrell material here, nicely matched by Wahlberg theatrics, to make at least half of a good movie…. and, therefore, wait and rent it for a $1.00 at Red Box are $3.00 at Blockbuster…or even go to the $1.50 movie in Raleigh on Blue Ridge Road..
Clark
Friday, August 20, 2010
CHARLIE ST. CLOUD 2.5***
This is a good, heartwarming movie about the importance of family and especially brotherly love…the kind of bond between brothers that can even survive the most tragic of events. Here the older brother is willing to sacrifice a very promising college career and most everything else out of his deep love and commitment to his 11 year old brother.
The older brother is played by Zac Efron who is an international star/teen idol as a result of the huge success of the “High School Musical”’ TV and movie shows. He is one of THE current teenage heartthrobs and, in fact, when my wife, Sara, and I went to the afternoon matinee, it was the 2 of us and about 16 teenage girls who somehow seemed to sigh and swoon in unison whenever Efron batted those gorgeous blue eyes …of the Paul Newman variety. Actually, I could identify with the girls somewhat as I experience much the same reaction to seeing Scarlett Johansson in a movie.
Back to the movie . To be honest this is a small film of the “B” variety but with a BIG heart. Also, although the story is supposed to take place in Marblehead, Massachusetts, it was, instead for cost reasons, filmed in Vancouver, British Columbia…and that is a blessing for the viewers because the scenery is absolutely gorgeous… breathtaking is another word for it.. That awesome scenery… mountains and lakes and forest… is almost worth the price of admission.
Lastly, this is a movie that all ages can enjoy… especially kids from 6 to 18 who should see it so they can experience the love and the meaning of love portrayed in the film.
Clark
This is a good, heartwarming movie about the importance of family and especially brotherly love…the kind of bond between brothers that can even survive the most tragic of events. Here the older brother is willing to sacrifice a very promising college career and most everything else out of his deep love and commitment to his 11 year old brother.
The older brother is played by Zac Efron who is an international star/teen idol as a result of the huge success of the “High School Musical”’ TV and movie shows. He is one of THE current teenage heartthrobs and, in fact, when my wife, Sara, and I went to the afternoon matinee, it was the 2 of us and about 16 teenage girls who somehow seemed to sigh and swoon in unison whenever Efron batted those gorgeous blue eyes …of the Paul Newman variety. Actually, I could identify with the girls somewhat as I experience much the same reaction to seeing Scarlett Johansson in a movie.
Back to the movie . To be honest this is a small film of the “B” variety but with a BIG heart. Also, although the story is supposed to take place in Marblehead, Massachusetts, it was, instead for cost reasons, filmed in Vancouver, British Columbia…and that is a blessing for the viewers because the scenery is absolutely gorgeous… breathtaking is another word for it.. That awesome scenery… mountains and lakes and forest… is almost worth the price of admission.
Lastly, this is a movie that all ages can enjoy… especially kids from 6 to 18 who should see it so they can experience the love and the meaning of love portrayed in the film.
Clark
Thursday, August 19, 2010
EAT PRAY LOVE 3.0***
Eat Pray Love is a movie aimed at and marketed towards women. So when I connected with it -- and enjoyed it -- it was somewhat of a surprise but then again, I often like chick flicks. It wasn’t so much the story either, which we’ve seen multiple times before (usually with a man in the lead), as it was the cast that made it work. Julia Roberts does a fine job and it was refreshing that she was such a good match for this part.
Based on the bestselling Oprah-approved memoir by Elizabeth Gilbert, the story follows Gilbert (portrayed by Roberts) on her travels over the course of a year as she tries to reconnect with her true self after she splits from her marriage on an impulse one day, leaving her husband (Billy Crudup) in a state of shock and with a broken heart. Along the way she finds comfort with food and new friends in Italy, enlightenment at a temple in India, and searches for love and trust again in Bali.
As already mentioned, it’s the cast that really makes Eat Pray Love connect so well. Besides Roberts’ performance, the two parts that stand out most are Javier Bardem as her love interest, and Richard Jenkins as the man she meets in India, known only as “Richard from Texas”. Bardem delivers a very raw, human character and makes an impression that he is the real deal while Jenkins nearly ripped my heart out with a powerful and sincere scene.
Many people are going to be repelled by Eat Pray Love before they even see it (the same way the book had its detractors before people read it) because they feel what Gilbert did was selfish. Whether you agree with her or not doesn’t really matter because director and co-writer Ryan Murphy (creator of Glee and Nip/Tuck) has made a good movie that deserves a fair trial. I went in expecting a “chick flick” and ended up seeing a very human film.
Also, a lot of people, especially people that are happy and comfortable with traditional life and family will not understand a woman leaving a perfectly nice man that is in love with her to go on a journey and find herself. Many people will say that Liz is selfish and it's all about her. Yes. This movie (and the book) is all about her. It is a real story about a woman searching for something missing in her life. It was refreshing that someone could be honest about being unhappy and wanting a different life. Taking the difficult path, an unknown journey and risking everything is to be admired even if it’s not for some noble purpose.
Clark
Eat Pray Love is a movie aimed at and marketed towards women. So when I connected with it -- and enjoyed it -- it was somewhat of a surprise but then again, I often like chick flicks. It wasn’t so much the story either, which we’ve seen multiple times before (usually with a man in the lead), as it was the cast that made it work. Julia Roberts does a fine job and it was refreshing that she was such a good match for this part.
Based on the bestselling Oprah-approved memoir by Elizabeth Gilbert, the story follows Gilbert (portrayed by Roberts) on her travels over the course of a year as she tries to reconnect with her true self after she splits from her marriage on an impulse one day, leaving her husband (Billy Crudup) in a state of shock and with a broken heart. Along the way she finds comfort with food and new friends in Italy, enlightenment at a temple in India, and searches for love and trust again in Bali.
As already mentioned, it’s the cast that really makes Eat Pray Love connect so well. Besides Roberts’ performance, the two parts that stand out most are Javier Bardem as her love interest, and Richard Jenkins as the man she meets in India, known only as “Richard from Texas”. Bardem delivers a very raw, human character and makes an impression that he is the real deal while Jenkins nearly ripped my heart out with a powerful and sincere scene.
Many people are going to be repelled by Eat Pray Love before they even see it (the same way the book had its detractors before people read it) because they feel what Gilbert did was selfish. Whether you agree with her or not doesn’t really matter because director and co-writer Ryan Murphy (creator of Glee and Nip/Tuck) has made a good movie that deserves a fair trial. I went in expecting a “chick flick” and ended up seeing a very human film.
Also, a lot of people, especially people that are happy and comfortable with traditional life and family will not understand a woman leaving a perfectly nice man that is in love with her to go on a journey and find herself. Many people will say that Liz is selfish and it's all about her. Yes. This movie (and the book) is all about her. It is a real story about a woman searching for something missing in her life. It was refreshing that someone could be honest about being unhappy and wanting a different life. Taking the difficult path, an unknown journey and risking everything is to be admired even if it’s not for some noble purpose.
Clark
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
“The Girl Who Played With Fire” continues the film adaptations of the late Stieg Larsson’s world-wide bestselling books, the “Millennium Trilogy” thrillers. Within a tension-filled plot, this second installment answers many questions about the background of that mysterious bad-ass young woman with the dragon tattoo down her back, Lisbeth Salander.
Opening where “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” left off, but a year later, this computer whiz/martial artist/avenging angel is on a quiet vacation by the ocean. Brief flashbacks of her nightmares may somewhat help newcomers get up-to-date about the violent sexual abuse she suffered in her youth and from her court-appointed legal guardian Nils Bjurman. ( If possible, I recommend renting and seeing "The Girl With Dragon Tattoo" before seeing this movie since the story line from the first book/movie is necessary to really understand the heroine, Lisbeth, and to understand the second and third movies… the third being “The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest” which is also opening soon). Lisbeth soon returns to Sweden and finds out she has been implicated in the murder of her arch enemy, Nils Bjurman, and two young reporters working with the redeemed journalist, Mikael Blomkvist, whom she teamed up with in the first movie.
Her finger prints are found on the gun that killed Bjurman whom she had recently visited and while there threatened him with the same gun. The police use this evidence to link her to the his murder and 2 other murders. This time Michael, must come to her rescue (last time she saved him). Because of Lisbeth's violent history including involuntary confinement in a mental institution, and other clues left to frame her, Michael is the only one who initially believes that she is innocent. One of the young reporters who was murdered was about to expose many high powered clients of young woman/girls who had been forced into prostitution through the human slave trade. This causes Michael believe that the murders are somehow linked to international vice or mobsters.
Played With Fire is similar in many respects to Dragon tattoo but different quite different others because it mostly involves Lisbeth and her flight from the police and the triple murder charge and her determined quest to find those who framed her.. A different outcome to be sure, but one that will still leave viewers with the same breathless feeling at the end as the first, and completely satisfied and eager for the 3rd installment…the Hornet’s Nest.
Overall , it is not quite as good as Dragon Tattoo but it comes close and that says a lot because Dragon Tattoo was excellent…one of the better pictures of the year, and this one is not far behind.
NOTE: It to is a Swedish film and has English subtitles and also has a “R” rating for the violence and sex.
Clark
Opening where “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” left off, but a year later, this computer whiz/martial artist/avenging angel is on a quiet vacation by the ocean. Brief flashbacks of her nightmares may somewhat help newcomers get up-to-date about the violent sexual abuse she suffered in her youth and from her court-appointed legal guardian Nils Bjurman. ( If possible, I recommend renting and seeing "The Girl With Dragon Tattoo" before seeing this movie since the story line from the first book/movie is necessary to really understand the heroine, Lisbeth, and to understand the second and third movies… the third being “The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest” which is also opening soon). Lisbeth soon returns to Sweden and finds out she has been implicated in the murder of her arch enemy, Nils Bjurman, and two young reporters working with the redeemed journalist, Mikael Blomkvist, whom she teamed up with in the first movie.
Her finger prints are found on the gun that killed Bjurman whom she had recently visited and while there threatened him with the same gun. The police use this evidence to link her to the his murder and 2 other murders. This time Michael, must come to her rescue (last time she saved him). Because of Lisbeth's violent history including involuntary confinement in a mental institution, and other clues left to frame her, Michael is the only one who initially believes that she is innocent. One of the young reporters who was murdered was about to expose many high powered clients of young woman/girls who had been forced into prostitution through the human slave trade. This causes Michael believe that the murders are somehow linked to international vice or mobsters.
Played With Fire is similar in many respects to Dragon tattoo but different quite different others because it mostly involves Lisbeth and her flight from the police and the triple murder charge and her determined quest to find those who framed her.. A different outcome to be sure, but one that will still leave viewers with the same breathless feeling at the end as the first, and completely satisfied and eager for the 3rd installment…the Hornet’s Nest.
Overall , it is not quite as good as Dragon Tattoo but it comes close and that says a lot because Dragon Tattoo was excellent…one of the better pictures of the year, and this one is not far behind.
NOTE: It to is a Swedish film and has English subtitles and also has a “R” rating for the violence and sex.
Clark
Sunday, August 8, 2010
COCO CHANEL and IGOR STRAVINSKY 3.0***
I saw this movie with some other movie enthusiast. When it was over we gathered in the lobby in puzzlement. Then we decided we were being too esoteric, too deep about the meaning of the film. Switching gears we decided that although it was untypical and highbrow, it was, nonetheless, still simply a love (?) story involving unfaithfulness and adultery between two brilliant avant-garde artists… Coco Chanel (fashion designer and perfume maker) and Igor Stravinsky( Russian music composer known for his discordant sounds).
Coco Chanel was a very independent woman for her time….this is the 1920s. After her lover called Boy was killed in a car accident, she decided to live alone in her huge mansion outside Paris whose interiors were designed by her in striking, never ending patterns of black and white. Coco is a fan of music and an admirer of everything brave. When she witnesses the almost riot that follows the "scandalous" premiere of Igor Stravinsky's “The Rite of Spring”, she wants to get to know the composer. Stravinsky lives with his wife who is suffering from tuberculosis and children in a small flat, penniless due to the Russian revolution, and Coco invites them all to live in her mansion - allowing Igor the possibility to more space for his musical creativity. Coco and Igor are soon drawn to each other and finally end up having an affair.
Igor is a vulnerable man, a man drawn in two directions –to the wealth and love of Coco and on the other hand to his wife and children. Also for a man and an artist it is difficult for him to accept the fact that Coco can also be an artist with her own will and self esteem….and wealth. In fact , this manifests itself in one scene where they are heatedly arguing and he tries to insult her by saying she is no more than a “shop keeper”.
This brilliantly filmed movie uses beautifully stunning visuals. Every single frame is like a work of art. However, the story is somewhat on the cold side as it lacks the passion that you would expect to be present between two such passionate artists. Coco even though very well presented as an independent woman seems calculating and cold without any emotions. Much the same is true of Igor who it seems is determined to never to smile.
I am still not quite settled on how I ultimately feel about this picture. However, perhaps the film’s messages are that creation is often born from misery, that pain accompanies genius more often than it does not, that lust and passion are not one in the same, and that sex doesn’t always lead to love. That’s some pretty heavy stuff, I know, but the kind of thing we movie critics must espouse at times.
Spoken in French & Russian with English subtitles, and a wee bit of English. Rated 'R' for some strong sexual content & nudity.
Clark
I saw this movie with some other movie enthusiast. When it was over we gathered in the lobby in puzzlement. Then we decided we were being too esoteric, too deep about the meaning of the film. Switching gears we decided that although it was untypical and highbrow, it was, nonetheless, still simply a love (?) story involving unfaithfulness and adultery between two brilliant avant-garde artists… Coco Chanel (fashion designer and perfume maker) and Igor Stravinsky( Russian music composer known for his discordant sounds).
Coco Chanel was a very independent woman for her time….this is the 1920s. After her lover called Boy was killed in a car accident, she decided to live alone in her huge mansion outside Paris whose interiors were designed by her in striking, never ending patterns of black and white. Coco is a fan of music and an admirer of everything brave. When she witnesses the almost riot that follows the "scandalous" premiere of Igor Stravinsky's “The Rite of Spring”, she wants to get to know the composer. Stravinsky lives with his wife who is suffering from tuberculosis and children in a small flat, penniless due to the Russian revolution, and Coco invites them all to live in her mansion - allowing Igor the possibility to more space for his musical creativity. Coco and Igor are soon drawn to each other and finally end up having an affair.
Igor is a vulnerable man, a man drawn in two directions –to the wealth and love of Coco and on the other hand to his wife and children. Also for a man and an artist it is difficult for him to accept the fact that Coco can also be an artist with her own will and self esteem….and wealth. In fact , this manifests itself in one scene where they are heatedly arguing and he tries to insult her by saying she is no more than a “shop keeper”.
This brilliantly filmed movie uses beautifully stunning visuals. Every single frame is like a work of art. However, the story is somewhat on the cold side as it lacks the passion that you would expect to be present between two such passionate artists. Coco even though very well presented as an independent woman seems calculating and cold without any emotions. Much the same is true of Igor who it seems is determined to never to smile.
I am still not quite settled on how I ultimately feel about this picture. However, perhaps the film’s messages are that creation is often born from misery, that pain accompanies genius more often than it does not, that lust and passion are not one in the same, and that sex doesn’t always lead to love. That’s some pretty heavy stuff, I know, but the kind of thing we movie critics must espouse at times.
Spoken in French & Russian with English subtitles, and a wee bit of English. Rated 'R' for some strong sexual content & nudity.
Clark
Friday, August 6, 2010
SALT 3.5****
To begin with , this isone kick-ass action movie with a great kickass performance by Angelina Jolie. The word is the movie was written for Tom Cruise who declined. So they refashioned it for Angelina who excels as an action star. She makes you think of what a female Jason Bourne would be like. And she does most of her own stunts. Wow… here we have one of the most beautiful movie stars around putting herself at risk with dangerous stunts in order to achieve realism and fulfill the role of her character. She deserves a lot of credit for this kind of dedication to her craft…she surely earns her millions.
The main character, Evelyn Salt (Jolie), is a CIA agent whom, during the questioning of a Russian spy in CIA headquarters, is accused of being a Russian "sleeper agent" or "mole." She goes on the run from the government while trying to clear her name as well as find her husband. That's the basic premise that we were given from the film's marketing campaign. The majority of the film is simply amazing because you never know what's going to happen. The parts about Evelyn Salt being framed as a Russian sleeper agent and trying to clear her name and find her husband are practically all thrown away after the first 20 to 30 minutes – they're no longer important. During the duration of the film, we continuously run into a multitude of plot twists, and each one leads the main character onto her next destination. All of these plot twists are amazing and shocking in the right way; they're not badly thought-out twists. Each twist makes us ask a new question..
Angelina Jolie has shown time and time again that she supersedes all of those preconceived ideas about glamorous Hollywood actresses. She's beautiful, yes, but she's also a very gifted actress and athlete. It's in full evidence here, as her Salt dons numerous disguises that really do a good job of hiding her amazing looks. Lesser actresses would wilt under the pressure of actually performing as opposed to being gawked at. But Jolie flourishes. And she has some serious action-movie chops and is simply electrifying. Also, as with the best actors, Jolie can do a lot with the slightest bit facial expressions and/or body language. She is mesmerizing and a captivating presence on the screen.
“Salt” s the second action film in a row I’ve seen this summer that I've loved. '”Inception” was the first and the better of the two. But “Salt” is quite good. It’s captivating. It's thrilling. It's a nail-biter. It has enough twists, turns, “what the heck”" moments, flashbacks, and so much more to keep you entertained throughout.
Clark
To begin with , this isone kick-ass action movie with a great kickass performance by Angelina Jolie. The word is the movie was written for Tom Cruise who declined. So they refashioned it for Angelina who excels as an action star. She makes you think of what a female Jason Bourne would be like. And she does most of her own stunts. Wow… here we have one of the most beautiful movie stars around putting herself at risk with dangerous stunts in order to achieve realism and fulfill the role of her character. She deserves a lot of credit for this kind of dedication to her craft…she surely earns her millions.
The main character, Evelyn Salt (Jolie), is a CIA agent whom, during the questioning of a Russian spy in CIA headquarters, is accused of being a Russian "sleeper agent" or "mole." She goes on the run from the government while trying to clear her name as well as find her husband. That's the basic premise that we were given from the film's marketing campaign. The majority of the film is simply amazing because you never know what's going to happen. The parts about Evelyn Salt being framed as a Russian sleeper agent and trying to clear her name and find her husband are practically all thrown away after the first 20 to 30 minutes – they're no longer important. During the duration of the film, we continuously run into a multitude of plot twists, and each one leads the main character onto her next destination. All of these plot twists are amazing and shocking in the right way; they're not badly thought-out twists. Each twist makes us ask a new question..
Angelina Jolie has shown time and time again that she supersedes all of those preconceived ideas about glamorous Hollywood actresses. She's beautiful, yes, but she's also a very gifted actress and athlete. It's in full evidence here, as her Salt dons numerous disguises that really do a good job of hiding her amazing looks. Lesser actresses would wilt under the pressure of actually performing as opposed to being gawked at. But Jolie flourishes. And she has some serious action-movie chops and is simply electrifying. Also, as with the best actors, Jolie can do a lot with the slightest bit facial expressions and/or body language. She is mesmerizing and a captivating presence on the screen.
“Salt” s the second action film in a row I’ve seen this summer that I've loved. '”Inception” was the first and the better of the two. But “Salt” is quite good. It’s captivating. It's thrilling. It's a nail-biter. It has enough twists, turns, “what the heck”" moments, flashbacks, and so much more to keep you entertained throughout.
Clark
Monday, July 26, 2010
SPLICE 1.5***
“Splice” is the story of scientists taking a ‘slice’ of life (DNA) from several animal species and combining them with a ‘slice’ of the DNA from a human and seeing what kind of ‘spice’ they can get from such a very risky roll of the ‘dice’. Unfortunately for the scientist, things don’t turn out to well and the same is true for “Splice” which ,despite an attempt to ‘entice us with an interesting premise, and that’s about all, should have stayed on ‘ice’ and gone directly to DVD sales and rental.
This movie gets repulsive and preposterous in the first few scenes. Elsa (Sarah Polley) and Clive (Adrien Brody) are a biochemist couple who do experimental gene splicing for a big pharmaceutical corporation. They create two repulsive worm-like things they call Ginger and Fred, wrinkly, gnarly abominations like faceless and limbless pigs, which are supposed to be the wonderful new source of a wealth of proteins and enzymes usable for medicines. Against their corporate boss's prohibitions, Elsa sneaks off and goes one step further: She grows a new species that blends various animal DNA with human DNA. The thing that comes out looks like a giant man-eating tadpole, or a flying snake. In time it gives birth to a little fledgling that grows up into a kind of bald, sweet-faced gir, then young woman, on spindly bird legs. Actually a better description is a female creature from the hips up with an odd shaped face and bald head, that has chicken legs from the hips down with a particularly nasty pig-like tail that conceals a dangerous talon. She is named Dren (that’s Nerd spelled backwards), and she has a very accelerated grow rate and quickly goes from a baby to a child to a squeaky adult ( she can’t talk because her vocal cords are bird-like).
Some of the many problems with the movie have to do with the fact that the characters change their basic personality and nature without any apparent motivation. Dren goes from precocious to hostile to flirty. Sarah Polley performs a gruesome surgery on Dren which, although it serves a plot point, is way out of character and Adrian Brody does something that is just plain disgusting (the audience let out an initial huge groan, then laughed really loud, an uncomfortable, “I can’t believe it’s happening” laugh, which I’m sure was not the intended reaction).
No matter how you slice it, “Splice” is a interesting concept that goes terribly wrong … very poor writing is the chief culprit plus a sellout of the integrity of the film, what little there was, for a “Hollywood” ending that was intended to stir up the horror movie fans but, instead, just ends up being horrible.
Clark
“Splice” is the story of scientists taking a ‘slice’ of life (DNA) from several animal species and combining them with a ‘slice’ of the DNA from a human and seeing what kind of ‘spice’ they can get from such a very risky roll of the ‘dice’. Unfortunately for the scientist, things don’t turn out to well and the same is true for “Splice” which ,despite an attempt to ‘entice us with an interesting premise, and that’s about all, should have stayed on ‘ice’ and gone directly to DVD sales and rental.
This movie gets repulsive and preposterous in the first few scenes. Elsa (Sarah Polley) and Clive (Adrien Brody) are a biochemist couple who do experimental gene splicing for a big pharmaceutical corporation. They create two repulsive worm-like things they call Ginger and Fred, wrinkly, gnarly abominations like faceless and limbless pigs, which are supposed to be the wonderful new source of a wealth of proteins and enzymes usable for medicines. Against their corporate boss's prohibitions, Elsa sneaks off and goes one step further: She grows a new species that blends various animal DNA with human DNA. The thing that comes out looks like a giant man-eating tadpole, or a flying snake. In time it gives birth to a little fledgling that grows up into a kind of bald, sweet-faced gir, then young woman, on spindly bird legs. Actually a better description is a female creature from the hips up with an odd shaped face and bald head, that has chicken legs from the hips down with a particularly nasty pig-like tail that conceals a dangerous talon. She is named Dren (that’s Nerd spelled backwards), and she has a very accelerated grow rate and quickly goes from a baby to a child to a squeaky adult ( she can’t talk because her vocal cords are bird-like).
Some of the many problems with the movie have to do with the fact that the characters change their basic personality and nature without any apparent motivation. Dren goes from precocious to hostile to flirty. Sarah Polley performs a gruesome surgery on Dren which, although it serves a plot point, is way out of character and Adrian Brody does something that is just plain disgusting (the audience let out an initial huge groan, then laughed really loud, an uncomfortable, “I can’t believe it’s happening” laugh, which I’m sure was not the intended reaction).
No matter how you slice it, “Splice” is a interesting concept that goes terribly wrong … very poor writing is the chief culprit plus a sellout of the integrity of the film, what little there was, for a “Hollywood” ending that was intended to stir up the horror movie fans but, instead, just ends up being horrible.
Clark
SPLICE 1.5***
“Splice” is the story of scientists taking a ‘slice’ of life (DNA) from several animal species and combining them with a ‘slice’ of the DNA from a human and seeing what kind of ‘spice’ they can get from such a very risky roll of the ‘dice’. Unfortunately for the scientist, things don’t turn out to well and the same is true for “Splice” which ,despite an attempt to ‘entice us with an interesting premise, and that’s about all, should have stayed on ‘ice’ and gone directly to DVD sales and rental.
This movie gets repulsive and preposterous in the first few scenes. Elsa (Sarah Polley) and Clive (Adrien Brody) are a biochemist couple who do experimental gene splicing for a big pharmaceutical corporation. They create two repulsive worm-like things they call Ginger and Fred, wrinkly, gnarly abominations like faceless and limbless pigs, which are supposed to be the wonderful new source of a wealth of proteins and enzymes usable for medicines. Against their corporate boss's prohibitions, Elsa sneaks off and goes one step further: She grows a new species that blends various animal DNA with human DNA. The thing that comes out looks like a giant man-eating tadpole, or a flying snake. In time it gives birth to a little fledgling that grows up into a kind of bald, sweet-faced gir, then young woman, on spindly bird legs. Actually a better description is a female creature from the hips up with an odd shaped face and bald head, that has chicken legs from the hips down with a particularly nasty pig-like tail that conceals a dangerous talon. She is named Dren (that’s Nerd spelled backwards), and she has a very accelerated grow rate and quickly goes from a baby to a child to a squeaky adult ( she can’t talk because her vocal cords are bird-like).
Some of the many problems with the movie have to do with the fact that the characters change their basic personality and nature without any apparent motivation. Dren goes from precocious to hostile to flirty. Sarah Polley performs a gruesome surgery on Dren which, although it serves a plot point, is way out of character and Adrian Brody does something that is just plain disgusting (the audience let out an initial huge groan, then laughed really loud, an uncomfortable, “I can’t believe it’s happening” laugh, which I’m sure was not the intended reaction).
No matter how you slice it, “Splice” is a interesting concept that goes terribly wrong … very poor writing is the chief culprit plus a sellout of the integrity of the film, what little there was, for a “Hollywood” ending that was intended to stir up the horror movie fans but, instead, just ends up being horrible.
Clark
“Splice” is the story of scientists taking a ‘slice’ of life (DNA) from several animal species and combining them with a ‘slice’ of the DNA from a human and seeing what kind of ‘spice’ they can get from such a very risky roll of the ‘dice’. Unfortunately for the scientist, things don’t turn out to well and the same is true for “Splice” which ,despite an attempt to ‘entice us with an interesting premise, and that’s about all, should have stayed on ‘ice’ and gone directly to DVD sales and rental.
This movie gets repulsive and preposterous in the first few scenes. Elsa (Sarah Polley) and Clive (Adrien Brody) are a biochemist couple who do experimental gene splicing for a big pharmaceutical corporation. They create two repulsive worm-like things they call Ginger and Fred, wrinkly, gnarly abominations like faceless and limbless pigs, which are supposed to be the wonderful new source of a wealth of proteins and enzymes usable for medicines. Against their corporate boss's prohibitions, Elsa sneaks off and goes one step further: She grows a new species that blends various animal DNA with human DNA. The thing that comes out looks like a giant man-eating tadpole, or a flying snake. In time it gives birth to a little fledgling that grows up into a kind of bald, sweet-faced gir, then young woman, on spindly bird legs. Actually a better description is a female creature from the hips up with an odd shaped face and bald head, that has chicken legs from the hips down with a particularly nasty pig-like tail that conceals a dangerous talon. She is named Dren (that’s Nerd spelled backwards), and she has a very accelerated grow rate and quickly goes from a baby to a child to a squeaky adult ( she can’t talk because her vocal cords are bird-like).
Some of the many problems with the movie have to do with the fact that the characters change their basic personality and nature without any apparent motivation. Dren goes from precocious to hostile to flirty. Sarah Polley performs a gruesome surgery on Dren which, although it serves a plot point, is way out of character and Adrian Brody does something that is just plain disgusting (the audience let out an initial huge groan, then laughed really loud, an uncomfortable, “I can’t believe it’s happening” laugh, which I’m sure was not the intended reaction).
No matter how you slice it, “Splice” is a interesting concept that goes terribly wrong … very poor writing is the chief culprit plus a sellout of the integrity of the film, what little there was, for a “Hollywood” ending that was intended to stir up the horror movie fans but, instead, just ends up being horrible.
Clark
Friday, July 23, 2010
INCEPTION 4.0****
“Inception" is near “perfection” and a rare “exception” to the usual intellectual action type film. It is an excellent and breathtaking movie that may be one of the only films released so far this summer that lives up to its hype. It is a highly original film that holds your attention until the ending credits roll.
Leonardo DiCaprio plays Dom Cobb, a genius when it comes to dreams and the subconscious and how they can be manipulated in the most amazingly spectacular way. He, with the help of a remarkable team of sleep/dream experts, works his way into people's dreams and their subconscious and steals what people value most, ideas, and does so without them knowing about it. In this, his last assignment to possibly clear his name ( he has been charged with the death of his wife) he is assigned not to steal an idea from someone, but rather to plant an idea inside that person's mind. The idea to be planted could change the world in many ways… most of them positive..some of them lucrative to the person hiring Cobb who has the power to clear him of the pending charges.
Inception has a multi-layered plot, and I mean this quite literally. It focuses not only on the emotional turmoil of the lead character, Cobb, but at the same time thrusts the audience into multiple levels of action that often are happening simultaneously….with each level very distinct from the other, but all finely connected. Director Christopher Nolan ( “The Dark Knight”, “The Prestige”, Memento”), who also wrote the screenplay, challenges the audience to keep up, and rewards those who can with a breathtaking spectacle, one that has the capability of leaving you awe-struck.
There is a star-studded cast, includingf Leonardo Dicaprio ( “Shutter Island’,”The Departed”), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (“500 Days Of Summer”), Ellen Page (“Juno”), Marion Cotillard ( “La vie en rose”, “Public Enemies”, “Nine”), Cillian Murphy ( “Redeye’, “Batman Begins”), and Michael Caine ( “Batman Begins”, “The Dark Knight”), along with some amazing photography, special effects, and thrilling music provided by none other than Hans Zimmer, who was also set the mood for Nolan's previous film, The Dark Knight”.
The final hour of the film is possibly one of the most complicated but fascinating action sequences ever put on film. You have to constantly be paying attention to all of the layers of what’s happening . And without spoiling anything, what this film is about, and what makes this film so great, is the layers….the dreams within a dream that are simultaneously occurring.. Once you have seen this you will know what I am talking about.
Please note that you must to go to this movie prepared to think, to use your intellect ,so that you can meet the many challenges presented by such a complicated story…but by doing so you can fully enjoy the many dimensions of this remarkable film.
“Inception" is near “perfection” and a rare “exception” to the usual intellectual action type film. It is an excellent and breathtaking movie that may be one of the only films released so far this summer that lives up to its hype. It is a highly original film that holds your attention until the ending credits roll.
Leonardo DiCaprio plays Dom Cobb, a genius when it comes to dreams and the subconscious and how they can be manipulated in the most amazingly spectacular way. He, with the help of a remarkable team of sleep/dream experts, works his way into people's dreams and their subconscious and steals what people value most, ideas, and does so without them knowing about it. In this, his last assignment to possibly clear his name ( he has been charged with the death of his wife) he is assigned not to steal an idea from someone, but rather to plant an idea inside that person's mind. The idea to be planted could change the world in many ways… most of them positive..some of them lucrative to the person hiring Cobb who has the power to clear him of the pending charges.
Inception has a multi-layered plot, and I mean this quite literally. It focuses not only on the emotional turmoil of the lead character, Cobb, but at the same time thrusts the audience into multiple levels of action that often are happening simultaneously….with each level very distinct from the other, but all finely connected. Director Christopher Nolan ( “The Dark Knight”, “The Prestige”, Memento”), who also wrote the screenplay, challenges the audience to keep up, and rewards those who can with a breathtaking spectacle, one that has the capability of leaving you awe-struck.
There is a star-studded cast, includingf Leonardo Dicaprio ( “Shutter Island’,”The Departed”), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (“500 Days Of Summer”), Ellen Page (“Juno”), Marion Cotillard ( “La vie en rose”, “Public Enemies”, “Nine”), Cillian Murphy ( “Redeye’, “Batman Begins”), and Michael Caine ( “Batman Begins”, “The Dark Knight”), along with some amazing photography, special effects, and thrilling music provided by none other than Hans Zimmer, who was also set the mood for Nolan's previous film, The Dark Knight”.
The final hour of the film is possibly one of the most complicated but fascinating action sequences ever put on film. You have to constantly be paying attention to all of the layers of what’s happening . And without spoiling anything, what this film is about, and what makes this film so great, is the layers….the dreams within a dream that are simultaneously occurring.. Once you have seen this you will know what I am talking about.
Please note that you must to go to this movie prepared to think, to use your intellect ,so that you can meet the many challenges presented by such a complicated story…but by doing so you can fully enjoy the many dimensions of this remarkable film.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
WINTER’S BONE 3.5***
This film tells the sad, harsh story about some of the poverty-stricken people living in the Missouri Ozark’s back country who are trying to scratch out a living on poor soil and even worse personal resources. So it is no wonder that the making and selling of meth is embraced by some as a way to make money and get by. Their poor lives before meth had a certain dignity in the hard struggle for survival in an uncaring world that had passed them by or never allowed them to catch up, either or both . What great harm the meth business does is shown and acted brilliantly, as it pushes these already at-risk people lower down the chain of life than before.
A young girl of 17, Dee Dolly, having to be much older than her years, beaten up and beaten down, wary of those around her but needing their help, and with 2 young siblings and a helpless mother to care for, she learns that her drug-making, drugged-out father has disappeared and missed a court date for a drug arrest. The most important task of her life then becomes finding her father before they lose their meager home to a bondsmen, … her father put up the home as security for the bond. As sorry as the home place is, it’s all they have in the world and she intends with all her heart and soul to do whatever it takes to keep it and her family together. As the story moves forward through this drug subculture, the pride, family loyalty, code of honor and toughness of the people are revealed.
Such a grim and foreboding task the daughter has, with imminent harm threatening from around every corner and behind every door on which she knocks, even those of relatives. Determination can get you far, but only so far unless you get a few breaks, and that long quest for a decent break is what keeps the viewer's eyes glued to the screen. Bleak, stark, harsh, mean, cruel...all those tough adjectives are present in full force throughout her search, but present also is her eternal fire of human spirit and family duty that never quits.
The cast is perfection. And while none of these folks would be welcome for dinner at my house, they are so convincing in their greed and fear that actress Jennifer Lawrence's perfectly drawn heroine stands out vividly with her embodiment of hope and justice. What Lawrence does as Ree Dolly is a minor miracle. Standing before some very scary people (many of whom are blood relatives) makes you wish you could be like her. In Ree, through the acting of Lawrence, we have one of the strongest female characters recently seen, one who, by her sheer will, suggests what could be accomplished if all of us could live each day as if our life depended on it.
This is an Independent film, so you’ll have to seek it out. It has a “R” rating primarily due to the language, and violence…. It’s a soft “R” ..could just as easily been a “PG-13”
Clark
This film tells the sad, harsh story about some of the poverty-stricken people living in the Missouri Ozark’s back country who are trying to scratch out a living on poor soil and even worse personal resources. So it is no wonder that the making and selling of meth is embraced by some as a way to make money and get by. Their poor lives before meth had a certain dignity in the hard struggle for survival in an uncaring world that had passed them by or never allowed them to catch up, either or both . What great harm the meth business does is shown and acted brilliantly, as it pushes these already at-risk people lower down the chain of life than before.
A young girl of 17, Dee Dolly, having to be much older than her years, beaten up and beaten down, wary of those around her but needing their help, and with 2 young siblings and a helpless mother to care for, she learns that her drug-making, drugged-out father has disappeared and missed a court date for a drug arrest. The most important task of her life then becomes finding her father before they lose their meager home to a bondsmen, … her father put up the home as security for the bond. As sorry as the home place is, it’s all they have in the world and she intends with all her heart and soul to do whatever it takes to keep it and her family together. As the story moves forward through this drug subculture, the pride, family loyalty, code of honor and toughness of the people are revealed.
Such a grim and foreboding task the daughter has, with imminent harm threatening from around every corner and behind every door on which she knocks, even those of relatives. Determination can get you far, but only so far unless you get a few breaks, and that long quest for a decent break is what keeps the viewer's eyes glued to the screen. Bleak, stark, harsh, mean, cruel...all those tough adjectives are present in full force throughout her search, but present also is her eternal fire of human spirit and family duty that never quits.
The cast is perfection. And while none of these folks would be welcome for dinner at my house, they are so convincing in their greed and fear that actress Jennifer Lawrence's perfectly drawn heroine stands out vividly with her embodiment of hope and justice. What Lawrence does as Ree Dolly is a minor miracle. Standing before some very scary people (many of whom are blood relatives) makes you wish you could be like her. In Ree, through the acting of Lawrence, we have one of the strongest female characters recently seen, one who, by her sheer will, suggests what could be accomplished if all of us could live each day as if our life depended on it.
This is an Independent film, so you’ll have to seek it out. It has a “R” rating primarily due to the language, and violence…. It’s a soft “R” ..could just as easily been a “PG-13”
Clark
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
PLEASE GIVE 3.5 ***
This is an extremely well written and acted movie that showcases the imperfections of people, and the good and the bad of social situations and society as a whole. Catherine Keener's character and her husband (Oliver Platt) run a furniture resale shop. She carries an enormous self-imposed guilt in her because they stock the store by buying from family members stuck with deceased loved one’s things…furniture and all.. who have NO idea of its value . Keener and Platt buy on the cheap and then resell them to arrogant metrosexual types for many times the purchase price. Keener spends her time trying to scrape off the guilt by doling out money and doggie bags to the homeless.
There are many interesting characters in the film .Rebecca Hall (uptight Vicky from Vicky Cristina Barcelona) plays the dutiful granddaughter taking care of her 90 plus year old monster granny . Granny’s key job in the film is to get closer to dying so that Keener and Platt can take over her apartment and expand - the ultimate dream for a NYC resident. Hall's character is the budded flower - just waiting to bloom as soon as granny dies..
The mean-spiritedness of the grandmother is matched only by the vile spewing from Amanda Peet, , the other granddaughter who is self-centered and bitter. Peet's character often says just what she is thinking which adds a whole new dimension to most conversations! There are some terrific scenes and moments and characters in the film. Adding considerable to the mix is Keener/Platt's daughter, Abbey, who is a smart, insightful teenager. Oh, and she is also mad at the world and bitter about a zitty complexion and being slightly pudgy which makes finding the perfect designer jeans her ultimate dream.
This is an extremely well done film, a “Woody Allen” type film but better than most of his, especially as it reflects on NY City . It is very clever, funny, has great believable characters and provides an interesting and insightful look into the real doings of NY City life.
It has an “R” rating which is on the soft side.. some language and sexual situations… but a startling opening sequence of many, many breasts being Mammogrammed due to one of the granddaughters (Hall) being a technician for that procedure.
It’s an Independent film, so you have to hunt for it but it’s worth the effort.
Clark
This is an extremely well written and acted movie that showcases the imperfections of people, and the good and the bad of social situations and society as a whole. Catherine Keener's character and her husband (Oliver Platt) run a furniture resale shop. She carries an enormous self-imposed guilt in her because they stock the store by buying from family members stuck with deceased loved one’s things…furniture and all.. who have NO idea of its value . Keener and Platt buy on the cheap and then resell them to arrogant metrosexual types for many times the purchase price. Keener spends her time trying to scrape off the guilt by doling out money and doggie bags to the homeless.
There are many interesting characters in the film .Rebecca Hall (uptight Vicky from Vicky Cristina Barcelona) plays the dutiful granddaughter taking care of her 90 plus year old monster granny . Granny’s key job in the film is to get closer to dying so that Keener and Platt can take over her apartment and expand - the ultimate dream for a NYC resident. Hall's character is the budded flower - just waiting to bloom as soon as granny dies..
The mean-spiritedness of the grandmother is matched only by the vile spewing from Amanda Peet, , the other granddaughter who is self-centered and bitter. Peet's character often says just what she is thinking which adds a whole new dimension to most conversations! There are some terrific scenes and moments and characters in the film. Adding considerable to the mix is Keener/Platt's daughter, Abbey, who is a smart, insightful teenager. Oh, and she is also mad at the world and bitter about a zitty complexion and being slightly pudgy which makes finding the perfect designer jeans her ultimate dream.
This is an extremely well done film, a “Woody Allen” type film but better than most of his, especially as it reflects on NY City . It is very clever, funny, has great believable characters and provides an interesting and insightful look into the real doings of NY City life.
It has an “R” rating which is on the soft side.. some language and sexual situations… but a startling opening sequence of many, many breasts being Mammogrammed due to one of the granddaughters (Hall) being a technician for that procedure.
It’s an Independent film, so you have to hunt for it but it’s worth the effort.
Clark
Sunday, July 4, 2010
TOY STORY 3 4****
Year after year, Pixar releases movies that leave audience's jaws on the floor. Toy Story 3 is no exception. Pixar has crafted their most emotional outing yet. We've grown up with these characters , so there's already a built-in connection. We care what happens to these toys. It's a world we're all familiar with: not just because the films have been around for 15 years but because everyone has had toys and (probably) grown out of them.
Pixar has done a simply beautiful job of finishing this series. It's always been fun to see the way the toys handle different aspects of life that are stressful for them: birthday parties, Christmas, yard sales. But having their owner, Andy grow up and about to leave them for college is something totally different. While many of the toys resign to their fate or even embrace the possibility of going to a daycare facility, Woody's unflinching loyalty reminds us of why we love these characters so much in the first place. And these reasons are reiterated to great effect in the final, amazingly written and executed scene. And along the way, there's heart to spare, hilarious comedy, clever writing, and intense action sequences . These toys have to run the gauntlet on their adventure, and it makes the "no toy left behind" policy even more affecting.
The animation is simply beautiful . The 3-D is well-implemented and utterly unobtrusive. There are no gimmicks here; Pixar doesn't make things pop out of the screen to justify the heightened ticket prices. 3-D just makes everything look that much crisper and more gorgeous. The voice cast is phenomenal as always. Tom Hanks and Tim Allen are still the perfect leading pair, and all their support is hilarious. TS3 also continues its tradition of great villains. . This time, we get a terrifying pair in the form of the cute and cuddly Lotso ( a purple teddy bear ) and the horrific, droopy-eyed Big Baby.
Simply put, Toy Story 3 goes above and infinitely beyond one’s highest hopes and expectations. It tugs at the heartstrings in a genuine way…there's no emotional trickery being pulled here. Pixar's focus has always been on the story, and with their latest masterpiece, they've brought their first story to a beautiful, fitting close.
AND this is great for viewers of ALL ages… from 4 to 84.
Clark
Year after year, Pixar releases movies that leave audience's jaws on the floor. Toy Story 3 is no exception. Pixar has crafted their most emotional outing yet. We've grown up with these characters , so there's already a built-in connection. We care what happens to these toys. It's a world we're all familiar with: not just because the films have been around for 15 years but because everyone has had toys and (probably) grown out of them.
Pixar has done a simply beautiful job of finishing this series. It's always been fun to see the way the toys handle different aspects of life that are stressful for them: birthday parties, Christmas, yard sales. But having their owner, Andy grow up and about to leave them for college is something totally different. While many of the toys resign to their fate or even embrace the possibility of going to a daycare facility, Woody's unflinching loyalty reminds us of why we love these characters so much in the first place. And these reasons are reiterated to great effect in the final, amazingly written and executed scene. And along the way, there's heart to spare, hilarious comedy, clever writing, and intense action sequences . These toys have to run the gauntlet on their adventure, and it makes the "no toy left behind" policy even more affecting.
The animation is simply beautiful . The 3-D is well-implemented and utterly unobtrusive. There are no gimmicks here; Pixar doesn't make things pop out of the screen to justify the heightened ticket prices. 3-D just makes everything look that much crisper and more gorgeous. The voice cast is phenomenal as always. Tom Hanks and Tim Allen are still the perfect leading pair, and all their support is hilarious. TS3 also continues its tradition of great villains. . This time, we get a terrifying pair in the form of the cute and cuddly Lotso ( a purple teddy bear ) and the horrific, droopy-eyed Big Baby.
Simply put, Toy Story 3 goes above and infinitely beyond one’s highest hopes and expectations. It tugs at the heartstrings in a genuine way…there's no emotional trickery being pulled here. Pixar's focus has always been on the story, and with their latest masterpiece, they've brought their first story to a beautiful, fitting close.
AND this is great for viewers of ALL ages… from 4 to 84.
Clark
Friday, July 2, 2010
TOOTSIE 4.0 ****
If someone ever wanted to write a textbook on how to make the perfect movie comedy, this film should be the number one reference point. The 1982 film “TOOTSIE” became an instant classic and is just as funny today as it was 28 years ago. I love this movie because no matter how many times you watch it, there is always something you never noticed before. Sidney Pollack's terrific, right-on direction perfectly brought together all the elements of this winning story about an unemployed actor/acting teacher/waiter named Michael Dorsey (Dustin Hoffman) who, despite being a wonderful actor, cannot get work as he has earned a reputation for being "difficult." Desperate to earn $8000.00 in order to produce a play that his roommate (Bill Murray) wrote, he dresses in drag and auditions for a role on a soap opera and actually gets the part. Complications ensue and I will not disclose them to you because a lot of the joy of this film is encountering the surprises and dilemma . Everything works perfectly in this film which has a lot of heart that grows as the movie peels back feelings and relationships
Towering above everything is the amazing performance by Dustin Hoffman as Michael Dorsey/Dorothy Michaels. Hoffman is completely believable and amazingly comfortable as a woman As a matter of fact, his screen time as Dorothy is the strongest part of his performance. The film is so well-cast it's incredible. There are so many fine actors at work here that it almost becomes a contest of who can steal the scene first. Bill Murray gets his share with his improvised lines. His lamenting of the state of his plays during a party scene will have you howling. The icing on the cake was director Sydney Pollack agreeing to play Hoffman's agent. They only have a few scenes together, but they are among the film's best. Others in the cast include Charles Durning, Teri Garr, Dabney Coleman, and Geena Davis.
“Perfection” it is… and furthermore and simply put there is no other way to describe this film other than an American masterpiece.
If you seen it before, relive a fun experience. If you’ve not seen, you have a wonderful discovery in store.
Clark
If someone ever wanted to write a textbook on how to make the perfect movie comedy, this film should be the number one reference point. The 1982 film “TOOTSIE” became an instant classic and is just as funny today as it was 28 years ago. I love this movie because no matter how many times you watch it, there is always something you never noticed before. Sidney Pollack's terrific, right-on direction perfectly brought together all the elements of this winning story about an unemployed actor/acting teacher/waiter named Michael Dorsey (Dustin Hoffman) who, despite being a wonderful actor, cannot get work as he has earned a reputation for being "difficult." Desperate to earn $8000.00 in order to produce a play that his roommate (Bill Murray) wrote, he dresses in drag and auditions for a role on a soap opera and actually gets the part. Complications ensue and I will not disclose them to you because a lot of the joy of this film is encountering the surprises and dilemma . Everything works perfectly in this film which has a lot of heart that grows as the movie peels back feelings and relationships
Towering above everything is the amazing performance by Dustin Hoffman as Michael Dorsey/Dorothy Michaels. Hoffman is completely believable and amazingly comfortable as a woman As a matter of fact, his screen time as Dorothy is the strongest part of his performance. The film is so well-cast it's incredible. There are so many fine actors at work here that it almost becomes a contest of who can steal the scene first. Bill Murray gets his share with his improvised lines. His lamenting of the state of his plays during a party scene will have you howling. The icing on the cake was director Sydney Pollack agreeing to play Hoffman's agent. They only have a few scenes together, but they are among the film's best. Others in the cast include Charles Durning, Teri Garr, Dabney Coleman, and Geena Davis.
“Perfection” it is… and furthermore and simply put there is no other way to describe this film other than an American masterpiece.
If you seen it before, relive a fun experience. If you’ve not seen, you have a wonderful discovery in store.
Clark
KNIGHT AND DAY 3.0*** (close to 3.5***)
“Knight and Day” may be one of the most fun times you'll have at the movies this summer. Fasten your seatbelt and just ride on “Cruise” control. It's non-stop action, entertaining, mysterious, thrilling, full of surprises and just plain fun.
June Havens (Cameron Diaz) is an average perky beautiful blonde who accidentally runs into the charming and mysterious Roy Miller (Tom Cruise) at the airport and is swept into a series of wild and dangerous adventures when Roy turns out to be a secret agent fighting rogue elements in his own agency . . . or maybe HE's the rogue agent . . . it depends on whom you or June believes. The initial sequence after the chance meeting at the airport is a well done action packed and hilarious scene on the plane with Cruise doing his action thing in the cabin while Diaz is in the bathroom considering whether she should flirt with Cruise and is totally oblivious to the mayhem going on outside in the plane. This sets the tone for what turns out to be a FUN film.
Cruise and Diaz play off each other off very comfortably and both are terrific in their roles. The chemistry between them is excellent. Cruise does what he does best as the super (sometimes almost TOO super) secret agent. But here he’s not always so serious…he’s funny with great comedic timing , poking fun at his "Mission: Impossible" character with tongue-in-cheek wit . Diaz scurries around as an a supposedly average non-hero thrust into an almost “impossible” series of events and constantly being baffled but managing to keep up with Cruise. ….. she is funny, warm, beautiful, and spunky.
Knight and Day" is a delightful action/romance movie that will make you laugh and feel good. It's a pleasant diversion from the stresses of our day-to-day routine… a really fun time at the cinema that doesn't ask a lot of you and offers an enjoyable ride. Yes, we've seen it all before, but it worked pretty well then, and it works pretty well now.
It’s rated PG-13 and is okay for the kids.
Clark
“Knight and Day” may be one of the most fun times you'll have at the movies this summer. Fasten your seatbelt and just ride on “Cruise” control. It's non-stop action, entertaining, mysterious, thrilling, full of surprises and just plain fun.
June Havens (Cameron Diaz) is an average perky beautiful blonde who accidentally runs into the charming and mysterious Roy Miller (Tom Cruise) at the airport and is swept into a series of wild and dangerous adventures when Roy turns out to be a secret agent fighting rogue elements in his own agency . . . or maybe HE's the rogue agent . . . it depends on whom you or June believes. The initial sequence after the chance meeting at the airport is a well done action packed and hilarious scene on the plane with Cruise doing his action thing in the cabin while Diaz is in the bathroom considering whether she should flirt with Cruise and is totally oblivious to the mayhem going on outside in the plane. This sets the tone for what turns out to be a FUN film.
Cruise and Diaz play off each other off very comfortably and both are terrific in their roles. The chemistry between them is excellent. Cruise does what he does best as the super (sometimes almost TOO super) secret agent. But here he’s not always so serious…he’s funny with great comedic timing , poking fun at his "Mission: Impossible" character with tongue-in-cheek wit . Diaz scurries around as an a supposedly average non-hero thrust into an almost “impossible” series of events and constantly being baffled but managing to keep up with Cruise. ….. she is funny, warm, beautiful, and spunky.
Knight and Day" is a delightful action/romance movie that will make you laugh and feel good. It's a pleasant diversion from the stresses of our day-to-day routine… a really fun time at the cinema that doesn't ask a lot of you and offers an enjoyable ride. Yes, we've seen it all before, but it worked pretty well then, and it works pretty well now.
It’s rated PG-13 and is okay for the kids.
Clark
Sunday, June 20, 2010
THE SECRETS IN THEIR EYES 3.5**** ( almost 4***)
The Secret in Their Eyes, the recent Academy Award winner for Best Foreign Language Film from Argentina, is a murder mystery and psychological thriller, a lighthearted love story, a meditation on memory, and a look at justice , or more so the lack of it in Argentina in the 1970s during the military junta. As the film opens, Benjamin Esposito, a retired Buenos Aires state criminal investigator, decides to write a novel about the 1974 rape and murder of an attractive newlywed 23-year old woman, a case that was closed by the authorities but never solved to his satisfaction. To obtain access to the file on the unsolved rape-murder case he spent so much time on, Esposito pays a visit to Irene Hastings, his former supervisor and chief supporter who is now a judge.
The story is set in 1999, but is told in flashbacks that for a change are well done and seamless. Espósito, becomes spellbound by and subsequently entangled in the investigation of the crime of the young woman . Her widowed husband is shocked and distraught by the news and Espósito, feeling the man’s deep pain, vows to find the killer and bring him to justice. In his exhausting search he is aided by his alcoholic assistent and a newcomer, the upper class lawyer Irene, who takes over as department chief. Espósito's rival, Romano pins the murder on two immigrant workers so as to get rid of the matter, an issue that enrages Espósito. Nonetheless, and persisting in the investigation, he finds a clue soon enough while looking over some old pictures provided by the husband. He comes across a dubious young man - identified as Isidoro Gómez – who looks intensely at the victim in a suspicious way in several photos. This much is revealed early in the film…the rest you need to see for yourself to experience the excitement and suspense of the hunt.
The movie also weaves into the story the love between two couples…the intense realized love between the victim and husband and a subtle unspoken love that boils beneath the surface between Esposito and Irene.... with the love of the husband for his young murdered wife highlighting the somber effect of time, or its lack thereof, on those whose eyes may or may not hold the secret. And this movie is also about the people who get left behind when someone they love dies . It's about loss, memories, and bittersweet revenge . Oh and another thing ..... with such a powerful ending for the movie we learn another thing about the potential for the cruel nature of us human beings . When a film comes together as well as this, with the full advantage of classic mystery and graceful originality, it's a joy to behold.
NOTE: This Argentine movie is in Spanish with English subtitles. Also, it is rated “R” for a rape scene, violent images, some graphic nudity and language. Lastly, it’s fairly long at 2 hrs and 7 mins.
Clark
The Secret in Their Eyes, the recent Academy Award winner for Best Foreign Language Film from Argentina, is a murder mystery and psychological thriller, a lighthearted love story, a meditation on memory, and a look at justice , or more so the lack of it in Argentina in the 1970s during the military junta. As the film opens, Benjamin Esposito, a retired Buenos Aires state criminal investigator, decides to write a novel about the 1974 rape and murder of an attractive newlywed 23-year old woman, a case that was closed by the authorities but never solved to his satisfaction. To obtain access to the file on the unsolved rape-murder case he spent so much time on, Esposito pays a visit to Irene Hastings, his former supervisor and chief supporter who is now a judge.
The story is set in 1999, but is told in flashbacks that for a change are well done and seamless. Espósito, becomes spellbound by and subsequently entangled in the investigation of the crime of the young woman . Her widowed husband is shocked and distraught by the news and Espósito, feeling the man’s deep pain, vows to find the killer and bring him to justice. In his exhausting search he is aided by his alcoholic assistent and a newcomer, the upper class lawyer Irene, who takes over as department chief. Espósito's rival, Romano pins the murder on two immigrant workers so as to get rid of the matter, an issue that enrages Espósito. Nonetheless, and persisting in the investigation, he finds a clue soon enough while looking over some old pictures provided by the husband. He comes across a dubious young man - identified as Isidoro Gómez – who looks intensely at the victim in a suspicious way in several photos. This much is revealed early in the film…the rest you need to see for yourself to experience the excitement and suspense of the hunt.
The movie also weaves into the story the love between two couples…the intense realized love between the victim and husband and a subtle unspoken love that boils beneath the surface between Esposito and Irene.... with the love of the husband for his young murdered wife highlighting the somber effect of time, or its lack thereof, on those whose eyes may or may not hold the secret. And this movie is also about the people who get left behind when someone they love dies . It's about loss, memories, and bittersweet revenge . Oh and another thing ..... with such a powerful ending for the movie we learn another thing about the potential for the cruel nature of us human beings . When a film comes together as well as this, with the full advantage of classic mystery and graceful originality, it's a joy to behold.
NOTE: This Argentine movie is in Spanish with English subtitles. Also, it is rated “R” for a rape scene, violent images, some graphic nudity and language. Lastly, it’s fairly long at 2 hrs and 7 mins.
Clark
THE BIG LEBOWSKI 4.0***
The reshowing of the movie, “The Big Lebowski”, at the Colony Theatre last Wed. night was a sell-out. Watching the movie with fellow dudes and dudettes was quite a fun and even electric experience. The Colony did some special things to make it even better..door prizes connected to the film, the best of which was a big and little rug, and 1998 movie previews of other movies of that year. The only thing missing was White Russians although they do serve beer and wine there. I’m sure most of the viewers got a WR before or after the movie in honor of the Dude.. I did.
I won’t attempt to describe the plot. Let’s just say it begins with a thug peeing on the Dude’ s favorite rug and goes from there. Along the way you come to be understand the pros and cons of bowling, smoking weed, White Russians, the Eagles music, delivering a ransom payoff, being unemployed, etc. It is one of the earlier Coen brother’s movies.. came after “Fargo” and has become a full-fledged cult classic.
The Dude is played by Jeff Bridges with a goatee, a potbelly, a ponytail and a pair of Bermuda shorts so large they may have been borrowed from his best friend and bowling teammate, Walter Sobchak (John Goodman). Their other teammate is Donny (Steve Buscemi), who may not be very bright, but it's hard be sure since he never is allowed to complete a sentence. Jeff Lebowski calls himself the Dude, and is described by the narrator as ``the laziest man in Los Angeles County.'' It also has a great supporting cast ( including, Julianne Moore, George Seymour Hoffman, Tara Reid, Sam Elliott, and Ben Gazzara). The Dude lives only to go bowling, but is mistaken for a millionaire named the Big Lebowski, with dire consequences. Jeff Bridges gives such a terrific performance but he makes it look too easy and, as a result, he lost out on an Academy Award.
“The Big Lebowski” is about attitude, not a story. It’s easy to lose sight of that because the story is do frenetic…what with a kidnapping and ransom money, a porn king, a runaway girl, a woman who paints while nude and strapped to a harness and, of course bowing. Lebowski is the ultimate personification of a Dude…so laid back, so chilled and yet so with it. If we could all be a little bit like the Dude, there would be an interesting world peace, a whole lot more unemployment than even now and, of course, marihuana would be legalized.
A warning for those adverse to profanity… the F-word or a variation of the F-word is used 292 times…. but remember, that’s how dudes talk.
Clark
TRIVIA NOTES:
The word "dude" is used around 161 times in the movie. .
The F-word or a variation of the F-word is used 292 times
The Dude says "man" 147 times in the movie, nearly 1.5 times a minute.
The Dude drinks 9 White Russians during the course of the movie.( Recipe for making a White Russian: 2 parts vodka, 1 part coffee liqueur (such as Kahlúa) and 1 part cream. Served with ice in a low ball glass. )
The reshowing of the movie, “The Big Lebowski”, at the Colony Theatre last Wed. night was a sell-out. Watching the movie with fellow dudes and dudettes was quite a fun and even electric experience. The Colony did some special things to make it even better..door prizes connected to the film, the best of which was a big and little rug, and 1998 movie previews of other movies of that year. The only thing missing was White Russians although they do serve beer and wine there. I’m sure most of the viewers got a WR before or after the movie in honor of the Dude.. I did.
I won’t attempt to describe the plot. Let’s just say it begins with a thug peeing on the Dude’ s favorite rug and goes from there. Along the way you come to be understand the pros and cons of bowling, smoking weed, White Russians, the Eagles music, delivering a ransom payoff, being unemployed, etc. It is one of the earlier Coen brother’s movies.. came after “Fargo” and has become a full-fledged cult classic.
The Dude is played by Jeff Bridges with a goatee, a potbelly, a ponytail and a pair of Bermuda shorts so large they may have been borrowed from his best friend and bowling teammate, Walter Sobchak (John Goodman). Their other teammate is Donny (Steve Buscemi), who may not be very bright, but it's hard be sure since he never is allowed to complete a sentence. Jeff Lebowski calls himself the Dude, and is described by the narrator as ``the laziest man in Los Angeles County.'' It also has a great supporting cast ( including, Julianne Moore, George Seymour Hoffman, Tara Reid, Sam Elliott, and Ben Gazzara). The Dude lives only to go bowling, but is mistaken for a millionaire named the Big Lebowski, with dire consequences. Jeff Bridges gives such a terrific performance but he makes it look too easy and, as a result, he lost out on an Academy Award.
“The Big Lebowski” is about attitude, not a story. It’s easy to lose sight of that because the story is do frenetic…what with a kidnapping and ransom money, a porn king, a runaway girl, a woman who paints while nude and strapped to a harness and, of course bowing. Lebowski is the ultimate personification of a Dude…so laid back, so chilled and yet so with it. If we could all be a little bit like the Dude, there would be an interesting world peace, a whole lot more unemployment than even now and, of course, marihuana would be legalized.
A warning for those adverse to profanity… the F-word or a variation of the F-word is used 292 times…. but remember, that’s how dudes talk.
Clark
TRIVIA NOTES:
The word "dude" is used around 161 times in the movie. .
The F-word or a variation of the F-word is used 292 times
The Dude says "man" 147 times in the movie, nearly 1.5 times a minute.
The Dude drinks 9 White Russians during the course of the movie.( Recipe for making a White Russian: 2 parts vodka, 1 part coffee liqueur (such as Kahlúa) and 1 part cream. Served with ice in a low ball glass. )
Thursday, June 10, 2010
GET HIM To The GREEK 3.0 ***
Aaron Greenberg (Jonah Hill) gets things done. The ambitious 23-year-old has exaggerated his way into a dream job just in time for a career-making assignment. His mission: Fly to London and escort a rock god Aldous Snow ( Russell Brand) to L.A.s Greek Theatre for the first-stop on a $100-million tour. His warning: Turn your back on him at your own peril. British rocker Snow is both a brilliant musician and walking sex machine. Weary of yes men and piles of money, Snow is searching for the meaning of life. But that doesn’t mean he can’t have a almost daily orgies while he finds it.
As the countdown to the concert begins, Greenberg, as his agent and guy-Friday, must navigate a minefield of London drug smuggling , New York City brawls and Vegas lap dances to deliver his charge safe and, sort of, sound. He may have to coax, lie, cheat, steal, to keep Snow moving along and on schedule, and at all times the question is: “Will Aaron l “get him to the Greek” on time or at all.
The movie opens with the filming of Snow's latest music video and then showing his downward spiral that leads to present day which is hilarious a hilarious, perfect beginning for this innovative comedic spin-off. If you saw 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' then this is exactly what you would expect a movie about Aldous Snow to be like. Surprisingly, this movie even has heart although it's buried under very lewd, vulgar and crude wit, but it's in there.
Russell Brand just opens his mouth and his words are comedic gold. Jonah Hill takes a step out of his comfort zone, and plays a "lack of confidence good guy". (Usually he's the overconfident prick). Sean “P.Diddy”Combs, as Aaron’ boss, delivers a surprisingly strong comedic performance. He's actually hilarious! His repartee with everyone he comes into contact with is spot-on. The entire cast has hilarious one-liners and the two main characters really make this movie a joy to watch.
WARNING: Rated “R”, and this is a strong “R” for strong sexual content and drug use throughout, and pervasive lewd and vulgar language and situations.
Clark
Aaron Greenberg (Jonah Hill) gets things done. The ambitious 23-year-old has exaggerated his way into a dream job just in time for a career-making assignment. His mission: Fly to London and escort a rock god Aldous Snow ( Russell Brand) to L.A.s Greek Theatre for the first-stop on a $100-million tour. His warning: Turn your back on him at your own peril. British rocker Snow is both a brilliant musician and walking sex machine. Weary of yes men and piles of money, Snow is searching for the meaning of life. But that doesn’t mean he can’t have a almost daily orgies while he finds it.
As the countdown to the concert begins, Greenberg, as his agent and guy-Friday, must navigate a minefield of London drug smuggling , New York City brawls and Vegas lap dances to deliver his charge safe and, sort of, sound. He may have to coax, lie, cheat, steal, to keep Snow moving along and on schedule, and at all times the question is: “Will Aaron l “get him to the Greek” on time or at all.
The movie opens with the filming of Snow's latest music video and then showing his downward spiral that leads to present day which is hilarious a hilarious, perfect beginning for this innovative comedic spin-off. If you saw 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' then this is exactly what you would expect a movie about Aldous Snow to be like. Surprisingly, this movie even has heart although it's buried under very lewd, vulgar and crude wit, but it's in there.
Russell Brand just opens his mouth and his words are comedic gold. Jonah Hill takes a step out of his comfort zone, and plays a "lack of confidence good guy". (Usually he's the overconfident prick). Sean “P.Diddy”Combs, as Aaron’ boss, delivers a surprisingly strong comedic performance. He's actually hilarious! His repartee with everyone he comes into contact with is spot-on. The entire cast has hilarious one-liners and the two main characters really make this movie a joy to watch.
WARNING: Rated “R”, and this is a strong “R” for strong sexual content and drug use throughout, and pervasive lewd and vulgar language and situations.
Clark
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
BABIES 3.0****
“Babies” films the lives of four children, from four different countries ( Africa, Mongolia, Japan and the United States ), born into different economic classes, but each experiencing the same trials and tribulations that the first year of life brings with it. From birth to the joyous moments when they first sit-up, crawl, stand, walk, and eventually run, we see that while these babies may be raised in dramatically different environments and conditions, their stories are shared global experiences. Toys are played with, animals poked and loved. The parents teach, scold, nourish, and love these children. The film delivers an overwhelming sense of joy and hope in a world of filled with fear and division. This is a breath of fresh air. A joyous, heartwarming tale, that will have you cheering at the simple feat of standing up under your own power.
Surprisingly there is no narrative or subtitles. Even more surprising, it works without it… it just that some things are understood in all languages. “Babies” shows how beautiful, terrifying, and often hilarious the first year of life is, no matter where you are born. The movie literally puts you alongside these children, through all of the ups and downs, joys and frustrations that life presents. It is a beautifully shot, touching film looking at a time in our life that we will never, ever remember on our own.
Why are all babies so cute? Why is the first word in any language appear to be "mama"? Why are the animals so ambivalent and nonthreatening to the babies? Why are moms so naturally tender with their little ones. It’s all there to take in.
So, if you have or have had kids, you’ll enjoy remembering. If you are going to have kids, this will be a “ learner”. If you will never have kids, this will be a pleasant revelation.
This has already played out at most theatres and didn’t have much of a run to begin with being an independent film. But find it on TV or rent it…relive that first year of life.
Clark
“Babies” films the lives of four children, from four different countries ( Africa, Mongolia, Japan and the United States ), born into different economic classes, but each experiencing the same trials and tribulations that the first year of life brings with it. From birth to the joyous moments when they first sit-up, crawl, stand, walk, and eventually run, we see that while these babies may be raised in dramatically different environments and conditions, their stories are shared global experiences. Toys are played with, animals poked and loved. The parents teach, scold, nourish, and love these children. The film delivers an overwhelming sense of joy and hope in a world of filled with fear and division. This is a breath of fresh air. A joyous, heartwarming tale, that will have you cheering at the simple feat of standing up under your own power.
Surprisingly there is no narrative or subtitles. Even more surprising, it works without it… it just that some things are understood in all languages. “Babies” shows how beautiful, terrifying, and often hilarious the first year of life is, no matter where you are born. The movie literally puts you alongside these children, through all of the ups and downs, joys and frustrations that life presents. It is a beautifully shot, touching film looking at a time in our life that we will never, ever remember on our own.
Why are all babies so cute? Why is the first word in any language appear to be "mama"? Why are the animals so ambivalent and nonthreatening to the babies? Why are moms so naturally tender with their little ones. It’s all there to take in.
So, if you have or have had kids, you’ll enjoy remembering. If you are going to have kids, this will be a “ learner”. If you will never have kids, this will be a pleasant revelation.
This has already played out at most theatres and didn’t have much of a run to begin with being an independent film. But find it on TV or rent it…relive that first year of life.
Clark
Thursday, June 3, 2010
CITY ISLAND 4.0**** out of 4****
It's a rare, exhilarating experience to see a film and not find a single false note within. This is one of the best written, perfectly acted, impeccably directed movies I have seen in a long while. It has a feeling of familiarity, and yet is surprising at EVERY moment, taking your expectations and turning them in the most interesting and unique ways. The story has the potential to be unbelievable and over the top, and it could have been a disaster in the wrong hands, but very early on you find yourself feeling so 'happy' with what transpires, that you are completely drawn in by the brilliance that's displayed. Achingly funny, and sweet without being too sentimental, it is an amazing piece of work. In creating the special world of 'City Island’, Director Raymond De Felitta has given us rainbow of universal emotions. Secrets, lies, miscommunication, love, and most of all, family, and make that a LOUD but loving Italian family.
City Island (2009) is a comedy/drama that gives us a glimpse into the lives of a somewhat dysfunctional but still quite lovable family from City Island, New York – and in this family everybody has a secret. Vince Rizzo Andy Garcia) is a mid-life corrections officer who wants to be an actor and is married to Joyce (Julianna Margulies). Joyce doesn't know his aspirations and suspects he is having an affair. Vivian (the daughter) and Vince Jr. (the son) have their own secrets as well, and Molly (Emily Mortimer),Vince's acting partner) is a slightly mysterious character we are never quite sure we understand. For the Rizzo family, things begin to unravel when Vince brings Tony home from jail to live with the family – based on yet another secret. It is only as all these secrets come out that the family can move forward together, and that is where the real center of power and meaning is for this film - in watching the characters grow, change, and respond to one another as the film progresses, and as the secrets are unveiled.
All the performances are quite good but Andy Garcia's performance as the gentle soul just trying to do right in the world keeps this marvelous soap opera as entertaining as you can ask for. I don't know if City Island will ever get the credit it deserves (it’s only playing at the independent movie houses), but in my opinion Andy Garcia's performance in City Island is the stuff that Oscars are made of.
So, grab on to your cinematic passport and get on that pleasurable movie cruise to "City Island”….it’s excellent.
It’s rated PG-13 for sexual content, smoking and language.
Clark
It's a rare, exhilarating experience to see a film and not find a single false note within. This is one of the best written, perfectly acted, impeccably directed movies I have seen in a long while. It has a feeling of familiarity, and yet is surprising at EVERY moment, taking your expectations and turning them in the most interesting and unique ways. The story has the potential to be unbelievable and over the top, and it could have been a disaster in the wrong hands, but very early on you find yourself feeling so 'happy' with what transpires, that you are completely drawn in by the brilliance that's displayed. Achingly funny, and sweet without being too sentimental, it is an amazing piece of work. In creating the special world of 'City Island’, Director Raymond De Felitta has given us rainbow of universal emotions. Secrets, lies, miscommunication, love, and most of all, family, and make that a LOUD but loving Italian family.
City Island (2009) is a comedy/drama that gives us a glimpse into the lives of a somewhat dysfunctional but still quite lovable family from City Island, New York – and in this family everybody has a secret. Vince Rizzo Andy Garcia) is a mid-life corrections officer who wants to be an actor and is married to Joyce (Julianna Margulies). Joyce doesn't know his aspirations and suspects he is having an affair. Vivian (the daughter) and Vince Jr. (the son) have their own secrets as well, and Molly (Emily Mortimer),Vince's acting partner) is a slightly mysterious character we are never quite sure we understand. For the Rizzo family, things begin to unravel when Vince brings Tony home from jail to live with the family – based on yet another secret. It is only as all these secrets come out that the family can move forward together, and that is where the real center of power and meaning is for this film - in watching the characters grow, change, and respond to one another as the film progresses, and as the secrets are unveiled.
All the performances are quite good but Andy Garcia's performance as the gentle soul just trying to do right in the world keeps this marvelous soap opera as entertaining as you can ask for. I don't know if City Island will ever get the credit it deserves (it’s only playing at the independent movie houses), but in my opinion Andy Garcia's performance in City Island is the stuff that Oscars are made of.
So, grab on to your cinematic passport and get on that pleasurable movie cruise to "City Island”….it’s excellent.
It’s rated PG-13 for sexual content, smoking and language.
Clark
Monday, May 31, 2010
LETTERS TO JULIET 3.0****
To begin with, “yes” this is a “chick flick” of a high degree, and “yes” it is rather predictable, and “yes” its an on-the-sweet side for a Romantic Comedy. But theres nothing wrong with any of that when the film turns out to be a beautiful, easy going , “feel-good” experience and a wonderful travelogue for the beauty of Italy, especially Verona and Tuscany.
In "Letters to Juliet" Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) goes on a pre-honeymoon trip with her fiancé restaurateur and chef Victor. It turns out this is more of a business trip for Victor and she’s left alone a lot. While in Verona, Sophie discovers and partners with the Secretaries of Juliet. They are the group of women who write letters back to the women, many heartbroken, who travel from around the world to leave their letters to Juliet at the famous balcony wall from Shakespeare's play. Sophie finds a letter from a lady named Claire hidden in the wall since 1957. Sophie is compelled to write her. After waiting more than fifty years, Claire (Vanessa Redgrave) is amazed to get a response to her long-ago letter and immediately travels to Italy and Verona with her handsome grandson Charlie (Chris Egan) to see just who Juliet is. What happens next is where the adventure begins as Sophie, Claire, and Charlie go on a quest to find Lorenzo Bartolini, the man Claire had fell in love with 50 years ago and left him without a goodbye.
The Italian landscape is itself a wonderful part of the story. This film is almost like a travelogue a since major part of the film involves Sophie, Charlie, and Claire driving around the countryside and villages looking for Lorenzo.
I admit that I love doe-eyed women, and Amanda Seyfried fits the bill. Her eyes just grab you and swallow you up. Here, Seyfried is very natural and quite appealing in her role as Sophie. Vanessa Redgrave is the real surprise though…. she is simply awesome as Claire. She is utterly charming and projects a commanding screen presence. She personifies wisdom and emotion in a way that feels dignified and real. An added charm is that Claire and Sophie develop a kind of a mother-daughter relationship, which I found poignant.
“Letters to Juliet" is a innocent and heartfelt movie about love, and about the wonder of “true love”, and if you don't expect too much from it, you will find yourself enjoying it. What you’ll also get is a “feel good” experience that leaves you feeling warm and fuzzy.
Clark
To begin with, “yes” this is a “chick flick” of a high degree, and “yes” it is rather predictable, and “yes” its an on-the-sweet side for a Romantic Comedy. But theres nothing wrong with any of that when the film turns out to be a beautiful, easy going , “feel-good” experience and a wonderful travelogue for the beauty of Italy, especially Verona and Tuscany.
In "Letters to Juliet" Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) goes on a pre-honeymoon trip with her fiancé restaurateur and chef Victor. It turns out this is more of a business trip for Victor and she’s left alone a lot. While in Verona, Sophie discovers and partners with the Secretaries of Juliet. They are the group of women who write letters back to the women, many heartbroken, who travel from around the world to leave their letters to Juliet at the famous balcony wall from Shakespeare's play. Sophie finds a letter from a lady named Claire hidden in the wall since 1957. Sophie is compelled to write her. After waiting more than fifty years, Claire (Vanessa Redgrave) is amazed to get a response to her long-ago letter and immediately travels to Italy and Verona with her handsome grandson Charlie (Chris Egan) to see just who Juliet is. What happens next is where the adventure begins as Sophie, Claire, and Charlie go on a quest to find Lorenzo Bartolini, the man Claire had fell in love with 50 years ago and left him without a goodbye.
The Italian landscape is itself a wonderful part of the story. This film is almost like a travelogue a since major part of the film involves Sophie, Charlie, and Claire driving around the countryside and villages looking for Lorenzo.
I admit that I love doe-eyed women, and Amanda Seyfried fits the bill. Her eyes just grab you and swallow you up. Here, Seyfried is very natural and quite appealing in her role as Sophie. Vanessa Redgrave is the real surprise though…. she is simply awesome as Claire. She is utterly charming and projects a commanding screen presence. She personifies wisdom and emotion in a way that feels dignified and real. An added charm is that Claire and Sophie develop a kind of a mother-daughter relationship, which I found poignant.
“Letters to Juliet" is a innocent and heartfelt movie about love, and about the wonder of “true love”, and if you don't expect too much from it, you will find yourself enjoying it. What you’ll also get is a “feel good” experience that leaves you feeling warm and fuzzy.
Clark
Friday, May 21, 2010
IRON MAN 2 2.5*** (more like 2.75***)
The sequel to “Iron Man”, the surprise hit of 2008, is bigger, louder, brasher and totally over-the-top with whiz-bang action and stunts..But is it better? No, not in my opinion mainly because of two things: First, this sequel lacks that wonderful sense of "fun" and “charm” that the first film had. This is sadly lost for the most part because in IM 2 both the main character, Tony Stark, and the story take on a more serious,darker tone with more complex themes. Second, Mickey Rourke is badly miscast as the villain…they could have done so much better. But at least the action is high-octane. Special effects are top notch and add a lot of sizzle to the razzle-dazzle of the story.
The basic story is that Stark reveals himself in the opening of the film as Iron Man and he receives much adulation for his bringing about world peace. But he also receives a lot of scorn from the USA Government, Military and Industrial Complex for not sharing his inventions with them. Also, there is a bitter, revenge seeking Russian in Siberia by the name of Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) who is working on his own super-duper Iron Man suit. Of course, as you can guess , this sets up what will be an ultimate showdown between Iron Man and Vanko.
Robert Downey Jr was the best reason to watch the first “Iron Man” and the same holds true here. He is perfect for the role of Tony Stark, the ultimate narcissist who also happens to be brilliant, brash and, beneath it all, big-hearted. The beautiful and perky Gwyneth Paltrow is back as Stark’s faithful assistant Pepper Potts..the perfect “girl Friday”. Adding Scarlett Johansson as the striking Natalie Romanoff was an incredibly welcome treat. I re-fall in love with Scarlett every time I see her on the screen and she does a fine job here especially with a few outright stunning karate style ass-kicking stunts. ( As an aside, there was one time when Paltrow and Johansson were in the same scene looking gorgeous……I didn’t know till then that I could hold my breath for 5 minutes which was the length of their scene). On the downside, casting Mickey Rourke as the dastardly villain Vanko, just didn’t ring true for me. He comes across as a retread of his “Wrestler” character, and while smarter and meaner, he’s even more sloven and unkept here . Iron Man deserves a better villain and, besides, Rourke frustrates the viewer by constantly mumbling his lines.
“Iron Man 2” is good, could have been much better but is worth a viewing. It’s PG 13 with intense sci-fi action and violence. By the way, there WILL be an Iron Man 3.
Clark
The sequel to “Iron Man”, the surprise hit of 2008, is bigger, louder, brasher and totally over-the-top with whiz-bang action and stunts..But is it better? No, not in my opinion mainly because of two things: First, this sequel lacks that wonderful sense of "fun" and “charm” that the first film had. This is sadly lost for the most part because in IM 2 both the main character, Tony Stark, and the story take on a more serious,darker tone with more complex themes. Second, Mickey Rourke is badly miscast as the villain…they could have done so much better. But at least the action is high-octane. Special effects are top notch and add a lot of sizzle to the razzle-dazzle of the story.
The basic story is that Stark reveals himself in the opening of the film as Iron Man and he receives much adulation for his bringing about world peace. But he also receives a lot of scorn from the USA Government, Military and Industrial Complex for not sharing his inventions with them. Also, there is a bitter, revenge seeking Russian in Siberia by the name of Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) who is working on his own super-duper Iron Man suit. Of course, as you can guess , this sets up what will be an ultimate showdown between Iron Man and Vanko.
Robert Downey Jr was the best reason to watch the first “Iron Man” and the same holds true here. He is perfect for the role of Tony Stark, the ultimate narcissist who also happens to be brilliant, brash and, beneath it all, big-hearted. The beautiful and perky Gwyneth Paltrow is back as Stark’s faithful assistant Pepper Potts..the perfect “girl Friday”. Adding Scarlett Johansson as the striking Natalie Romanoff was an incredibly welcome treat. I re-fall in love with Scarlett every time I see her on the screen and she does a fine job here especially with a few outright stunning karate style ass-kicking stunts. ( As an aside, there was one time when Paltrow and Johansson were in the same scene looking gorgeous……I didn’t know till then that I could hold my breath for 5 minutes which was the length of their scene). On the downside, casting Mickey Rourke as the dastardly villain Vanko, just didn’t ring true for me. He comes across as a retread of his “Wrestler” character, and while smarter and meaner, he’s even more sloven and unkept here . Iron Man deserves a better villain and, besides, Rourke frustrates the viewer by constantly mumbling his lines.
“Iron Man 2” is good, could have been much better but is worth a viewing. It’s PG 13 with intense sci-fi action and violence. By the way, there WILL be an Iron Man 3.
Clark
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
ROBIN HOOD 3.0***
FORGET everything you think you know about Robin Hood.
Banish any thoughts of a swashbuckling Errol Flynn cutting a dashing figure through a Sherwood Forest or Kevin Costner in just right green attiire riding through the glen.
Dismiss any notion that Maid Marion is a demure damsel in distress or that the macho men of Sherwood forest will be wearing tights.
Like the movie “ Batman Returns”, this Robin Hood is a “prequel” and is all about going back to ground zero and rebuilding a legend. The thrust of the film is the events leading up to Robin being branded an outlaw and what inspired his pursuit of justice for all. The movie ends where the usual Robin Hood story begins.
A complex story begins with Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) and his band of brothers in loyal service to King Richard the Lionheart as they continue their weary way home from the Crusades. Back in England Prince John , brother of Richard, is eager to seize the throne . Events are set in motion that leads Robin to assume the identity of the late Sir Robert Loxley with the blessing of his wife Lady Marion (Cate Blanchett) and his aged father Sir Walter (Max von Sydow). In fact, they urge Robin to take on the identity to protect them and the people of Nottingham.
Like many great actor-director collaborations, Ridley Scott and Russell Crow ( they combined for “Gladiator”) once again deliver an action-packed adventure that is filled with lush scenery, epic battle sequences and strong characters wrapped neatly around quite a believable and solid story. Russell Crowe delivers a strong performance as the righteous and heroic but also flawed man haunted by his past. Cate Blanchett makes a steely, resourceful Lady Marion. She and Crowe have good chemistry in the film. Veteran actor Max von Sydow, as Sir Walter, has an uncanny ability to pierce the heart and invests the old blind father with such emotion and defiance that he constantly threatens to steal the show.
The cinematography is sweeping and gorgeous . Production and costume design are top notch - the royal family's castles are grand in design, and, instead of showing the poor living in grand fashion, the poor's living condition are starkly realistic - complete with dirt and grit. Also, and pleasantly so, computer generation/special effects were sparingly used , meaning real extras, real fire, real horses, real buildings were used instead. It's just plain real and absolutely refreshing; Cecil B. DeMille would be proud if he can see the number of extras employed for this film.
In short, this new take on the classic hero is a perfect summer movie…it has action, adventure, comedy, romance, and drama all packed neatly into one spectacular ride. See it on the BIG screen because watching it later on the small screen would be a letdown..
Clark
FORGET everything you think you know about Robin Hood.
Banish any thoughts of a swashbuckling Errol Flynn cutting a dashing figure through a Sherwood Forest or Kevin Costner in just right green attiire riding through the glen.
Dismiss any notion that Maid Marion is a demure damsel in distress or that the macho men of Sherwood forest will be wearing tights.
Like the movie “ Batman Returns”, this Robin Hood is a “prequel” and is all about going back to ground zero and rebuilding a legend. The thrust of the film is the events leading up to Robin being branded an outlaw and what inspired his pursuit of justice for all. The movie ends where the usual Robin Hood story begins.
A complex story begins with Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) and his band of brothers in loyal service to King Richard the Lionheart as they continue their weary way home from the Crusades. Back in England Prince John , brother of Richard, is eager to seize the throne . Events are set in motion that leads Robin to assume the identity of the late Sir Robert Loxley with the blessing of his wife Lady Marion (Cate Blanchett) and his aged father Sir Walter (Max von Sydow). In fact, they urge Robin to take on the identity to protect them and the people of Nottingham.
Like many great actor-director collaborations, Ridley Scott and Russell Crow ( they combined for “Gladiator”) once again deliver an action-packed adventure that is filled with lush scenery, epic battle sequences and strong characters wrapped neatly around quite a believable and solid story. Russell Crowe delivers a strong performance as the righteous and heroic but also flawed man haunted by his past. Cate Blanchett makes a steely, resourceful Lady Marion. She and Crowe have good chemistry in the film. Veteran actor Max von Sydow, as Sir Walter, has an uncanny ability to pierce the heart and invests the old blind father with such emotion and defiance that he constantly threatens to steal the show.
The cinematography is sweeping and gorgeous . Production and costume design are top notch - the royal family's castles are grand in design, and, instead of showing the poor living in grand fashion, the poor's living condition are starkly realistic - complete with dirt and grit. Also, and pleasantly so, computer generation/special effects were sparingly used , meaning real extras, real fire, real horses, real buildings were used instead. It's just plain real and absolutely refreshing; Cecil B. DeMille would be proud if he can see the number of extras employed for this film.
In short, this new take on the classic hero is a perfect summer movie…it has action, adventure, comedy, romance, and drama all packed neatly into one spectacular ride. See it on the BIG screen because watching it later on the small screen would be a letdown..
Clark
Sunday, May 9, 2010
DATE NIGHT 2.0***
This is a date night movie ONLY if you want it to be the last night you’ll have with your date….but then again it may be such a bad mutual experience, you’ll re-bond and the relationship will survive.
I was quite disappointed in the movie because I’m such a BIG fan of Tina Fey and Steve Carell. Yet this one missed the mark fairly badly and it turned out to be more like a bad “blind” date. I put the blame on the poor screenplay and poor direction. What a huge loss of great comedic talent. ..it would have been much better if Fey and Carell had written the script themselves. In fact, this is borne out when they run the funny out-takes from the movie where Fey and Carell are ad-libbing and being extemporaneous.
The basic plot line is Fey and Carell are married, have kids, and the relationship is tired and in a rut. They decide to do a big date night at a high end restaurant on the spur of the moment and don’t have reservations. They get there and discover that they may never get a table so they pretend to be another couple , the Tripplehorns, who are no-shows when their reservations are called. All goes well for a while until 2 thug-like guys show up and escort them out to the alley and flash big guns . Their lives are threatened unless they produce a computer chip with apparently very valuable information. They try to explain that they are not the Tripplehorns but that doesn’t fly with the thugs but they manage to escape and they and the story are off on a mad, or for the viewer, madding, adventure trying to straighten out the mess.
I knew early on this was not going to be a good movie. In fact, I don’t recall laughing until the out-takes began to run. How bad can that be when you have 2 of the funniest comedians of the day. That’s really bad..on the verge of horrible.
Save your money and take your date to dinner or go see or rent a fun “feel good” romantic comedy in “She’s Out Of My League”.
Clark
This is a date night movie ONLY if you want it to be the last night you’ll have with your date….but then again it may be such a bad mutual experience, you’ll re-bond and the relationship will survive.
I was quite disappointed in the movie because I’m such a BIG fan of Tina Fey and Steve Carell. Yet this one missed the mark fairly badly and it turned out to be more like a bad “blind” date. I put the blame on the poor screenplay and poor direction. What a huge loss of great comedic talent. ..it would have been much better if Fey and Carell had written the script themselves. In fact, this is borne out when they run the funny out-takes from the movie where Fey and Carell are ad-libbing and being extemporaneous.
The basic plot line is Fey and Carell are married, have kids, and the relationship is tired and in a rut. They decide to do a big date night at a high end restaurant on the spur of the moment and don’t have reservations. They get there and discover that they may never get a table so they pretend to be another couple , the Tripplehorns, who are no-shows when their reservations are called. All goes well for a while until 2 thug-like guys show up and escort them out to the alley and flash big guns . Their lives are threatened unless they produce a computer chip with apparently very valuable information. They try to explain that they are not the Tripplehorns but that doesn’t fly with the thugs but they manage to escape and they and the story are off on a mad, or for the viewer, madding, adventure trying to straighten out the mess.
I knew early on this was not going to be a good movie. In fact, I don’t recall laughing until the out-takes began to run. How bad can that be when you have 2 of the funniest comedians of the day. That’s really bad..on the verge of horrible.
Save your money and take your date to dinner or go see or rent a fun “feel good” romantic comedy in “She’s Out Of My League”.
Clark
Sunday, May 2, 2010
THE GIRL WIITH THE DRAGON TATTOO 3.5***
This is a Swedish film and thus has subtitles but don’t let that keep you away. This is an extra fine whodunit thriller about the disappearance of a 16 year old girl 40 years ago, and the genius of the movie is how the 2 investigators go about trying to solve such an old puzzle. It is based on the first book in Stieg Larsson's crime trilogy with the main characters journalist Mikael Blomkvist and outcast computer hacker Lisbeth Salander Fans of the book will NOT be disappointed…I can say so because I read the excellent book.. A Two hours and 32 minute running time allows time for great depth and detail which makes the whodunit even more fascinating. Even at this length some subplot lines have been left out but fortunately they made the right choices. It does not hurt the overall feel of the movie and, in fact, helps to sharpen the focus on the mystery
. An aging corporate executive, Henrik Vanger, employs Blomkvist to solve the puzzle of his missing niece. .. a girl who mysteriously disappeared 40 years earlier. It has become an obsession to this man to shed some light on his missing niece's fate, and he is desperate to have closure before it's his own time to pass. Acclaimed investigative journalist Mikael Blomkvist is hired for his researching skills. Eventually Blomkvist teams up with secluded computer hacker Lisbeth Salander. Their investigation unfolds a complex set of clues leading to a string of morbid sadistic murders spanning decades. Pieces of the puzzle slowly start falling into place, as inevitable confrontation with the hidden villain draws closer. Alongside this main plot line, both of our main characters have to deal with personal problems that help us understand their characters.
The two leads are both compelling but Noomi Rapace as Lisbeth is absolutely spellbinding. She has the perfect combination of toughness and vulnerability with a hint of possible psychopathy. You simply cannot take your eyes off her when she’s on the screen. This 90 pound female whirlwind of a woman is depicted as being somewhat craftier, stronger and more energetic than her male counterpart. This does not however diminish Blomkvists character a bit as he is the perfect contrast to her…steady, congenial, wise and much the gentleman. Having a female heroine such as Lisbeth is a welcome twist to the classic detective genre.
The violence in the film is often jarring and difficult to watch but there is nothing ingenuine or pornographic about it. The violence perpetrated against the various characters is as real as you can get it, especially a rape scene that is graphically violent but not sexually graphic and the film is more the powerful as a result.
Overall, this is an excellent film that will capture your attention right off and carry you spellbound to the amazingly exciting ending.
Clark
This is a Swedish film and thus has subtitles but don’t let that keep you away. This is an extra fine whodunit thriller about the disappearance of a 16 year old girl 40 years ago, and the genius of the movie is how the 2 investigators go about trying to solve such an old puzzle. It is based on the first book in Stieg Larsson's crime trilogy with the main characters journalist Mikael Blomkvist and outcast computer hacker Lisbeth Salander Fans of the book will NOT be disappointed…I can say so because I read the excellent book.. A Two hours and 32 minute running time allows time for great depth and detail which makes the whodunit even more fascinating. Even at this length some subplot lines have been left out but fortunately they made the right choices. It does not hurt the overall feel of the movie and, in fact, helps to sharpen the focus on the mystery
. An aging corporate executive, Henrik Vanger, employs Blomkvist to solve the puzzle of his missing niece. .. a girl who mysteriously disappeared 40 years earlier. It has become an obsession to this man to shed some light on his missing niece's fate, and he is desperate to have closure before it's his own time to pass. Acclaimed investigative journalist Mikael Blomkvist is hired for his researching skills. Eventually Blomkvist teams up with secluded computer hacker Lisbeth Salander. Their investigation unfolds a complex set of clues leading to a string of morbid sadistic murders spanning decades. Pieces of the puzzle slowly start falling into place, as inevitable confrontation with the hidden villain draws closer. Alongside this main plot line, both of our main characters have to deal with personal problems that help us understand their characters.
The two leads are both compelling but Noomi Rapace as Lisbeth is absolutely spellbinding. She has the perfect combination of toughness and vulnerability with a hint of possible psychopathy. You simply cannot take your eyes off her when she’s on the screen. This 90 pound female whirlwind of a woman is depicted as being somewhat craftier, stronger and more energetic than her male counterpart. This does not however diminish Blomkvists character a bit as he is the perfect contrast to her…steady, congenial, wise and much the gentleman. Having a female heroine such as Lisbeth is a welcome twist to the classic detective genre.
The violence in the film is often jarring and difficult to watch but there is nothing ingenuine or pornographic about it. The violence perpetrated against the various characters is as real as you can get it, especially a rape scene that is graphically violent but not sexually graphic and the film is more the powerful as a result.
Overall, this is an excellent film that will capture your attention right off and carry you spellbound to the amazingly exciting ending.
Clark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)