CRITIC PICKS W/ ALEX UDVARY

Oscar Nominations!

2012-01-25T20:52:00.003-06:00

At this year's Academy Awards Hollywood decides to celebrate itself.

That is actually a bit of a redundant statement considering the Academy Awards is in itself a celebration of Hollywood but, what I mean is, this year's nominees are a look back on Hollywood's history.

The two leading nominees at this year's 84th annual Academy Awards are Martin Scorsese's "Hugo", with 11 nominations and the French silent film, "The Artist" with 10 nominations.

Those movies look at the early days of Hollywood. In the case of "Hugo", the film looks back on the career of Georges Melies, an important filmmaker in the early 1900s. "The Artist" takes place in 1927 and is about Hollywood's transition from silent films to "talkies", sound pictures. And how this move affected certain silent movie stars.

When I made my "top ten" list last year (which "The Artist" placed number two on) I made a subtle argument that 2011 was about a yearning for the past. Films like "Hugo", "The Artist" and even Woody Allen's "Midnight in Paris" (which is up for four Oscar nominations and was at the top of my "top ten" list) prove this point. But socially there is also a desire to go back in time. Politically look at the "tea party" movement. They repeatedly say they want their country back. Some liberal commentators believe there is a racial component to these comments but, I think what they mean is, they want to go back to a time when America had a balanced budget, when this country had a surplus. Unfortunately, for the "tea party", a Democrat (Bill Clinton) was in office the last time that happened.

But when you add these things up they all lead to a hope that we can go back in time. Almost all nine of the "Best Picture" nominees take place in the past. Steven Spielberg's "War Horse" takes place during WW1, Terrence Malick's "Tree of Life" even goes back to the big bang theory, and "The Help" takes place in the 1960s.

Of the nine nominees, I have seen seven of them. The two I haven't seen are "Moneyball" and "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" (which only recently opened in Chicago). Of the seven I have seen, I only really disliked "War Horse" and "The Help". Three of the nominees even made my "top ten" list; "The Artist", "The Descendants" and "Midnight in Paris".

With every year there are surprise nominations and surprise snubs. This year they include "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" which most film critics did not like. Ben Kingsley wasn't nominated for "Hugo" A real shame! "Cars 2" wasn't nominated in the "Animated Feature Film" category. Neither was Spielberg's "The Adventures of Tin-tin". Two big mistakes. A lot of people are unhappy Michael Fassbinder wasn't nominated for "Shame" or that the film or its director, Steve McQueen, wasn't nominated (I am not among those, as I really didn't like that movie). Personally I can't figure out why Melissa McCarthy was nominated for "Bridesmaids", which wasn't a bad movie, just incredibly over-hyped in my opinion.

Overall I'm not upset about this year's nominations. I might even watch the show this year, which is being hosted by Billy Crystal. Something I haven't done in a decade. The Oscar telecast will air February 26 on ABC.

For a full list of this year's nominees click here:
http://www.imdb.com/oscars/nominations/

Film Review: The Cheat

2012-01-21T15:31:00.006-06:00

"The Cheat" *** (out of ****)

It has always bothered me that I have never reviewed a movie directed by Cecil B. DeMille. I may have name dropped him a couple of times but never devoted myself to writing about his work. Those that read my reviews should be aware I have a great appreciation for not only classic Hollywood films but silent cinema as well. I grew up watching these movies. That is what makes it so strange that this is the first time DeMille's work will be written about.

However, I want to point out don't take it upon yourself to interpret my lack of DeMille film reviews as a way of my saying, in a subtle way, I don't like him or his films. Nonsense! His omission here was purely accidental.

To today's film goers and fans of film history DeMille can be seen, at times, as a larger than life presence. A showman. A director who made big, splashy, expensive films which showed a lot of sex and disguised it behind a biblical setting. That is and isn't true. Some also feel DeMille really wasn't a great filmmaker. That he didn't advance the medium in any artistic way compared to D.W. Griffith for example. That's not fair in my opinion. DeMille is just as important to the early history of cinema as Griffith. Movie fans should expose themselves to the work of both of these men. Their films deserve to be seen. No serious movie buff should go without watching one of their movies.

Watching "The Cheat" (1915) DeMille in fact seems to be in Griffith territory. The film could be read as a moral chamber piece with religious undertones.

Fannie Ward stars as Edith Hardy, a simple-minded socialite. He world revolves around, money, having a good, cocktail parties, dancing, socializing. She has no time for the "real world". No concern about finding a job, doing housework, taking care of a family, or even paying her rent. She has a husband for that, Richard Hardy (Jack Dean). He is a stock broker who is waiting for a big payoff after investing some money into a new company.

Richard has asked Edith to cut back on her spending, at least until his investment shows a profit. but, Edith will not hear of this. How can a woman of her standing go with spending money on new dresses and socializing? What would people say? They may even begin to think Edith was on a budget. This is simply unacceptable.

Edith is treasurer of a women's fund, where she has been put in charge of the club's $10,000. In a moment of desperation, Edith takes the money and gives it to one of her husband's investor friends to put into a stock of his choosing. The friend does and Edith loses all her money.

In yet another moment of desperation Edith arranges to have her friend, a Burmese Ivory Trader, Haka Arakau (Sessue Hayakawa) loan her the money. In return he seeks a night of lust.

There are so many things going on underneath this film it can be difficult to keep track. Lets start with the Haka character and his relationship to Edith. First, many film historians believe Griffith's "Broken Blossoms" (1919) was the first film to deal with an interracial romance. In that film a white woman (Lillian Gish) falls in love with a Chinese man (played by the non-oriental actor Richard Barthelmess). But, we can see interracial undercurrents here, in a film made four years prior. Of course, this time the Burmese man is a villain. He is heartless, feeding into a nasty stereotype that all foreigners are evil and should not be trusted with white women.

But, we should acknowledge one thing. At least this time around a Japanese actor is playing the part. It was not common during this time period to actually have Asian actors playing Asian characters along side white people, especially when kissing scenes were involved. Mixing of the races was forbidden after all.

As I watched "The Cheat" a thought occurred to me. The negative treatment of female characters in cinema. Think about it. Yes, Haka is the villain, but, Edith doesn't have clean hands either. The actor falls into female cliches about woman who are greedy, gold diggers, tramps, untrustworthy and easily susceptible to temptation. These ideas all really go back to the Bible and the story of Adam and Eve, where Eve was the one to first eat an apple from a forbidden tree, because the devil was able to easily tempt her. And then she tempts Adam.

In the 1940s movies started to have femme fatale characters. Cold-hearted female characters who lured men into acts of crime and murder. In both cases they stem from Eve.

"The Cheat" shows a woman who has a love of money. And anyone who has read the bible can tell you, the love of money is the root of all evil.

One scene in this film has Haka brand Edith with an iron. Haka brands everything in a sign of it being his property. But once he brands Edith she now, literally, becomes a "marked woman". A woman of ill-repute. That is another message of the film. Yield yourself from temptation. Women though, according to the film, have a tougher struggle then men.

While such messages and themes may turn off modern audiences I must say the film is somewhat entertaining. We must remember the context in which this movie was made. It was 1915 after all. A different society. Different morals. We don't have to accept these ideas today but we cannot divorce the film from its time. It is a reflection of the era.

Viewed in that context "The Cheat" works. The performances do what they are suppose to do. The film actually feels a bit more "modern" than 1915. I was surprised to find out the year of release. It feels at least like a 1920s picture. The acting is decent and the story moves along nicely at a decent pace. The moral preaching isn't really pushy. It gently weaves itself into the story.

Technically speaking there really wasn't anything which truly dazzled me. There are some scenes, dealing with Haka, which have nice lighting. And some shadow scenes are interesting. The cinematography didn't impress me the same way it does in a Griffith film. Thinking back, I don't recall many close-ups or fade in or outs.

When I think of Cecil B. DeMille I don't associate him with these morality plays. He did make religious epics during the silent era such as "The Ten Commandments" (1923) and "King of Kings" (1927) but then again he did make "The Godless Girl" (1929) about an atheist cult. He was also known for historical epics; a "talky" remake of "The Ten Commandments" (1956, his final film), "Samson & Delilah" (1949), "Cleopatra" (1934) and "Sign of the Cross" (1932) and he even managed to make one film which won the "Best Picture" Oscar, his circus themed "The Greatest Show On Earth" (1952), cited by some as the "weakest" "Best Picture" Oscar winner of all time.

Any of those would be worth watching if interested in DeMille's work. I promise to write more about him in the future.

Top Ten Films Of 2011!

2011-12-30T23:23:00.005-06:00

Well as 2011 comes to an end we look back to celebrate the best films of the year.

Movies, in my opinion, are a reflection of society. Movies can comfort us, scare us, show us other countries and bring into focus the world around us. This year though the movies did this for me more so than other years.

This year has been a tough one for me on a personal level. The two biggest events of the year for me centered on a romantic relationship ending, with a person I thought would be the one and the death of my grandmother, the woman who shared her love of movies with me and turned me into a devoted film buff.

So for me 2011 was a year filled with death, loss, longing for the past and the hope of second chances. And so, in my despair I turned to the movies and wouldn't you know it, that's exactly what the films of 2011 were all about! All of the films which touched me on a personal level, which struck an emotional cord with me dealt with the very issues I was going through.

Death reared its ugly head in films such as "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt.2", where either Harry or Lord Voldemort was going to die. The French film "Sarah's Key" dealt with the Vel d' Hiv round-up in 1942. Another French film "The Princess of Montpensier" centered on the Catholic/ Protestant wars of the 16th Century. The indie film "Another Earth" not only dealt with death but second chances. Martin Scorsese's "Hugo", another look back at the past had a young boy who loses his father. The charming Mexican film "Nora's Will" focuses on death and memories of the past. And I could go on and on with films such as "Beginners","13 Assassins","Dream House","Contagion", "50/50", "Midnight In Paris", "The Artist" and "Cave of Forgotten Dreams". All of these movies were about death and the past, characters which hoped for second chances.

I wouldn't call 2011 a bad year for movies, it wasn't. I don't think it was as good as last year but certainly it was better than 2008 or 2009. Absolute low-points for cinema. Years which I was barely able to make a list of ten films I liked. This year I saw roughly 90 movies and 12 of them I gave four stars. I still have some catch up to do so that number could go higher or remain the same. Either way, 2011 gave us a lot of good movies even if our personal lives didn't always leave us with the best memories.

Here now is my list of the ten best films of 2011 and a runner's up list.

1. MIDNIGHT IN PARIS (Dir. Woody Allen; U.S.) - In a year where nostalgia ruled at the box-office with movies like "Hugo", "The Artist" and "The Adventures of Tintin" to name a few, here is a movie which I feel best represents the year.

In many ways I am like the main character in Woody Allen's charming, insightful comedy. Owen Wilson plays a man with a great affection for the past. A man who wishes he could live in Paris in the 1920s, where he could chat with his heroes; Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Dali and Cole Porter. Through the magic of movies, he gets his chance or does he really?

I too have a great fondness for the past. I grew up with the films of the 1920s, 30s and 40s. I wish I was around then instead of now.

But one of the real reasons "Midnight in Paris" is so special for me, is because it was the last movie I saw with my ex. And how fitting. Here is a movie about longing for the past. A time when things made sense. A time when we feel we had it better. Such a theme resonates with me. It's not so much that "Midnight in Paris" was as emotionally hard-hitting as some of my past choices for "best film of the year" like "The Passion of the Christ" (2004), "United 93" (2006) or "Hunger" (2009) but it was what the movie represents, it's ideas which touched me.

2. THE ARTIST (Dir. Michel Hazanavicius; France) - Since 2011 was a year for celebrating the past, I'd have to include this brilliant film directed by Michel Hazanavicius and starring Jean Dujardin. It is a modern day silent film about the early days of talking pictures and what that meant to silent movie stars.

Last year, at the top of my best of the year list, I placed the restored version of Fritz Lang's "Metropolis"(1927). Here is a movie which could have also been made in 1927. "The Artist" has the look and feel of most classic silent films. It is not a gimmick picture to me. It presents itself in a straightforward way. This is a lovely tribute to the early days of cinema. I hope the film wins a lot of Oscar nominations.

3. THE PRINCESS OF MONTPENSIER (Dir. Bertrand Tavernier; France) - Here is a movie which might have went under the radar for most movie goers but this Bertrand Tavernier (director of such films as "Life and Nothing But" (1990) which I also placed on my top ten list and "Daddy Nostalgia" (1991) is one of the best of his career.

4. SARAH'S KEY (Dir. Gilles Paquet-Brenner; France) - One of the more emotionally draining films of the year. Kristin Scott Thomas stars as a reporter trying to uncover unpleasant truths about the Vel d' Hiv round-up in France. She hopes her actions will bring some clarity to the past and give a family a second chance to move on.

5. CERTIFIED COPY (Dir. Abbas Kiarostami; France/ Italy) - I saw this film back at last year's Chicago International Film Festival where it quickly became my favorite at the fest. I've long been a fan of Iranian filmmaker Kiarostami. This is one of his best films.

6. POINT BLANK (Dir. Fred Cavaye; France) - A roller coaster of a movie. I haven't been on the end of my seat watching a movie this much since I saw "Just Another Love Story" (2009). This is a fast-paced exciting action/thriller movie.

7. THE DESCENDANTS (Dir. Alexander Payne; U.S.) - Here we have a movie about family honor, loyalty and yes, death and second chances. George Clooney and rarely been better. The entire cast shines. Alexander Payne, one of my favorite modern filmmakers, has given us a rich movie. A movie filled with smart characters with distinct personalities. We believe in these people and their problems.

8. 50/50 (Dir. Jonathan Levine; U.S.) - A young boy is told he has cancer and is given a 50/50 chance of living. What to do?

A movie such as this could have go wrong. It could have become a predictable, trite, sentimental weeper. But instead the movie is alive. It deals with its topic with respect. Like "The Descendants" we believe in what we see on-screen. The movie has a wonderful way of balancing comedy and drama.

9. HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 2 (Dir. David Yates; UK/U.S.) - I haven't enjoyed a "Harry Potter" movie this much since the first one. Here is a movie which takes us to another world. It is endlessly creative and magical. I was delighted the entire time watching this movie. Taking every step with Harry.

10. (TIE) CARS 2 (Dir. John Lasseter; U.S.) / RANGO (Dir. Gore Verbinski; U.S.) - Two of the best animated movies of the year. I'm deeply shocked critics are not placing this wonderful Pixar film on their top ten list. Many critics liked "Cars" (2006) also directed by Lasseter, but they were pretty harsh on this one. In all fairness a sequel wasn't really needed. And this story could have been told with different characters, allowing Pixar the chance to create something entirely new. Still I had a great time watching this.

"Rango" on the other hand, is a funny, creative spoof on western which just left me giddy watching it. I love all the movie references and the edge it has. Much different kind of entertainment when compared to "Cars 2" but still entertaining all the way.

RUNNER'S UP!

1. HUGO (Dir. Martin Scorsese; U.S.)

2. TUESDAY, AFTER CHRISTMAS (Marti, Dupa Craciun, Dir. Radu Muntean; Romania)

3. CHILDREN OF GLORY (Szabadsag, Szerelem, Dir. Krisztina Goda; Hungary)

4. EVEN THE RAIN (Dir. Iciar Bollain; Mexico)

5. MARGIN CALL (Dir. J.C. Chandor; U.S.)

6. THE CONSPIRATOR (Dir. Robert Redford; U.S.)

7. MYSTERIES OF LISBON (Dir. Raoul Ruiz; Portugal)

Film Reviews: The Artist & The Adventures of Tintin

2011-12-27T21:10:00.005-06:00

"The Artist" **** (out of ****)

First of all, my apologizes to my dear readers. I have neglected writing for a while. To make up for lost time, I'm going to write about two movies I've recently seen. The wonderful, silent French film "The Artist" (2011) and Steven Spielberg's animated adventure "The Adventures of Tintin" (2011).

Lets be honest, there are people who, after hearing "The Artist" is a silent film will simply not want to see it. And, who can blame modern audiences for not wanting to? This is, unfortunately, the modern age and people like movies where people talk. But, I would imagine there are those who will see this movie precisely because it is silent. This is after all 2011. How often will audiences get to see a silent film in theatres?

The problem I think with the second group is they might expect a gimmick movie. "The Artist" is not a gimmick movie. It is a straight forward silent film. It could have been made in 1927 (the year the movie takes place) and outside of a few minor changes, it is no different then any other film of that time.

The movie has the look and feel of silent cinema. The music is perfect, the cinematography beautiful, and the acting, impeccable. And let us not forget the production and costume design. All of these elements added together give the film the immense amount of charm which it has.

The story is really no different than any other silent film where a young nobody wants to become a celebrity, think of "The Extra Girl" (1923) or "Exit Smiling" (1926) or even "Kiki" (1926). Some audience members may even draw comparisons to the musical "Singin' in the Rain" (1952).

"The Artist" tells duel stories. One is of a young woman, Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo, an unknown actress to me, who managed to steal my heart). She wants to become a famous actress and after a chance encounter, she accidentally bumps into major motion picture star George Valentin (a name I suppose is might to remind us of Rudolph Valentino. Played by Jean Dujardin). He is kind of a ham actor, whom, as posing for photographers, meets Peppy and is taken by her beauty, despite being a married man.

The newspapers start buzzing about who is this young woman who bumped into Valentin. She photo is even on the front page of Variety.

Now, as any film lover or film student will tell you, 1927 is the year the film film with sound, "The Jazz Singer, was released (some people, whom have never seen the movie, mistakenly believe the film is a complete "talkie", it isn't. It is largely a silent film but with musical numbers.) Valentin soon discovers that the head producer at Kinograph Studios (I guess a reference to Biograph Studios, where D.W. Griffith worked) wants to make only sound pictures (he is played by John Goodman). Valentin, like many people at the time, thought sound pictures would be a fade. Talking would turn films into a gimmick. It would de-legitimize cinema as an art form. Valentin laughs at the producer and as a result, is released from his contract. Ironically though, Peppy Miller is signed and becomes a big star.

The film was directed by Michel Hazanavicius and is the third film he has worked on with Dujardin, which I know of. Their previous collaborations were for the spy spoof, OSS 117 films; "Cairo, Nest of Spies" (2006) and "Lost in Rio" (2009) which had a 1960s, "Pink Panther" feel to them. Hazanavicius seems to draw on the past for inspiration. Not a bad idea.

I am however a bit surprised to find him as the director and Dujardin as the star. When I first heard about this film I thought it was going to be a drama. It has serious moments, but there are tongue-in-cheek moments as well. Dujardin has a lot of fun with the character, which is suppose to be an Errol Flynn, Douglas Fairbanks sort but with an ego problem.

Dujardin is perfect in the role. He managed to express all the emotions required for the role. After seeing him in this I cannot think of anyone else doing it. There are elements of pathos here in the character contrasted with a bit of coolness. Dujardin balances things quite well. He won the "Best Actor" award at Cannes for his performance and there is talk he may win an Oscar as well. At the very least, he will be nominated.

I can't kid myself or readers. A movie like "The Artist" is made for people like myself. Old timers who actually watch silent cinema. Someone who yearns for the past. Has a growing interest in the history of cinema. Someone who has actually seen movies with actors like Clara Bow, Greta Garbo, Conrad Nagel, Valentino, Louise Brooks and John Barrymore.

"The Artist" is one of the year's best films. It should not be missed!

"The Adventures of Tintin" *** (out of ****)

For some reason the idea of Steven Spielberg directing an animated film seemed a bit odd to me. Better to leave this sort of thing to Pixar or Dreamworks. But then as I watched the opening minutes of "Tintin" a thought occured to me. Why the heck shouldn't Spielberg direct an animated film?! He's a filmmaker who has never lost touch with his inner child. He should have made an animated film a long time ago. Remember, this is the man who made films such as "E.T." (1982), "Raiders of the Lost Arc" (1981) and "Hook" (1991).

Much like other films released this year, "The Artist" or Martin Scorsese's "Hugo" (2011), "The Adventures of Tintin" is a nostalgic throw-back to an earlier time. The film, based on a comic book series by Herge, recalls 1930s serials. Much like "Indiana Jones".

Tintin (voices by Jamie Bell) is a famous reporter who stumbles upon a great mystery after buying a miniature boat. The actual boat which the model was based on, has a long history Tintin discovers. A great secret is hidden somewhere in the model and only one man can help Tintin solve the mystery, Capt. Haddock (Andy Serkis) a descendant of the original captain of the boat in question.

Tintin and Haddock find themselves on the run from Rackham (Daniel Craig) who knows all about the boat's history and has his own sinister motives.

The film was written by Steven Moffat, whom I know as the creator of one of my favorite TV shows, the BBC comedy "Coupling". And was co-written by Edgar Wright, director of the endlessly creative "Scott Pilgrim vs the World" (2010) and Joe Cornish.

The most amazing thing about "The Adventures of Tintin" was how involved I was. I was actually caught up in the adventure. I found a lot of it suspenseful. I could see how this could have been made into a live-action film (Spielberg's original intention). The film has moments of action, comedy and lite-seriousness.

I really enjoyed the look of the film as well. It is much different, to my eye at least, than what Pixar releases. This looked more "real". I found the animation quite impressive. Still I preferred animated films like "Cars 2" (2011) and "Rango" (2011) over this one. Those movies had a bit more heart. Which is normally something a Spielberg film doesn't lack.

Still, Spielberg puts on a good show for us. I think this makes for a pretty good family film. Most audiences should enjoy it.

Film Review: Creature From The Black Lagoon

2011-10-29T21:14:00.004-05:00

"Creature From The Black Lagoon" ** 1\2 (out of ****)

"Creature From The Black Lagoon" (1954) was a science-fiction/horror film made at Universal Studios. At one time Universal Studios was known as a successful studio which produced some of the most memorable horror films of all time. It was at this studio "Dracula" (1931), "Frankenstein" (1931), "The Mummy" (1932) and "The Wolf Man" (1941) was made.

Those movies were quite ambitious. "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" borrowed a visual style from German Expressionism and the work of Fritz Lang and F.W. Murneau. "The Wolf Man" borrowed from noir films, which were quite popular at the time. But with "Creature From The Black Lagoon" Universal Studios seems to have lost its ambition. "Creature From The Black Lagoon" seems to be borrowing from Ed Wood. This is an almost campy "B" film. Their is great potential here but the film's execution is slightly off.

It is largely believed "Creature From The Black Lagoon" signaled the end of Universal's monster reign. "The Gill Man", as he is known, was the last successful horror film character the studio created.

The film takes place along the Amazon river. A marine biologist, Carl Maia (Antonio Moreno) finds the hand of what appears to be a prehistoric creature among some rocks. He takes the hand to some fellow colleagues; Dr. David Reed (Richard Carlson), Kay Lawrence (Julie Adams) and Dr. Mark Williams (Richard Denning) all of whom are intrigue by the hand and what he may represent for their studies. Dr. Williams is also interested in the fame and financial rewards such scientific find may bring. So, they all agree to head at to the site where the hand was found and explore.

"Creature From The Black Lagoon" is a relatively short film but it makes a lot of mistakes. The biggest mistake is the way the villain, The Gill Man, is treated. I feel the character is seen too soon into the picture, roughly 24 minutes into the movie. This takes away a lot of suspense which could have been created as an audience prepares itself for what this creature may look like. But Universal Studios went all out pushing the character out on the public through its advertising. The creature was the main selling point to the studio and they were going to exploit the look of the monster at all cost in their attempt to generate excitement over the movie.

What also hurts "Creature From The Black Lagoon" is the "B" quality of the film. The acting is under-par. The performers are rather stiff, the dialogue somewhat clumsy. The film lacks suspense not just because of the way the creature is presented but because we are never fully engaged in the story. We don't come to fear for these characters.

I wasn't born in 1950s America. In fact I wasn't in the 1950s but, I suspect, from what I know about other films from the period, "Creature From The Black Lagoon" is a good representation of the times. The 1950s saw a time of great interest in science-fiction. Particularly "B" pictures. Think of Ed Wood titles such as "Night of the Ghouls" (1959), "Plan 9 From Outer Space" (1959) and Roger Corman's "The Beast With A Million Eyes" (1955).

The movie also has an interesting message. Yes readers, a movie called "Creature From The Black Lagoon" has a message. The way I interpret it "Creature From The Black Lagoon" tells us, mind your own damn business. The 1950s, as I said, were a time of great interest in exploration. Going into outer space and alien invasions, discovering the world around us. In "Creature From The Black Lagoon" the characters feel by understanding the past we can understand the future but, like it says in the bible, "seek and ye shall find". And that is the point of the movie. If you go looking for something, you just might find it, and that may not be a good thing. Better to leave nature alone. Better to mind your own business and let things remain as they are. Trouble may be on the horizon.

Some also say the film has that old "King Kong" (1933) element going for it. That of a beast falling in love with a beautiful woman. The Gill Man (played on land by Ben Chapman and in water by Ricou Browning) actually falls in love with Kay. That is why he begins to attack the group so he can get his hands on Kay. This is of course an old theme in movies and literature. Presenting the beautiful woman as an object of affection for a deformed being whether it is in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", "Beauty & The Beast" or "King Kong". Look at what Peter Jackson did in his 2005 remake. He made the woman (played by Naomi Watts) actually feel for Kong.

"Creature From The Black Lagoon" could actually benefit from a remake (God, I can't believe I just said that). It has been something which has been rumored from time to time in Hollywood but the project keeps falling through. But a good movie is lurking here if someone would give it another shot. Put in a little more money, better acting and better dialogue. Also, take that old "Jaws" (1974) approach of delaying the on-screen appearance of the creature.

Will "Creature From The Black Lagoon" work on today's younger audience? I doubt it. Should you watch it anyway? Sure, why not. "Creature From The Black Lagoon" has some qualities worth recommending and it has clearly left an influence on horror films and inspired many films. Just don't expect a masterpiece something on par with Universal Studios earlier horror films.

Film Review: The Raven

2011-10-15T14:28:00.004-05:00

"The Raven" *** (out of ****)

To some people "campy" is a dirty word when describing a movie. I believe when people think of a movie as being campy the films of Ed Wood or something similar comes to mind. They think of movies that are amateurish and unintentionally funny. But Roger Corman's "The Raven" (1963) while campy is a different example.

Every Halloween I review at least one movie directed by Roger Corman and every Halloween I complain that I only review his movies in October. Corman deserves more attention especially from moviebuffs. I don't think Corman is one of cinema's great filmmakers, in a class with Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini or Orson Welles, but I do admire his spirit and what he represents. That indie, non-Hollywood, non-conformist style.

Roger Corman, while often thought of as a "B" filmmaker, has directed a few worthwhile films. The movies which I enjoy watching the films and the ones which I review are his Edgar Allan Poe adaptations. These films I believe show Corman at his highest artistic merit. The films have his best production designs, his best plots and his best acting. In the past I have reviewed "The Pit & the Pendulum" (1961), "The Masque of the Red Death" (1964) and "The House of Usher" (1960). Now comes "The Raven".

"The Raven" is a bit different compared to the other Poe adaptations. "The Raven" is more of a campy comedy. Not a comedy in a laugh-out-loud kind of way (at least I never laughed-out-loud) but in an amusing, lighthearted sort of way. The reason I think the movie works, to the extent it does, is because it knows it is campy. The cast, consisting of all horror movie pros; Vincent Price (a Corman regular), Peter Lorre and Boris Karloff, give the audience a wink and a nod. They know what sort of movie this is and the best way to approach this material.

For an adaptation "The Raven" is pretty loose. Outside of naming the film the same as Poe's most famous story, having a raven in the movie and a female character named Lenore, very little is the same. This movie deals with magicians and magic and a power struggle between two of them. It is also a simple story of good vs evil.

Vincent Price stars as Dr. Erasmus Craven. A sometimes absent minded magician. His wife, Lenore (Hazel Court) has passed away two years ago. With her death his world has come to an end. Nevermore, to quote the raven, will he see or hear her voice.

One day a raven (voiced by Peter Lorre) flies into his window. It explains that he is really a man who has had a curse put on him by Dr. Scarabus (Boris Karloff). The raven requires Dr. Craven to make a potion which will convert the raven back to his human form, Dr. Bedlo.

Once Dr. Craven helps Dr. Bedlo, Bedlo explains that he has seen Lenore at Dr. Scarabus' castle. Bedlo suggest Craven follow him to Scarabus' castle, where Bedlo hopes to get revenge on Scarabus for turning him into a raven.

As you can tell little resembles the Poe story and there isn't much here that is scary. The film never goes for a creepy, mystic tone. The interplay between Price and Lorre is comical. They bicker like a married couple. Each throwing insults at the other. Lorre tries to get a lot of laughs presenting his character as a drunk.

For a Roger Corman film, the movie actually has a very talented cast. Price, Lorre and Karloff are experienced actors. You'll also see a young Jack Nicholson play Rexford Bedlo (Lorre's son). This might surprise some viewers who are use to seeing Nicholson act in higher caliber films. But Nicholson actually was given a big opportunity by Corman. He would act in other Corman films including "Little Shop of Horrors" (1960) and "The Terror" (1963). In Nicholson's performance you'll see him play the wannabe hero whom no one will listen to.

Will "The Raven" be a suitable film to watch on Halloween night? Probably not, depending on what you're looking for. If you are looking for a lot of scares, blood and guts, then no. If you are looking for a silly, playful story dealing with magic and Edgar Allan Poe, "The Raven" will work for you. The question is, how many people are looking for that?

Film Review: The Turin Horse

2011-10-14T08:13:00.012-05:00

"The Turin Horse" **** (out of ****)

One of the most anticipated films at the 47th annual Chicago International Film Festival, for me, was the Hungarian film directed by Bela Tarr, "The Turin Horse" (2011).

Bela Tarr is one of the great and perhaps one of the most uncompromising filmmakers to come out of Central & Eastern Europe. His work can be compared to Michelangelo Antonioni, Theo Angelopoulos or Andrei Tarkovsky. But, like any great artist he is unique. He has his own vision. And is not to be compared to someone else. However, in an effort to help you understand what to expect in one of his films, I've made the comparisons.

Tarr's films are known for long, unbroken camera shots. When I reviewed his film, "Satantango" (1994), his most popular work, I wrote Tarr's films are filled with moments other directors would put on the cutting room floor. What I mean by that is, Tarr will keep his camera on his subjects long after the "message" of the scene has been conveyed. His films are not so much about conventional narrative as they are about abstract ideas. Tarr's films are more about pace and tone and emotion. His work may in fact put you in a trance. It can have a hypnotic quality. The films are also shot in black & white, something Tarr has been doing since his film "Damnation" (Karhozat, 1988). And they are sparse on dialogue. Clearly from my description of his work, you may be able to sense he is not a mainstream director. His films are not for everyone. Strangely, in my opinion anyway, the screening last night for this film was filled with young male college age film students. I say strange because I was expecting an older, Hungarian audience. Not so.

The reason I was so eager to see this particular Tarr film, besides the fact I have seen all of his films and I take a certain pride watching his films, as I am Hungarian myself, had to do with Tarr has said this will be his final film. If he holds true to that, it shall be a major loss for world cinema. Tarr is a distinct voice. His lost in cinema will be felt by film lovers all over.

But what about "The Turin Horse"? Well, I can't tell you much about it. Not because I don't want to spoil anything for you, but, because this is one of those movies some audience members would describe as a film where "nothing happens". Any time you walk into a Bela Tarr screening expect a divided audience. I remember the last time I saw a Tarr film at the festival, "The Man From London" (A London Ferfi, 2007), it was a packed house but people did walk out. They sighed and complained. They left the theatre baffled. "The Turn Horse" was no different. I saw people walk out of the theatre and never return. I heard an elderly woman tell her companion, "I simply didn't like it."

The film revolves around Ohlsdorfer (Janos Derzsi) and his daughter (Erika Bok, whom Tarr first introduced in his film "Satantango" and has casted her in films since). Ohlsdorfer, whose job is never quite made clear, drives a horse and carriage. The horse is sick and is unable to make the journey into the city. These characters live lonely, dull lives. They live in a deserted village. We do not see another house for miles. There is a terrible wind storm, the sound of blowing wind fills the soundtrack. The characters rarely speak to each other, they rarely have guest. Their existence follows a routine. They eat at the same time, dress and undress at the same time and only eat potatoes.

That is not going to sound interesting to a large number of viewers. But you have to understand Tarr is a different kind of storyteller. Tarr is revealing character traits. The film has ideas. Only, this is an intellectual exercise. I personally was involved throughout the film. My mind was constantly going. Trying to understand the significance of certain scenes, certain images. I have not been this actively involved in a Bela Tarr film since "Almanac of the Fall" (Oszi almanach, 1984). "The Turin Horse" is probably Tarr's best film since "Satantango".

One image which Tarr keeps going back to, time and again, is their eating ritual. When we first see them eat Tarr keeps the camera on Ohlsdorfer. It is a medium close-up. We see him peel the skin off the potato and practically devour it. Tarr never breaks away to show the daughter. Why show us a man eat? You know you're going to ask yourself that question. But, wait a minute. Tarr is revealing character traits here. Lets dissect this scene. First, lets start with the obvious. The man is hungry. He scarfs down that potato as if there is no tomorrow. We can see the steam coming out of the food. He blows on his hands and the potato consistently, yet, he never allows the food to cool off. What does this tell us? He has no patience. He'd rather burn his mouth then wait. Also revealed in this scene is he never speaks. His main focus is on the food. Most people take pleasure when they eat. They sit down, have a conversation and relish their meal. Not this man. Eating is not a pleasurable experience.

Tarr goes back to this scene four more times in the film. Each time taking a different approach. The next time he shows them eating it is the daughter who is our focus. She takes her time eating. She slowly peels the potato and waits for it to cool off. An immediate contrast to the father. This reveals much about her. She has assumed the role of caretaker. She helps her father dress, cooks and cleans. Never complains or talks back. She has accepted her role.

Another sequence Tarr devotes much time to is the daughter dressing the father. One of his arms is broken. He is unable to move it. As a result he requires assistance. These moments enforce the concept of the daily routine of their life. The daughter knows the drill. And again we have to notice the lack of communication between father and daughter. Not a "hello", "good morning" or even a "thank you" from the father.

Now, at this point readers have to be asking themselves what does any of this have to do with the movie as a whole? An hour into the film a guest arrives, Bernhard (Mihaly Kormos). He starts to complain to Ohlsdorfer how life is meaningless. Society manages to debase everything. Our existence is filled with nothing more than victory and defeat. Life has an order to it but it is of a mundane existence. There is even mention of God in this conversation as the character explains, God's hand only makes things worst. This I believe is the message of the film. Bernhard is the heart and soul of the film. The movie's conscience if you will. We are all living our lives in expectations to the role that has been designed for us. The daughter's job is to take care of her father. The horse serves the man. The man serves God.

The film has that old Hungarian communist mentality that all of life is meaningless. Nothing good will ever happen. And we must remember this message is coming from a director who made a movie called "Damnation". The bleakness of society has always been a constant theme in Tarr's work.

Watching "The Turin Horse" I couldn't help but feel this is Tarr's most "pure" film. Tarr is simply being Tarr. He is not even going to attempt to get us a narrative. A character to root for. A beginning, middle and end. He is just going to do what he wants. Engage us through his images.

If this truly turns out to be Tarr's last film, it is a fitting conclusion to his career. It is a film which captures everything Tarr has stood for. It is the work of a bold, confident filmmaker with a unique vision. Tarr is stamped all over this film. It remains my favorite film at the Chicago International Film Festival. An uncompromising masterpiece. The work of a visionairy.

Film Review: Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein

2011-10-12T20:39:00.015-05:00

"Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein" *** (out of ****)

As I review horror films in the month of October in celebration of Halloween, I want to pay attention to a sub-genre of comedy which combines these two elements together.

Comedy/horror is nothing new. One of the earliest cinematic examples which I can instantly think of is the Harold Lloyd two-reeler, "Haunted Spooks" (1920) but no comedian or comedy team enaged in this mash-up combo more than Bud Abbott & Lou Costello. They first ventured into this genre in their comedy "Hold That Ghost" (1941) but the film that is often cited as their best example of this genre is "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein" (1948).

It is difficult to say why this is such a popular genre. One theory I have is, if we can laugh at what scares us, it is no longer scary. Comedy/horror films demonstrate the formula of most horror films then turns those movies on their head by making fun of them. Showing us, the audience, how silly it is to find these predictable movies scary.

The cross genre has been so popular over the years that nearly all the great comedians and comedy teams have attempted to delve into this terriority at least once. I've already given you the Harold Lloyd example. Other examples include Bob Hope in "The Ghost Breakers" (1940), the comedy team Olsen & Johnson in "Ghost Catchers" (1944), the team Wheeler & Woolsey in "Mummy's Boys" (1936) and Laurel & Hardy in "The Laurel & Hardy Murder Case" (1930). For a more modern example look at what Wes Craven did with the "Scream" series of films.

By the time "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein" was made both "the boys" and the Universal Studio Monsters had fallen on hard times. Viewers were no longer interested in Dracula or Frankenstein's Monster. And Abbott & Costello were starting to show signs of aging. The team had unofficially split-up at one point. In their comedy "The Time of Their Lives" (1946) the team wasn't even on speaking terms. In that movie they do not have any scenes together (!). So, this film was an attempt to rejuvenate both properties; Abbott & Costello comedies and Universal horror films.

One of the reasons I think this film works as well as it does is because the film does a good job keeping the horror part serious. Lon Chaney Jr., the original Wolf Man and Bela Lugosi, the original Dracula are in this movie. The background story involving these characters could have honestly worked on its own. But the movie does an amazing balancing act and incorporates an "Abbott & Costello" comedy into the mix. The film does a great job splitting the movie in half. Those that want to watch the movie to see their favorite Universal Horror characters may enjoy the scenes involving those characters. Those who want to watch an Abbott & Costello comedy will find many gags and the team's famous wordplay to enjoy. In almost effortless fashion the film can easily go from comedy to horror within the same scene.

In the movie Abbott & Costello play a couple of baggage handlers; Chick Young (Abbott) and Wilbur Grey (Costello). They are ordered to deliver two crates to a wax museum. Inside those crates are Dracula's coffin and Frankenstein's Monster, played by Glenn Strange (while not the original Monster, of course Boris Karloff was, Strange did play the Monster in previous films; "House of Dracula" (1945) and "House of Frankenstein" (1944). Naturally Chick doesn't believe in such nonsense. Dracula and Frankenstein's Monster were made up characters. But Wilbur is not so sure. One gag involves the team reprising their moving candle gag, seen in "Hold That Ghost". I wonder if it inspired Mel Brooks for his "put the candle back" routine in "Young Frankenstein" (1974).

From there the boys learn, from Larry Talbot (Chaney) that in fact Dracula and the Monster are real. Talbot has traveled from London to destroy them, once and for all. But will he be able to stop them? You see, Talbot has his own problem. Many years ago he was biten by a werewolf and when the moon is full...well, you know the story.

"Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein" has a lot of fun with this set-up. As I said, the film never makes fun of the monsters. Their storylines are pretty much intact. You can describe the movie really as a horror film with Abbott & Costello thrown in. Not the other way around. Abbott & Costello are almost comic relief. The film is comparable to previous attempts by Universal Studios to combine all of these famous characters into one film. The "House" movies are an example of this as well as "Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man" (1943).

Unfortunately the following Abbott & Costello films which followed, where the team would meet various monsters, changed the formula a bit. Now the films would be Abbott & Costello comedies first, altering the movies to adjust to their style of comedy. That's why this movie is the best of all the films the team did in this genre.

Some interesting facts concerning the film are Boris Karloff doesn't make an appearance. As I understand it, he was in fact approached to play the role but declined fearing the film would make fun of the characters. However, Karloff would appear in a comedy with Abbott & Costello in "Abbott & Costello Meet The Killer, Boris Karloff" (1949). Bela Lugosi would never again play "Dracula" in a movie. Lugosi was actually in "The Wolf Man" (1941) with Chaney. Lugosi's character was the one which turned Chaney into the Wolf Man.

If your looking for a good laugh on Halloween night, honestly "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein" should please most viewers with its unique blend of comedy and horror.

Film Review: Dream House

2011-10-12T15:48:00.006-05:00

"Dream House"
** 1\2 (out of ****)

Many times a studio will have a fine film on their hands but they won't know how to market it. They will make changes to the film against the director's wishes in an attempt to "sell" the film to a certain demographic. To have a wider commercial appeal. I have a feeling that's what happened to Jim Sheridan's "Dream House" (2011).

If you've happened to see the trailer for this film there is a good chance you were expecting a haunted house story. According to the trailer the film is about a family which moves into a new home, we assume this is where the film gets its title, it was their dream house, only to find out some disturbing secrets, like a family which was murdered in the house. It would seem the spirits of the house are trying to contact the living. Perhaps in an attempt to guard what they still feel is their home.

Well, I don't want to spoil anything for those that haven't seen this film yet, but, "Dream House" is and isn't about that. The film actually goes a little deeper than that. It is about the demons we keep inside us. Our inability to let go of the past. Not being able to fight our own skeletons in our closets. But the film has the look of a major Hollywood slasher film. A big-budget, brain dead production. Certainly that is how the film was marketed.

Daniel Craig plays Will Atenton. He and his family, Libby (Rachel Weisz) and their two daughters; Trish (Taylor Geare) and Dee Dee (Claire Geare) have left the city to move into their new suburban home. Will has even quit his job as an editor to spend more time with his family.

At first the film has the usual set-up we expect in a film such as this. The happy, well-adjusted family is excited about their new home. Everything seems perfect until one day the house starts to make noises and figures are seen outside the window and the neighbors don't seem so nice, in this film's case that would be Ann Patterson (Naomi Watts). What is going on?

Soon Will and Libby discover the house was the setting for a terrible murder. It is believed a man named Peter Ward killed his wife and two children. Peter is now going to be released from prison, where he was never found guilty of the crime. The fifth anniversary of the event is approaching making people in the community nervous. Will and Libby fear Peter is coming after their home.

The film has a terrific cast but no one really seems put to good use. Naomi Watts is wasted. A majority of the film has absolutely nothing to do with her. Her second billing is not deserved. Rachel Weisz has much more screen time. Watts is one of my favorite actresses working today. I believe she has extraordinary skills but "Dream House" does not allow her to display her acting range at all. An actress with the caliber of talent at Watt's level was not required of this role. It could have been a nice opportunity for an unknown actress to strike out. My guess is Watts was cast to remind people of her role in the horror film, "The Ring" (2002) which I never liked, including its sequel.

Craig fares a little better, because the role requires more of him but it just doesn't feel like Craig is giving his all in this movie. Everyone in the cast looks drained. Is director Jim Sheridan that difficult to work with?

For readers unaware Sheridan has actually directed some very good movies. He may be best known for "My Left Foot" (1989). He also directed "In the Name of the Father" (1993) and "In America" (2002), all of which were nominated for Academy Awards. So Sheridan has a pretty impressive track record. He is respected in the business. And one gets the feeling he wanted "Dream House" to be something more than your typical horror film. "Dream House" is really a psychological film. A kind of brain teaser. But the structure of the film felt a bit off. Somewhat underdeveloped. The movie's big twist felt a little too rushed for me.

I personally wouldn't call "Dream House" a scary movie. There isn't any blood or guts on-screen. No extreme violence. So, if after watching the trailer, you are expecting something along those lines, consider this your warning. You will be disappointed.

There's a good movie lurking around somewhere in "Dream House". I can most definitely see the possibilities. Sadly the final product doesn't live up to the film's potential. Too bad. This is a missed opportunity.

Film Review: His Mother's Eyes

2011-10-12T10:07:00.006-05:00

"His Mother's Eyes" ** 1\2 (out of ****)

As the 47th annual Chicago International Film Festival continues, I managed to attend a screening for this somewhat interesting French film, "His Mother's Eyes" (2011), a film which was under the radar at the festival. Just what I like. I enjoy attending the films which others aren't seeking out. You never know, you might discover a gem. "His Mother's Eyes" isn't a gem in my opinion, but, it was a risk I was willing to take.

"His Mother's Eyes" stars the great French cinematic icon Catherine Deneuve. I hate to say it, but, Deneuve has not been in a film which I feel deserves her. I think very highly of Deneuve as an actress. Gone are the days when this beauty appeared in "important" films in which she would give stirring performances. No more "Repulsion" (1965), "Belle de Jour" (1967) or "Tristana" (1970) in her future. Now she appears in movies like "Potiche" (2011), "8 Women" (2002), "The Girl On The Train" (2009, which I also saw at the film festival) and "Apres lui" (2007). Mind you, none of these films are bad. I enjoyed "The Girl On The Train" by Andre Techine quite a bit. I thought it was one of the best films of the year. But, my appreciation for that movie and others had nothing to do with Deneuve. Films and directors don't seem to be using her properly anymore. Or are they simply not making films like they use to? Films which demanded more of her.

On paper "His Mother's Eyes" sounds like an interesting concept. The film centers on Mathieu Roussel (Nicolas Duvauchelle, who appeared with Deneuve in "The Girl On The Train" and other highly celebrated French films such as "White Material" (2010) and "Wild Grass" (2010) by Alain Resnais). He is a celebrity journalist. One of those people who hunts down the rich and famous and writes "tell all" books exposing old family secrets and scandalous sex stories and gossip. Mathieu has now set his sights on TV anchorwoman, Lena Weber (Deneuve).

In preparation for his new book Mathieu lands a job as a personal assistant to Lena thereby giving his access to her daily routine. He also manages to meet Lena's estrange daughter, Maria (Geraldine Pailhas) a famous ballet dancer. He never reveals to Maria he knows her mother and never reveals to Lena he has contacted Maria.

There are many secrets hidden in these people's lives. Why exactly does Lena and Maria have such a strained relationship. What exactly his the relationship between Maria and Judit (Marisa Paredes), an elderly Spainish women who acts as Maria's mother. We also learn Maria had a child, Bruno (Jean-Baptiste Lafarge) whom she gave up for adoption and now would like to contact.

Mathieu learns all of these family secrets. It is a goldmine for his new book. But after spending so much time with these people can Mathieu go through with his deceitful behavior?

Walking into "His Mother's Eyes" I was expected a suspense film. I felt the plot called for that tone. But "His Mother's Eyes" doesn't fall into that genre. It plays its material more heartfelt. It goes for drama. That was kind of a mistake in my opinion. "His Mother's Eyes" could have been a Claude Chabrol type thriller. In fact the great French master of suspense did make a film about a journalist interviewing a celebrity where sinister family secrets were learned. The film was called "Masques" (1987, I have reviewed it). That film had a tongue-in-cheek tone though. Still, I enjoyed that film a bit more.

For what it does, "His Mother's Eyes" has some nice moments. Unfortunately, once again, I wasn't impressed by Deneuve, the film doesn't really give her much to do. There aren't many scenes which require a great range of emotion, but, everyone else does a nice job. Geraldine Pailhas seems sincere in her scenes where she tries to reach out to her son. We can sense her optimism and defeat. Duvauchelle plays the creep, no morals character quite well. We can never quite tell which side of the fence he is on. Is he showing emotion or just playing a part, trying to manipulate these people?

The film was written and directed by Thierry Klifa. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with this director's work. But Klifa does have a fine eye and is more than capable of stringing a film together. I just couldn't get over the feeling that the movie was playing against what should have been a more natural tone and pace for this type of story.

I'm skeptical if this movie will find distribution in the United States, still, I'm glad I saw the movie.

Film Reviews: Bedlam & Isle of the Dead

2011-10-10T08:38:00.003-05:00

"Bedlam" *** 1\2 (out of ****)

Since starting this blog some years ago I have always devoted the month of October to horror films in honor of Halloween. This year will be no different. In the past I have usually written about classic horror films such as "Dracula" (1931) and "Frankenstein" (1931). I have also spent a great deal of time reviewing the films made by producer Val Lewton. And here we have two more films produced by the great horror/suspense master; "Bedlam" (1946) and Isle of the Dead" (1945).

Both films were directed by Mark Robson and star Boris Karloff. Of the two films I would say "Bedlam" is the better one, though not the best collaboration between Karloff and Lewton, who worked on three films together. My favorite is "The Body Snatcher" (1945), which I have already reviewed.

"Bedlam" plays around with some religious themes, as most horror films do, and themes of nature vs nurture. What makes people bad? What brings about violence? Is it something simply within humans or does environment play a role? How are we suppose to treat the less fortunate, like animals or with kindness?

Boris Karloff plays Master George Sims. He runs an insane asylum. A fatal accident, of a sane man, has allowed Master Sims to fall out of favor with Lord Mortimer (Billy House). The man who died was a friend of his Lordship. Sims has explained that is was all an accident and in order to win good favor once again with his Lordship as invited him and his protege, Nell Bowen (Anna Lee), to his asylum where they may laugh at these people as they attempt to put on a play. His Lordship loves the idea but Ms. Bowen isn't sold on the idea.

At the asylum Sims regards these people as less than animals. He beats them, steals their food and does not provide stable living conditions. No beds or treatment. You see, they are violent, uneducated people. They do not deserve proper treatment. They wouldn't be able to appreciate it anyway, they are too ignorant to know any better. You mustn't treat them the way you would a civilize person.

Ms. Bowen arrives at the asylum to see exactly what goes on there. Sims, who doesn't like her, agrees to show her and explain his views. Though Ms. Bowen has a cold exterior, inside she is deeply affected by what she sees. Sims' views disgust her. She vows to reform this asylum with the help of Lord Mortimer. But this doesn't meet the approval of Sims. Ms. Bowen must be gotten rid of. Sims decides to have her locked up in his asylum. Then we shall see if she still regards these less fortunate individuals as "people". If they are worthy of kindness.

When we watch a Val Lewton production you expect a lot of shadows, danger lurking in the darkness. Lewton's films are more about atmosphere than say screen violence. In fact, violence is never shown on-screen in any of his films. If you walk into any of these films with a slasher mentality you will be gravely disappointed.

However, "Bedlam" misses a few golden opportunities. It required more scenes inside the asylum. At first Ms. Bowen is scared to be there. She wants to leave. Here Lewton and Robson should have shown us what type of place this asylum is. What exactly goes on there. How are the people treated? How do they react to Ms. Bowen. The setting is a perfect backdrop for a suspense/horror film. We aren't in the darkness so much. And we never come to fully understand what exactly happened to his Lordship's friend. Was he on to Sims? Was he about to expose him?

When compared to "Isle of the Dead", Karloff gives a much better performance here. He is more animated. More entertaining to watch.

The director, Robson, worked with Lewton on a few movies. He replaced Lewton's best director, Jacques Tourner, who directed "The Cat People" (1943) and "I Walked with A Zombie" (1943). Robson seems to have lacked Tourner's vision and understanding of what makes a Lewton film work. Robson directed "The Seventh Victim" (1943) and "The Ghost Ship" (1943) with Lewton and would go on, after Lewton, to direct the Frank Sinatra vehicle "Von Ryan's Express" (1965) and "Earthquake" (1974). Nothing he would work on suggested a man who understood horror.

Still "Bedlam" is perhaps Robson's best film with Lewton. He doesn't take full advantage of the film's setting, which would have worked nicely with this genre, still the film has some nice moments and interesting ideas.

"Isle of the Dead" *** (out of ****)

On paper I suppose "Isle of the Dead" should have worked but the final product is a bit weak. Once again we have a wonderful setting which isn't taken full advantage of.

We are in the midst of the war of 1912 on a Greek island. The plague has struck. A group of people are stranded on an island together for fear of spreading the disease. There is also the threat of an evil spirit, the vorvolaka, which may live inside a young woman, Thea (Ellen Drew).

The premise sounds creepy enough to get a few scares. It reminds me a bit of Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None", where one by one each character will die off due to the plague. Who will be the last person standing? It also reminds me of other Val Lewton films like "The Cat People" also a story about an evil force within a young woman. And "I Walked with A Zombie" which takes place on an island where evil lurks. All three works are better.

Karloff stars once again as Gen. Pherides who arrives on the island to visit the grave of his wife. He along with an American war correspondent, Oliver (Marc Cramer) discover that the bodies are no longer in the graves. They notice a house on the island and pay a visit. A gentlemen named Albrecht (Jason Robards Sr.) has been living on the islands for years and knows all about the grave robbers. But there is nothing he can do. He suggest the general and Oliver spend the night with him and his guest; Mr. and Mrs. St. Aubyn (Alan Napier, best known for playing Alfred on the 1960s TV show "Batman" and Katherine Emery) and Thea.

When one of these characters dies the general believes it is the plague and everyone must stay on the island. But could it be something else? Could it be the evil spirit called the vorvolaka? Thought originally to be an ancient Greek myth perhaps it is true.

Once again Robson doesn't fully understand what makes a Lewton film work. The movie should be drenched in atmosphere. Isolated island, dead bodies, evil spirits, it doesn't get much better than this for a horror film. And Boris Karloff is it. It should all add up but it doesn't. Karloff in particular is quite stiff in this movie. Almost everyone seems in a bit of a trance. I guess in theory still goes along with the title, "Isle of the Dead", why should these actors be acting "alive"?

I'd put "Isle of the Dead" pretty low on Lewton's scale. Better to watch "Bedlam", "The Cat People", "The Leopard Man" (1943) and "I Walked with A Zombie".

Film Review: What Love May Bring

2011-10-09T07:50:00.006-05:00

"What Love May Bring" *** 1\2 (out of ****)

The 47th annual Chicago International Film Festival has begun and for my first night attending the festival I was at a special screening for Claude Lelouch's latest film, "What Love May Bring" (2011). Mr. Lelouch graced the audience with his present, where he was also given an award.

I have long been a fan of Mr. Lelouch, a filmmaker perhaps best known for the film "A Man & A Woman" (1966). For which he won an Academy Award for the film's screenplay. When I found out his newest film was going to be screened, I knew I had to attend. The last film Mr. Lelouch directed, which was distributed in this country was "Roman de Gare" (2008). So I was due for another Lelouch film. Plus, there was the chance this film might not get picked up. Another film Mr. Lelouch had screened at the festival, "Le Courage d'aimer" (2005) never found American distribution. Sadly the name Claude Lelouch doesn't mean much to today's movie audience. Those in attendance at yesterday's screening where of the older variety.

"What Love May Bring" tells us the story of Ilva Lemoine (Audrey Dana), a woman on trial for killing her husband, the very wealthy Jim (Gilles Lemaire). Her attorney, Simon (Laurent Couson) tells the court Ilva's life story as well as his own life story (why are all lawyers such ego maniacs?).

The film takes us back to the 1920s where Ilva's mother, an actress in porn films, finally meets a nice man, Maurice (Dominique Pinon, who was in "Roman de Gare"). Next it is the beginning of WW2. This Jewish family is now being watched by the Nazis. Maurice, unknown to his step-daughter, is part of the resistance. But, no matter, because Ilva has fallen in love with a German soldier. Soon the Americans enter the war, where Ilva's meets two American soldiers, Jim and his best friend, a black soldier, Bob (Jacky Ido). Both men are in love with her and she may very well be in love with both of them.

For the first 90 minutues of this two hour film, I was intensely hooked. Claude Lelouch has given us a valentine, a celebration of life, love and that glorious thing called cinema. I found myself captivated by Ilva and Simon's story. Simon, also a Jew, is sent to a concentration camp, where in order to survive he keeps himself glued to the piano. He longs for a woman he meet on one of the trains to the camp. One who has now vanished.

But then sadly Mr. Lelouch gets a little self-reflective in the last act. A little too self-congraditatory. There is actually a character based on Mr. Lelouch in the film. There is a brief montage of Mr. Lelouch's films. Then the movie becomes a movie within a movie. We see an audience attend a screening of this movie. These moments serve no function. There aren't needed and completely go against the tone the previous 90 minutues had established. It was here the movie started to lose me.

If Mr. Leouch, who co-wrote the film with long time collaborator, Pierre Uytterhoven, who wrote "A Man & A Woman", along with its sequel, "A Man & A Woman: 20 Years Later" (1986), should have edited these finally minutes and just keep the film as the story of Simon and Ilva. Why turn the movie and the audience on its head with all this tapping himself on the back. Yes, Mr. Leouch is a great filmmaker. No question. I even wouldn't have mind the character who is suppose to be him in the movie but when you start showing a montage of your own films in the middle of one of your films, in an attempt to celebrate your own career, I believe you have gone a bit too far. A great talent deserves to be celebrated but not by the filmmaker himself. It comes off a little too forced.

Still I cannot deny the amazing effect the first 90 minutes had on me. It is a lovely period piece filled with great music, mostly "Stormy Weather" and the wonderful French song, "I Wish You Love" and a lot of emotion. You begin to feel for these characters and their stories. Their struggles, their search for love.

As I walked out of the theatre I over heard many people say how great the movie was. Their was a big applause at the end of the film. No one wanted to leave the theatre after the credits, I assume because they wanted to hear what Mr. Leouch was going to say. I mention this because clearly their is an audience for the film. There are people who are going to enjoy it greatly. I myself love many, many things about the movie too. But, will it be distributed in this country? Will a wider audience gain access to see this film? I'm not too sure.

Film Review: Midnight in Paris

2011-09-21T20:01:00.008-05:00

"Midnight in Paris" *** 1\2 (out of ****)

Woody Allen's "Midnight in Paris" (2011) starts off with images of the streets of Paris as the great New Orleans jazz musician, Sidney Bechet (who lived in Paris in his last years) plays "Si tu vois ma mere" on the soundtrack.

It is a moment not unlike the opening montage in Allen's "Manhattan" (1979) where Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" plays over a collection of iconic New York images as Allen gives us a narration. Both films are a valentine to a city. Both films deal with men who idolize a city all out of proportion.

In "Midnight in Paris" Owen Wilson plays Gil, an American who has traveled to Paris with his fiancee, Inez (Rachel McAdams) and her parents (Kurt Fuller and Mimi Kennedy). Gil is a bit of an old soul. A man who wonders what Paris in the 1920s must have been like. A time when Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald rubbed elbows with Ernest Hemingway. A time when Cole Porter was writing songs like "Lets Fall in Love", "You've Got That Thing" and "You Do Something To Me". A time when Picasso and Salvador Dali painted masterpieces. All of this amazing culture in one city, in one time.

But not everyone shares in Gil's pleasure. For instance Inez thinks it is foolish to romanticize the past. Better to leave the past behind and live in the present. Though Gil is unable to. He wants to live in Paris and emulate his heroes, Fitzgerald and Hemingway. He wants to write a great American novel, whereas Inez wants to live in Malibu and demands Gil keep his job as a Hollywood screenwriter.

I'm not sure how much of a spoiler this will be, but just in case. If you have not heard about this film, if you have not seen it yet; SPOILER ALERT:

One night, while alone, and walking the street of Paris at midnight, Gil magically finds himself transported to 1920s Paris where he meets all of his idols. He has Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates) read his novel. Discusses literature with Hemingway (Corey Stoll) and Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleston). He meets Dali (Adrian Brody) and speaks of love. And he meets Adriana (a fictitious character played by Marion Cotillard) a woman who serves as a muse to these great artist. She no doubt captures Gil's heart and inspires him. END SPOILER

The film plays with themes which have often been central in a Woody Allen film. Themes of fantasy vs reality and a longing for the past. Allen of course has given us such films as "Bullets Over Broadway" (1994) a valentine to 1920s America, and "Radio Days" (1987) a look back at Allen's childhood in the 1940s. But here Allen is his most forthcoming with this theme. And his offers a surprising message. Surprising because Allen contradicts his own message. That being, every generation perceives the past as being better than current times. Woody Allen makes films where characters discuss Hemingway and Cole Porter and classic jazz music plays in his films. Isn't Allen also living in the past?

I have now seen "Midnight in Paris" twice. The first time I saw it was opening day, several months ago. I liked the film, thought it was okay with some minor problems. Since that time many people have told me how much they enjoyed the movie. People who normally don't like Allen or see his films have sung the film's praises. What was wrong with me I thought. On paper the film sounds right up my alley. I too am an old soul. I idolize the past and feel I was born in the wrong times. I can very much so relate to the Gil character, but, "Midnight in Paris" didn't connect as strongly with me as I thought it would.

The film has turned out to be Allen's greatest achievement, in box-office terms, grossing more than $50 million dollars in the U.S. alone. It is still in theatres and so I thought I would check it out again. Make sure I hadn't missed something. Perhaps I was in the wrong mood the first time I saw the film. It turns out I was.

"Midnight in Paris" has grown on me after a second viewing. Much in my life has changed since I first saw this film. The idea of longing for the past, a time when things made sense, now strongly resonates with me. Within these past few months death and failed relationships have occupied my thoughts and filled my days. My grandmother passed away and a romantic relationship ended. In fact "Midnight in Paris" was the last film we saw together before our break-up. I thought about these things watching the film again.

In every Woody Allen film, which Allen has not casted himself, there is usually a character Allen himself would have played if he where younger and audiences didn't have a hostile attitude towards seeing him on-screen. Here it is the Gil character of course. Most actors who play this character usually do a Woody Allen impersonation. Wilson does this on a small scale with similar hand gestures and speech patterns but it is not annoying. A majority of critics have claimed Wilson gives the best performance of his career. Who knew he was capable of more than silly, gross out humor?

One of the problems I originally had with "Midnight in Paris" was I felt Allen didn't romanticize the time period. It felt like Allen wasn't sentimental towards the 1920s. The film didn't really feel magical in those moments. Another problem was I thought Allen is asking a lot of his audience. He is making some pretty big assumptions that today's audience knows who Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Dali and Cole Porter are. Those who know who these people are will get a kick out of the film, but, what about those who have never read Fitzgerald? Or those who have never heard a Cole Porter song? Will they like this movie? They might, they will clearly understand the basic concept of the film, but, will it tickle their fancy the same way it does for those of us who know who these people are?

I'm glad I saw "Midnight in Paris" again. In what has been a pretty good year for movies, Allen's film, is a standout. A wonderfully, rich experience. A film full of charm and tidbits of wisdom.

Film Review: Bitter Sugar

2011-08-29T17:57:00.007-05:00

"Bitter Sugar" *** (out of ****)

It has been my opinion that the majority of Cuban films suffer from the same problem. The films of Cuba are made strickly for Cubans to see and no one else. Of the handful of Cuban films I have seen nearly none of them portray the political climate of the country correctly. Most of the Cuban films I have seen have revolved around the Castro revolution. All of them have been pro-Castro. What I've never been able to figure out is what was wrong with the Batista regime? What was the country like? What lead to Castro?

The Cuban film "Bitter Sugar (Azucar Amarga 1997) doesn't answer any of these questions but it is a remarkable film none-the-less. The film deals with, at the time, modern day Cuba. Castro has been in power for decades. His grip is firmly felt throughout the country. But "Bitter Sugar" does something few Cuban films have done. First it shows us what Cubans are feeling. It truly gives us a sense of the country and what the people of Cuba think and feel. Secondly, it is anti-Castro (I assume because of this the film was not shot in Cuba but rather Santo Domingo).

Of the more modern films from Cuba I have seen, they seem to suggest everything is not okay in their homeland. The film, Nada (2001) disguised itself as a quirky romance, but, beneath its surface was the story of a woman who wanted to escape a repressed country. Here too in "Bitter Sugar" we are dealing with characters who want to escape a repressed country, only this film makes it its center theme. And that's what I admire most about "Bitter Sugar". The film displays a level of frustration and despair. We can almost sense how hopeless things are in Cuba. There is no social advancement.

The hero of the film is Gustavo (Rene Lavan) a bright young college student who has the chance to leave Cuba and study in Prague. But, you see, Rene and his family are Communist. Devoted communist in fact. They even have pictures of Fidel hanging on their wall. They believe in what Castro stands for. Gustavo's father, Dr. Valdez (Miguel Gutierrez) remembers well when Castro took power. He felt it was going to be a great moment of change. A new beginning. But Cuba is still facing hard times. Still, one can't abandon the great leader. At least that is what Gustavo believes.

Gustavo's brother, Bobby (Larry Villanueva) does not share his family's political views. He is a musician who embraces American music. Gustavo soon meets a beautiful woman, Yolando (Mayte Vilan). She also does not support Castro. Can these two people change Gustavo and his father's mind?

Without spoiling much, the majority of the characters in "Bitter Sugar" learn the bitter truth about Cuba. They each face hardships and disappointments. Maybe the great leader isn't so great after all. In Hungarian cinema, which was also at one time a Communist country, there is a filmmaker named Istvan Szabo. He usually makes films which concern the theme, with great power comes great corruption. I always think of Szabo when I watch Cuban films and that particular theme. Isn't that exactly what happened with Castro? Here was a man people put faith in. A man who said he would end the corruption which plagued his beloved country. But as soon as he gained power he realized he liked it and would not reliquish it. With his great power came great corruption.

I have a hunch "Bitter Sugar" shows us what Cuba is really like. What the people are really experiencing. Other Cuban films like "Guaguasi" (1983), "Hello Hemingway" (1990) and "Clandestinos" (1988) did not present us with an accurate portrait of Cuba and the issues which the country faces. They didn't give us a feeling of the times. That was their downfall. "Bitter Sugar" has some emotionally strong and powerful moments. Moments when character make grand speeches but their words ring true. Their feelings seem sincere. We are drawn into their despair.

The film was directed by Leon Ichaso. He has worked on some American TV shows like "Miami Vice" and even directed "Saturday Night Live" back in the early eighties. He says the film is based on his own experiences and the experiences of most Cuban-Americans. I believe him. In fact, if someone is Cuban and decides to watch this movie, I'm almost not sure if that is a good idea. I would imagine that person would become so sad to see what their country has become.

For the rest of us though, it is a compelling and disturbing look inside Cuba.

Film Review: Queen of the Lot

2011-08-12T21:33:00.005-05:00

"Queen of the Lot"
** 1\2 (out of ****)

"Queen of the Lot" (2010) is another quirky, off-beat Henry Jaglom film, starring his latest muse, the actress Tanna Frederick. This is their third film together and are already working on a fourth.

"Queen of the Lot" is a sequel to Jaglom's and Frederick's first film together, "Hollywood Dreams" (2007). In that film, Maggie Chase (Frederick) as she is now called, was a young novice actress from Iowa (where Frederick is really from) who dreamed of becoming a Hollywood actress. The film also had a subplot dealing with sexual identity. In "Queen of the Lot" Maggie is a big star. She is best known for her roles in action films.

Sadly for Maggie, Hollywood has not turned out to be all she thought it would. Maggie she gained a reputation as a "bad girl". In the beginning moments of the film the camera wants to make sure that the viewer knows Ms. Chase is wearing an electronic ankle bracelet due to a DUI.

Unable to deal with the public scrutiny Maggie decides she and her boyfriend, Dov Lambert (Christoher Rydell) head out to her agents; Kaz (Zack Norman) and Caesar (David Proval) a homosexual couple. After a few night there, where Maggie even has the gaul to ask to sleep in the master bedroom, Dov thinks its best he and Maggie head out to his father's (Jack Heller) estate, where they can spend the Christmas holiday together. It is there Maggie meets Dov's brother, Aaron (Noah Wyle, who actually gets second billing!) and a romance begins to blossom.

At first I thought "Queen of the Lot" was going to be a satirical look at Hollywood. A critique on the state of today's actors, whom once they achieve fame give up on all artistic merit. I thought the film was going to show us the phony nature of Hollywood and all the wheeling and dealing which goes on behind the scenes to get a picture made. And finally I simply thought the film was going to show an actress headed towards a downward spiral as the Hollywood culture takes her down and she yearns for her old life in Iowa again.

Sadly "Queen of the Lot" is none of those things. Maggie doesn't shy away from the limelight, she places herself in the middle of attention. She google's her name and reads what others say about her. She wants to achieve greater success. She wants people to notice her when she walks on the sidewalk or sits down at a cafe. She wants her face on a cup.

The film doesn't take many shots at Hollywood either. Henry Jaglom has been making films for forty years. Like John Cassevettes or Mike Leigh, he has been a force in the independent film circuit. If anyone can dish the dirt on Hollywood and back room deals, I would have thought it would have been Jaglom. I would have thought he would relish the opportunity to expose these people. I'm sure he has some good stories to tell. But he doesn't tell any of them in this film.

But there are some good moments in the film. Some of my favorites involve Peter Bogdanovich. He plays a nearly washed-up filmmaker, Pedja (where the heck did they get that name from?) who is being ordered to remake Ernst Lubitsch's classic romantic comedy, "Trouble in Paradise" (1932, my personal favorite Lubitsch comedy). Pedja is against it and begins to explain why he nor anyone else should ever remake any Lubitsch film.

Bogdanovich is always a pleasure to watch on-screen. Whether he is giving an interview or acting in a movie he lights up the screen. He always has good stories to tell and is an encyclopedia on the subject of the history of film.

I also think Noah Wyle probably gives the best performance in the film. Compare his style of acting to some of the others in the film. Wyle comes off much more realistic. He doesn't seem to be over-acting. His behavior and speech reflects that of a normal, everyday person. You can relate to him. Watching him on-screen acting opposite some of the other actors shows you why he is a professional and the others simply have a lot to learn.

I was though disappointed there wasn't more for Zack Norman. Norman is one of my favorite Jaglom regulars. He has a great comic style of acting and a persona which always reminds me of Woody Allen, a fast-talking, wild hand gesturing, dreamer. It is also too bad Bogdanovich isn't given enough time.

But while those moments are good, it isn't always enough. "Queen of the Lot" doesn't focus on its original theme of an actress' personal life spinning out of control. Many times the film's dialogue comes out of left field, like a moment when Maggie talks about masturbating pigs (!). Or mention of a subplot concerning one of the characters about to lose their home, or the marital status of some of the characters. The film just goes into directions it never should have. The plot structure is too loose.

New York Daily News film critic, Elizabeth Weitzman wrote in her review of this film, "if Henry Jaglom is determined to push muse Tanna Frederick on us, he really ought to give her more than the self-congratulatory vanity projects they keep churning out together." I actually wrote something similar in my review for Jaglom's last film, "Irene in Time" (2009). In "Queen of the Lot" I didn't feel that way but I could see Weitzman's point. Almost all of the male characters fall for Maggie. It reminds me a bit of the film "Pandora's Box" (1929) with Louise Brooks, where Brooks brings out lust in every man she meets. But Frederick is no Louise Brooks.

"Queen of the Lot" I guess is the best film Jaglom and Frederick have worked on together but unfortunately that's not saying much since I haven't been greatly impressed with Jaglom's work of late. When will Jaglom give us more movies like "Sitting Ducks" (1980), "Deja Vu" (1998) and his much better film looking at the movies and movie stars, "Festival in Cannes" (2002)?

Since "Queen of the Lot" invokes classic Hollywood, by name dropping Norma Shearer, Louis B. Mayer and Ernst Lubitsch maybe Jaglom should have rewatched some classics like "Bombshell" (1933) a great Jean Harlow comedy about an actress who wants a normal life or the funny Howard Hawks comedy "Twentieth Century" (1934).

Film Review: Cowboys & Aliens

2011-07-31T16:28:00.005-05:00

"Cowboys & Aliens" ** 1\2 (out of ****)

When you hear about a movie called "Cowboys & Aliens" (2011) you tend to review the movie before you even see it. Lets face it, the movie sounds goofy. People are going to judge the quality of the movie based on the title alone. It may in fact work in the film's favor. Some might think "what the heck kind of movie is this going to be" and then they'll head out to see it. Others, will hear this title and say it sounds horrible. I'm somewhere in the middle.

"Cowboys & Aliens" might not be the movie some people are expecting. I don't think this is a spoiler but "Cowboys & Aliens" is not a campy, broad comedy. The film is a western first and foremost, second a science fiction adventure. The film has a set-up and a cast of characters you would find in a typical western film. Director Jon Favreau, his screenwriters and this cast take this material serious. In my opinion that serves as a plus. Still there are those who criticize that move, among them, Wall Street Journal movie critic Joe Morgenstern who wrote, "cowboys versus aliens is a concept that may make you smile in anticipation, but wipe that smile off your face before buying your ticket, because the film takes its subject seriously - deadly seriously".

And you have to hand it to this cast. No one is winking at the camera, no one has a smirk on their face. This cast, starring Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford, actually give engaging performances. Their characters are as believable as characters can be in movie called "Cowboys & Aliens". These are characters with a background story. Characters with an objective. They are motivated by emotions. This isn't a shoot 'em up, brain dead action film. There is acting required. That is another plus in the film's favor.

Daniel Craig plays Jake Lonergan. A mysterious man who roams into a town called Absolution. He wakes up one day in an empty field. He has a metal brace attached to his arm. He doesn't know what it is, how it was put on him, where he is or who he is.

He finds himself in trouble after an encounter with the son of a big cattle rancher, Woodrow Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford) and when the local sheriff (Keith Carradine) figures out who he is. A wanted criminal with a reward on his head.

Here we have the set-up of most western. The mysterious stranger who rides into town and confronts the town's local villain. The beautiful woman who brings out the softer side of our anti-hero, in this film's case, Ella (Olivia Wilde). And then these two men must join together when a dangerous gang rides into town. Only in this film's case that dangerous gang is aliens and they ride into town in flying saucers not horses.

Once the aliens start rounding up the townsfolk, in order to study humans, a posse is formed to attack the aliens and get the townsfolk back.

The film is based on a comic book by Scott Mitchell Rosenberg and was adapted by a gang of writers consisting of Roberto Orci and his partner Alex Kurtzman. Together they wrote "Star Trek" (2009) and "Mission:Impossible III" (2006). And the writing team of Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby who worked on Favreau's "Iron Man" (2008), also a comic book adaptation, and "Children of Men" (2006). These men took this project serious and must have studied the western genre. Still Joe Morgenstern may have been on to something when he said the film could have used some light-heartedness.

Jon Favreau is proving himself to be an accomplished mainstream filmmaker. His first "Iron Man" was accepted by fan boys as a worth-while comic book movie and its sequel, while it didn't receive the same glowing reviews, did make a lot of money. And now with "Cowboys & Aliens" which is positioning itself for the number one spot this weekend, with the children's film "Smurfs" (2011) giving it a run for its money ("Smurfs" is not worth watching) Favreau has another hit on his hands.

But part of me just couldn't get over the goofy, absurd nature of the film. Yes, I appreciate the acting and the look of the film but, I couldn't quite accept the blending of these two genres. Though you have to admit the filmmaker and the actors sure give it the ol' college try. But could a film, which blends these two genres have actually worked in the first place? Was the deck stacked against it to begin with? It is difficult to find the right tone for a project such as this.

In a rather smart move, the movie avoids all discussion of how this came to be. The cowboys don't know these are "aliens" at least they never call them that by name. There is no scientific explanation for how these aliens came to invade the old west. The only mis-step is with the Ella character and explanations of her origins, which are never properly explained. I still don't know where she comes from. And I'm not sure it matters.

If it sounds like I'm on the fence about "Cowboys & Aliens" that's because I am. Should you see this movie? Maybe. I will say this is probably going to be the best alien invasion movie of the old west we will see for a while.

Film Review: The Company Men

2011-07-09T09:40:00.005-05:00

"The Company Men" *** (out of ****)

In a strange twist of fate I saw "The Company Men" (2011) on the same day the U.S. Labor report for the month of June was released. According to the report only 18,000 jobs were created last month. The employment rate rose to 9.2% which equals more than 14 millions Americans who are out of work.

I mention all of this for a reason, believe it or not. This is what John Wells' "The Company Men" is about. The film deals which our current recession (though some would call it a depression) and our economic downturn. Millions of people are out of work as companies downsize. Meanwhile, CEOs are getting paid bonuses and the disparity between workers and their employers grows.

"The Company Men" centers on a shipbuilding company, GTX, run by James Salinger (Craig T. Nelson). The company's stocks are down, there is a threat of outsiders buying the company, taking control of the company which Salinger and his best friend, Gene McClary (Tommy Lee Jones) started from scratch. In order to deal with this problem Salinger and his board decide the best thing to do is downsize. More than 5,000 people are let go. Among that number is Bobby Walker (Ben Affleck) and Phil Woodward (Chris Cooper).

In a bizarre way "The Company Men" reminds me of "The Best Years Of Our Lives" (1946) the "Best Picture" Oscar winner, which dealt with post-WW2 America, and how soldiers reacted to returning home. In "The Company Men", just like "The Best Years" we follow three men; McClary, Walker and Woodward. Each man represents a different job-market reality. Walker is a young man, who put in 12 years at the company. He has an impressive resume and because of that he believes he will rapidedly find another job. The true nature of how bad the economy is hasn't hit him. He suspects it will only take a couple of days until he finds something else. Woodward represents an older generation. He is pushing 60 years old. He and his family are use to a certain way of life. This isn't the America he was taught about. There was a time you put in x amount of years with a company and you had job security. You saved some money on the side, had a nest egg, bought a home, put your kids through college. Woodward has done most of those things but isn't ready to retire. McClary is the company head with a conscience. He doesn't want to see these jobs go but, even with the company downsizing, he still makes money from his shares.

A lot of people compared "The Company Men" to the George Clooney vehicle "Up in the Air" (2009). There is however a big difference. "Up in the Air" was really a romantic/comedy/drama about a man who learns the value of his life. In that film we followed a man who fired people (this film has a character like that played by Maria Bello). In "The Company Men" who follow the people Clooney fired. This in some ways makes "The Company Men" a more relatable film. It might not be as good as "Up in the Air" but that is only because it isn't written as sharply and some of the performances didn't strike me the way they did in "Air".

Watching "The Company Men" though made me think about my own life. At the start of 2011 I was out of a job (unlike these characters and most of Americans, my situation was different, I quit my job. Yes, you read that right. In this economy I actually quit my job). For three months I was unemployed. Sure, I had some money saved up, but I wanted to work again. I needed to find something better than what I had. Luckily I did find something better, well, kind of. I don't have any benefits but I get a paycheck. "The Company Men" made me take a moment and pause. I'm blessed to have a job in this economy. I can pay my bills, put money in the bank and buy things I don't really need.

That is probably the strength of a film like "The Company Men". It isn't about the acting, though Cooper and Jones are good in their roles. The film is timely. We can see ourselves in these characters. We've been in this situation or you currently are. It feels realistic. The characters here face problems and make decisions which we have all had to make. Selling a home, selling a car, stop eating out, looking for a job which pays less than the one you just had. But hey, you gotta do what you gotta do to get by. As one character says in the film, "just be thankful you have a job."

Film Review: Hello Hemingway

2011-05-06T10:45:00.005-05:00

"Hello Hemingway" ** (out of ****)

"Hello Hemingway" (1990) is a Cuban drama set in 1956 revolving around a young girl's dream of making a better life for herself. She wants to study in America and when great difficulty comes her way she finds inspiration in Ernst Hemingway and his novel "The Old Man & The Sea".

On some level I can relate to and admire Fernado Perez's film. But good intentions don't always translate into a good film. "Hello Hemingway" has some good moments and is in some ways a technically well made piece of work but the film doesn't do enough in creating a proper political environment, has a truly awful score and sometimes I felt introduced plot twist which were never needed and/or properly explained.

I have been watching quite a few Cuban movies these past several months. Largely in part because my girlfriend is half-Cuban. One can immediate notice certain themes prevalent throughout the country's cinema. From what I have seen they are largely political. Or at the very least have politics in the background.

I have yet to see a Cuban film, including "Hello Hemingway", which has fully explained what was wrong with the Batista regime (which was backed by the United States) and how people knew Castro was going to be a problem. In fact, I haven't seen any Cuban movie which was made shortly after the revolution that was critical of Castro.

The American film "The Lost City" (2005) tried to tell us the story of Cuba. While one can argue the film was somewhat successful, and I can completely understand why someone who is Cuban would be able to appreciate that film, I felt it didn't give us an accurate depiction of what Cuba was like. Instead I prefer the Cuban film, "A Successful Man" (1987).

I mention all of this because "Hello Hemingway" throws politics into its story. It ends on a heavy handed political message. A group of college students want to see the Batista regime crumble. But why? The movie never explains why the people turned against him. What kind of corruption was going on? I know, from doing my own research, that Batista suspended the 1940 constitution (which Castro said he would reinstate) for example. But the movie itself never tells us that. A good movie should explain the environment in which it takes place.

In "Hello Hemingway" Larita (Laura De La Uz) wants to study philosophy and literature in America, if she can qualify for a scholarship. The problem is Larita comes from a poor family. Her family doesn't want her to travel to America. They would prefer she give up these fancy dreams and get a job and help out the family. What does a woman need with an education anyway?

As someone who was the first in my family to go to college I can understand the struggles Larita goes through to prove herself and what it means to her to embark on this endeavor.

Larita has a boyfriend, Victor (Raul Paz) who also doesn't want her to study in America because of what it would mean to their relationship. Also, Victor is very political and wouldn't want to turn his back on Cuba in its moment of need. He wants to work hard to see Batista overthrown.

"Hello Hemingway" does not offer us any insight into Cuba and her politics. The film kind of, sort of works as a piece of teen angst however and shows the difficulty in which the working poor had to endure in Cuba. It clearly is a country with a class system and one which makes it very hard for those on the lower end to improve themselves.

The film won two awards at the Havana Film Festival, one of which was for Laura De la Uz in the "Best Actress" category. "Hello Hemingway" has its fine points but the film doesn't do enough.

Film Review: Giallo

2011-04-23T20:44:00.005-05:00

"Giallo" *** (out of ****)

After watching "Scream 4" (2011), which I think is over-all a good, entertaining movie, I suddenly had an urge to watch a Dario Argento film. Because I've seen nearly all of his classic, earlier works, I decided to watch his latest film "Giallo" (2009).

Argento and "Giallo" have been taking a beating from fans and critics. I can kind of, sort of, understand. Dario Argento's more recent works have become very campy. He also no longer makes truly effective horror or supernatural films. Instead he has turned into a thriller filmmaker. "Giallo" has been called another weak attempt by a filmmaker who has lost his touch. Not so fast I say.

"Giallo" was anticipated as a "comeback" film for the famed Italian director. Giallo is not only the name of this particular film but is also a sub-genre in horror films. A sub-genre Argento was at one time considered to be a master of. Giallo (the Italian word for yellow) refers to cheap paperback suspense novels which had yellow covers. The novels combined horror with supernatural elements.

I'm happy to say I feel "Giallo" is somewhat an improvement over other more recent Argento films such as "Mother of Tears" (2008) and his version of "The Phantom of the Opera" (1998). Those movies were extremely campy and lacked any suspense. "The Phantom of the Opera" may very well be my least favorite Argento film. It is almost an embarrassment. "Giallo" does not suffer from this problem. The story here is taken much more serious. No ham acting. The dialogue is slightly better.

Still there are problems. The acting is wooden here. And Argento has a difficult time creating any suspense and anticipation. The film doesn't have a proper pace. But, when compared to Agento's other recent films, "Giallo" is a step in the right direction. For that reason we should offer some support and encouragement.

Adrien Brody stars in "Giallo" as Inspector Enzo Avolfi, a homicide detective who has been having a hard time capturing a serial killer, who goes after pretty women (don't they all?). Linda (Emmanuelle Seigner) fears her sister, Celine (Elsa Pataky) may be the killer's latest victim. So, this hard as nails cop teams up with the vulnerable lady to track down the killer.

The film tries to offer some insight into the Enzo character by giving us flashbacks of his troubled youth. He witnessed the murder of his mother. Is that why Enzo has become a police officer? Is that why Enzo has a hard shell and doesn't allow people to get close to him? Is that why he has an anti-social personality? Or is it because the screenwriters; Jim Agnew and Sean Keller didn't know how to write better, more convincing dialogue? It is a bit of both I think.

One of the major downfalls of "Giallo" is we lack a clear understanding of Enzo. I wonder what was Brody thinking when he read this script? What was his motivation? What kind of conversations did he and Argento have? I find it hard to believe neither man could see the character lacked dimension. The flashbacks aren't enough.

Another problem Argento fans are going to have with this film is there are no elaborate, stylized death scenes. This is a bit of a shock coming from a man who seemed to have had a fetish for blood. His camera would linger on it like an animal going after its prey. Of course in Argento's earliest films like "The Bird with the Crystal Plumage" (1970) and "The Cat O' Nine Tails" (1971) he kept the violence mostly off screen. But in later films Argento earned a reputation for his startling death scenes (mostly of pretty girls). The best examples of his work are "Suspiria" (1977), "Deep Red" (1975), "Opera" (1987) and "Tenebre" (1982).

But once again, "Giallo" is still worth watching. It falls more into Argento's thriller period rather than a horror film. It has more in common with "The Stendhal Syndrome" (1996) than "Suspiria". Despite all of its flaws, like a weird ending, it is a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately the film has been caught in legal troubles. Actor Adrien Brody has sued the film's producers and has tried to stop the film from being released on DVD (it did not received a theatrical release in America). He says he was not fully paid. Because of this a limited amount of people have seen the film. Brody is hurting the film by having its reputation proceed it. Thus viewers are walking into the film with a bad attitude and not giving the film a chance.

Film Review: Sitting Ducks

2011-04-15T11:33:00.004-05:00

"Sitting Ducks" *** (out of ****) Henry Jaglom's "Sitting Ducks" (1980) is not the type of film we've come to expect from Jaglom. Especially at this point in his career. When "Sitting Ducks" was made Jaglom was part of the independent crowd that was breaking up the Hollywood studio system in the late 60s, early 70s. Jaglom even worked as an editor on the iconic liberal road picture, "Easy Rider" (1969). Eventually Jaglom found himself in the director's chair. His feature film debut was "A Safe Place" (1971) a psychological look at relationships concerning a female lead character who gets trapped in her own fantasy world. Next came "Tracks" (1977) a film dealing with the trauma associated with the Vietnam War. That movie starred Dennis Hopper. This all leads us to "Sitting Ducks", Jaglom's third film. Compared to the previous films it would seem "Sitting Ducks" was a kind of lark (to use another bird reference), a silly diversion. A much needed break for Jaglom, whom after dealing with such serious topics, could have probably used a good laugh. And to my delight "Sitting Ducks" mostly succeeds. The film centers on two would-be con men; Sidney (Zack Norman) and Simon (Michal Emil, Jaglom's brother). They have devised a plan to steal money from mob collectors and drive to Miami to enjoy the sun and lovely women. Once again, to a lesser extent, Jaglom is dealing with characters who want to escape reality. What makes "Sitting Ducks" work is the actors. All the credit must be given to Norman and Emil. Here, for the first time, Jaglom has made a film which directly centers on these two men's unique personalities. Their chemistry with each other and contradictions in personality make the film watchable. I have long been a fan of Zack Norman ever since I first saw him in Jaglom's "Festival in Cannes" (2001). At the time I compared him to Woody Allen. A fast talking, wild hand gesturing, city smart alec kind of guy. A big dreamer. Norman, by and large, plays the same character in each Jaglom film. But rather than criticise him for that, I'm entertained by it. The same way I enjoy seeing Woody Allen act in his own film, I enjoy the Norman character enough to want to spend time with him in each picture. Michael Emil also plays the same character in each Jaglom film. He usually is presented as more of a philosopher. An intellectual thinker who has a lot to say and love and sex. Jaglom has usually put him in more serious or romantic films; "Always" (1985) or "Someone To Love" (1987, which I have reviewed). In these movies Henry Jaglom is the center of attention. But again, in "Sitting Ducks" Jaglom utilizes Emil's persona to its fullest advantage. Characters like Emil and Norman simply belong in a comedy. They are naturally funny and animated. To put them in anything else would and does restrict them. "Sitting Ducks" is not a perfect film. It takes a few wrong steps. But they are largely forgivable. The film notices two female character who will serve as a love interest to each man. They are Jenny (Patrice Townsend, at the time she was married to Jaglom) and Irene (Irene Forrest). The introduction of these characters slightly shifts the focus of the film as now much of the dialogue centers on love and sex, which is right up Simon's alley. I also didn't like the fact we learn Sidney has a daughter. Is Sidney married? Why is he leaving his daughter behind? How long does he plan on staying away. From the way Sidney and Simon act, they are going to be on the run for a long time. Remember they stole money from the mob. Why introduce this aspect of Sidney. Not much of it is made later on in the film. It merely complicates matters if we chose to think about it. Still I cannot deny "Sitting Ducks" is the most purely enjoyable film I have seen by Jaglom in a while. It doesn't deal with his usually themes, telling us a story from a female perspective; "Babyfever" (1994), "Going Shopping" (2005) and "A Safe Place". It doesn't deal with artist; "Festival in Cannes", "Hollywood Dreams" (2006) or "Last Summer in the Hamptons" (1996) and lacks the romantic notions of "Deja Vu" (1998), "Always" and "Someone To Love" but that is okay. The film doesn't want to go in those directions. It wants, I believe, to be viewed as a kind of old-fashion comedy about two dreamers hoping to hit it big. And when viewed in that light, it works.

Film Review: The Strange Case of Angelica

2011-03-26T19:51:00.006-05:00

"The Strange Case of Angelica" ** (out of ****)

Manoel de Oliveira's "The Strange Case of Angelica" (2011) was a movie I greatly looked forward to seeing. When it was announced to be played as part of the line-up for the 14th annual European Union Film Festival in Chicago, I was excited. Sadly, the film did not meet my expectations.

Those of you who read my reviews on a regular basis, know of my great appreciation for the work of Manoel de Oliveira, regarded by some as the greatest living Portuguese filmmaker. He is also the world's oldest living director, at the ripe old age of 102. Yet the man has an uncanny work ethic. He churns out one film a year.

I've written on here before about de Oliveira. I reviewed his "Belle Toujours" (2006), a sequel to the classic "Belle de Jour" (1967) and "The Convent" (1996). Unfortunately Mr. de Oliveira is not as widely known in America as he should be. He is under appreciated here. A good many of his films, mostly his early works, are hard to come by. In the U.K. a DVD collection celebrating his 100 birthday was put together, comprised of all of his films. In America such a collection was never released.

On paper "The Strange Case of Angelica" sounds like a good match for Mr. de Oliveira. The film deals with themes of life, death, love and beauty. But only in the most abstract of terms. Or, at least it felt abstract. Mr. de Oliveira has been taking the Eric Rohmer route lately with his films, as they generally center on his musings on love. What makes someone attractive to another person? In "The Strange Case" Mr. de Oliveira is dealing with obsession and how the search for true love can sometimes be a dangerous one. But, no one could do these type of movies better than Eric Rohmer (full confession, Mr. Rohmer is one of my all-time favorite filmmakers). Mr. de Oliveira has made some accomplished films over his long career but his work of late seems to suffer in comparison.

In "The Strange Case of Angelica" a young photographer, Isaac (Ricardo Trepa) is sent by a wealthy family to photograph their recently deceased daughter, Angelica (Pilar Lopez de Ayala) as a last memento. But, when Isaac looks at Angelica through his camera lens, he swears she wakes up and smiles at him. Isaac has become captivated by her beauty. She consumes all of his thoughts. Her spirit visits him. He longs to be with her.

"The Strange Case of Angelica" bears a resemblance to Mr. de Oliveira's previous film, "Eccentricities of A Blonde-Haired Girl" (2009), which I saw at the Chicago International Film Festival. Both movies (Mr. Trepa appears in both of them) are about men who become obsessed with women they do not know. This would appear to be a theme running through Mr. de Oliveira's current films. "Belle Toujours" also had an element of obsession in it.

But where "Angelica" and "Blonde-Haired Girl" lose me, is there is nothing really to care about here. These characters are not fleshed out. I have no emotional investment in anything that is going on. Isaac is a strange character. In another movie perhaps in could have worked. Hitchcock had Jimmy Steward play a man who thought he was in love with a dead woman in "Vertigo" (1958), and while, it may have been a stretch for Stewart to play that type of character, we, the audience, are still involved in what is going on. A part of us sympathize with him. There isn't that level of involvement in "Angelica". Isaac doesn't grow on us.

We also have to wonder what exactly is Mr. de Oliveira trying to tell us? Is their a point to any of this? Or is he just having some fun? We can see the themes at play and get a general sense of the underlying story but what does it all add up to? How are we suppose to feel by the end of the picture? What is Mr. de Oliveira's objective? Should we even try to read so deeply into the film. Is it simply just a whimsical story about love and our search for ideal beauty and/or our search for true love?

If that is the case I prefer several other films which have come before this one. "Vertigo" is one example. And what about "Laura" (1944). There too a man thinks he has fallen in love with the picture of a dead woman. As I said, Eric Rohmer has also given us films about male characters obsessed over women. Remember his classic "Claire's Knee" (1971) where a man has fallen in love with a women's knee and makes a vow he must touch it (it is not as creepy as it sounds). Or what about "The Aviator's Wife" (1981) where a jealous lover follows his girlfriend around Paris. These movies had more engaging characters.

"The Strange Case of Angelica" feels like a de Oliveira film. We can instantly tell it was directed by him. And, while I must admit, I didn't particularly like this film, somehow I'm glad I saw it. If only because I want to see as many films by this gifted filmmaker as I can. People should see de Oliveira's films. They aren't for everyone though. Many will complain his work is too slow, nothing happens, characters just talk. On the surface that is what is happening, but, it is the ideas presented in the films which I find interesting.

If you are unfamiliar with de Oliveira's work I wouldn't start with this movie. I'd advise you to watch "Belle Toujours", "The Convent" or "Abraham's Valley" (1993). Then slowly build yourself up to "A Talking Picture" (2003) and these more recent films.

Film Review: Unfaithfully Yours

2011-03-02T12:47:00.011-06:00

"Unfaithfully Yours" **** (out of ****)

Great movies often serve as a reflection into society. They make us look at ourselves and face grim truths. In the case of a great comedy, they do the same thing only they make us laugh at our behavior. They exaggerate our irrational behavior. That is the case with this classic comedy directed by Preston Sturges.

"Unfaithfully Yours" (1948) deals with jealousy, which has always been a reliable comic theme. Jealousy, I think, sometimes gets a bad name. Many people consider it a negative trait for a person to have. I disagree. I feel it is a basic human emotion, like sadness or happiness. We have all felt jealous at one point in our life. It is what we do with that jealousy which can be negative or positive. For example, a man who takes out his jealousy by beating his wife is wrong. A person like myself, who keeps everything in, developing a nervous breakdown, is also negative. But, I'm only hurting myself and not resorting to violence. In "Unfaithfully Yours" the main character does resort to violence. He plans on killing his wife.

Rex Harrison stars as a world renowned conductor Sir. Alfred De Carter. He is in marital bliss to a younger woman (Linda Darnell). When they see each other they engage in the kind of romantic conversation we hear in romance novels. They lovingly look into each others eyes. Each moment they are away from one another feels like an eternity.

Alfred was away on business and in his absence asked his brother-in-law, August Henshler (Rudy Vallee) to keep an eye on his wife, in case she gets lonely. August however misunderstands and concludes Alfred must suspect his wife of foul play. So he hires a detective to tail her. When this story is told to Alfred it infuriates him. He despises the whole idea of detectives and husbands having a deceitful mind that they would do such a thing.

But we all know how this works. Once someone plants the seeds of doubt in our head, our imagination starts to run wild. Even if one doesn't suspect their spouse of being unfaithfully, once the suggestion is made we start to play amateur detective and try to find clues in their behavior. This is what happens to Alfred. He suspects his wife is having an affair with his personal assistant, Tony (Kurt Kreuger), who is younger than Alfred and considered an attractive man.

You see, the detective (Edgar Kennedy) who was hired followed Alfred's wife, Daphne, as she entered Tony's room at midnight and stood there for exactly 38 minutes. Why, Alfred wonders, did she go into Tony's room at midnight and what was she doing in there for 38 minutes?

With the tension building in Alfred's head, and as he prepares to conduct an orchestra later that day, Alfred decides he must kill his wife and have Tony framed for murder. He devises his plan as he conducts the orchestra.

This is the main set-up of the film. Alfred imagines three situations in which how to confront Daphne and Tony. His first plan is to kill her and frame Tony. Next he contemplates himself as the forgiving lover, letting Daphne go and be with the man she loves. And finally he entertains the idea of suicide. After the concert is over Alfred immediately tries to act out his plan of killing his wife.

One of the themes of "Unfaithfully Yours" is the idea is ignorance really bliss or is it just ignorant. In Alfred's world everything was going fine. He loved his wife and he assumed she loved him. He never suspected her of any wrong doing. He becomes violent at the mere suggestion of it. But finally his imagination gets the best of him. Now that he is faced with what he believes is the truth his world has come to an end. Was he better not knowing that "awful truth"? Are we all better off living in our own ignorance? Playing the fool, believing the world is full of sunshine and rainbows and the ones we love, love us back.

Preston Sturges is one of my favorite comedy directors. He has been a very important inspiration to me. I have seen nearly all of his films, except his final one. Among my favorites are "The Palm Beach Story" (1942), "Hail the Conquering Hero" (1944) and "Sullivan's Travels". But "Unfaithfully Yours" has always been my favorite. A wonderfully constructed, sharply written dark comedy jewel.

Like all Sturges films "Unfaithfully Yours" balances the line of having delightful verbal remarks peppered throughout its screenplay and moments of broad slapstick comedy. I have only reviewed one other Sturges comedy on here, "The Great Moment" (1944), and there I mentioned Sturges makes the kind of films I wish I could make. Many people are bothered by the shift in tone in this film. They complain the ending, which is pure physical comedy, is out of place with the rest of the picture. I disagree completely. The slapstick ending is a terrific reminder of how our plans go down in flames. Life is never as perfect as our daydreams.

When Alfred is planning the murder in his head, he has all the details figured out. He anticipates his wife's response. Everything in his plan is clockwork. Every single detail falls perfectly in place. But when the moment comes to actually embark on his endeavor, things get messy. These slapstick scenes are a nice commentary on that. And even if that all seems completely obvious, I still like these scenes because they are funny. Yes readers, I laugh at Alfred's pratfalls and clumsy behavior. I enjoy broad comedy. And nothing in "Unfaithfully Yours" feels out of place to me. Every scene serves a purpose. It shows one element of Alfred's personality. It foreshadows events to come. It serves as a set-up to a later punch-line. It may take more than one viewing to recognize that, but, "Unfaithfully Yours" is the kind of movie you won't mind watching multiple times.

As good as Rex Harrison is in the role, I must say I enjoy watching everyone in the film. Edgar Kennedy has some good moments and Sturges fans will recognize Alan Bridge as a house detective. Rudy Vallee is excellent as a boring, up-tight husband and Darnell is pitch-perfect as his all too understanding, loving wife.

"Unfaithfully Yours" is a great introduction into Sturges work. It demonstrates his approach to comedy and the balancing act of his films as he effortlessly switches from verbal humor to slapstick. Plus, it offers some great insights into human behavior.

The film was remade in 1984 with Dudley Moore and Nastassja Kinski. Unlike most people I enjoyed the remake. I admit, I don't like it as much as this Sturges film, but, the remake does have some funny moments.

Oscar Reaction!

2011-02-28T20:04:00.007-06:00

The 83rd annual Academy Awards was a night of "king" size entertainment as the British period piece "The King's Speech" won the "Best Picture" Oscar.

It was the match-up film critics and movie fans had been debating ever since the Oscar nominations were announced. Was the top prize going to go to "The Social Network", the story of Facebook or "The King's Speech", considered by some a more traditional choice.

"The Social Network" was the odds-on early favorite sweeping every film critics award and winning the Golden Globe. But, late in the game, the mood seemed to have changed. "The King's Speech" started to pick up some momentum winning the SAG award for "Best Ensemble Cast" and director Tom Hooper winning the DGA award.

Quite frankly, if I was a voter, between these two films I would have also voted for "The King's Speech". It was a much better film than "The Social Network" which heavily over-hyped, even drawing comparisons to "Citizen Kane". In some countries such statements are against the law (actually they aren't but they should be. No movie will ever be like "Citizen Kane", no matter how many times you say it). However, of all the nominated films for "Best Picture" the film which I think will be the best remembered film of the year is Christopher Nolan's brain-teaser "Inception", which even made my "top ten" list, neither "The Social Network" or "The King's Speech" did.

Although "The King's Speech" won the top prize, the film didn't sweep the Oscars, despite being the most nominated film of the show, with a total of 12. It won four; "Best Picture", "Best Director" (Tom Hooper", "Best Original Screenplay" (David Seidler, the oldest Oscar winner ever) and "Best Actor" (Colin Firth). It tied with "Inception" for the most wins of the night. "Inception" won "Best Cinematography", "Sound Mixing", "Sound Editing" and "Visual Effects".

As was excepted Natalie Portman won "Best Actress" for her role in "Black Swan". It was the only award the film won. "Toy Story 3" won two Oscars. One for "Best Animated Feature Film", which was also expected, and for "Best Original Song" for "We Belong Together" by Randy Newman.

Some surprises were in the Foreign Film category, the Denmark entry "In A Better World" beat the more popular Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu film "Biutiful" which was Mexico's entry. Some thought Roger Deakins would win for his cinematography in "True Grit", which had 10 nominations and lost in every category. And the supporting Acting categories were considered too close to call. In the "Supporting Actor" category it was thought to be a race between Geoffrey Rush for "The King's Speech" and Christian Bale for "The Fighter". Bale was the eventual winner.

In the "Supporting Actress" category Melissa Leo, again for "The Fighter" was considered a favorite but newcomer Hailee Steinfeld in "True Grit" was thought to be capable of an upset. Leo won the award, becoming the first winner to ever use the "f" word in her acceptance speech. And some people think Hollywood's lost its class!

Besides the awards the Oscar co-host; Anne Hathaway and James Franco have also been getting a lot of press. Mostly negative however. This was expected in my opinion. As much as I like Hathaway, neither she or Franco should have been chosen. Rumor was the Academy did it to win over a younger demographic. Well, we see how that went. Stupid move! These people, for one thing, were far too young. They lack personality. You need a strong entertainer to host an award show. Someone with a commanding presence and who knows how to work a room. In the good ol' days you had someone like Bob Hope, the all-time Oscar host leader. Nowadays we have Billy Crystal. James Franco was too stiff, unprepared and apparently too nervous. Hathaway looks like she fared better. She had more energy.

In fairness I should point out, I didn't watch the Oscars. I stopped many years ago. Read my blog entry on why. But, I have seen some clips on TV and youtube. Also the TV critics have universally slammed them. Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert called the show the worst Oscar telecast of all time and placed heavy blame on the co-host.

But, I'm not surprised. I was smart enough to stop watching years ago.

For a full list of Oscar winners click here: http://www.imdb.com/features/oscars/2011/nominations

Film Review: Women On The Verge Of A Nervous Breakdown

2011-02-22T13:18:00.007-06:00

"Women On The Verge Of A Nervous Breakdown" *** (out of ****)

Men are nothing but trouble for women. At least that's what Pedro Almodovar says in his world-wide hit, "Women On The Verge Of A Nervous Breakdown" (1988).

The "breakdown" referred to in the film's title, which these women face, is caused by men. Men who emotionally manipulated these women. These women were victims to their partner's insensitivity.

The film, as I said, was directed by Pedro Almodovar. Perhaps the most popular Spanish filmmaker today. You could call him the George Cukor of Spain. Cukor, that great Hungarian-American filmmaker, best known for titles such as "The Philadelphia Story" (1940) and "The Women" (1939) was often called "the women's director", due to his directing all the major female stars of the day. Almodovar is also a "women's director" due to the fact his films usually center around female characters and are told from a female's perspective.

And that leads me to one of my problems with "Women On The Verge Of A Nervous Breakdown". The film seems to be the most cliche-ridden movie I have seen from Almodovar. The movie engages in all sort of female stereotypes. The fiery Latin lover, the indecisive woman, women who are emotionally unstable, women who are always the victim of a man's cruelty, women are portrayed as damsels in distress. Yes, it's true, the movie has a tongue-in-cheek tone but Almodovar usually is kinder in his portrayal of women. I find the women in films like "All About My Mother" (1999) or "Volver" (2006) to be much stronger. More independent. In "Women On The Verge Of A Nervous Breakdown" their happiness or sadness all relies on a man.

It might be strange for some readers to understand why I, a man, am making a point of this. Why would these stereotypes bother me? I grew up in a house surrounded by women. I have first hand knowledge that women can be strong, commanding, demanding, and yes, sometimes annoying. But, women are not always the victim of men's behavior. Many women are strong and independent.

Almodovar's film revolves around Pepa (Carmen Maura, who has acted in other Almodovar films such as "Matador" (1986) and "Volver"). She was the mistress of Ivan (Fernando Guillen), who has tossed her aside of another woman. Pepa cannot deal with Ivan's rejection and demands to speak to him. Problem is, he won't answer her calls. She goes into a rage, nearly destroying her apartment. Next we have Candela (Maria Barranco). Probably the most annoying character in the movie. She suspects she has slept with a terrorist who is going to blow up a plane. Candela is a whiny, needy woman, who constantly turns to Pepa for help and guidance. And lastly there is Lucia (Julieta Serrano). She is Ivan's husband, and because of his cheating ways ended up in a sanitarium.

All of these women will meet in the course of the film. And each of them will have to resolve their issues with men. But, perhaps now, with me briefly describing the plot, you can see the female cliches Almodovar engages in.

And just so the female viewers don't get too bored (or perhaps even offended) Almodovar throws some eye candy their way. Co-starring in the film is a young Antonio Banderas as Carlos, Ivan's son. All of the female characters throw themselves at him. Showing us, both men and women can be the sexual aggressors.

Still, despite everything "Women On The Verge Of A Nervous Breakdown" is an entertaining film. It is somewhat humorous and kept me watching until the end. I don't know how female viewers will react to this film though. Will the stereotypes bother them? Or will they take it in good spirits. I have no doubt that was Almodovar's intention. I'm sure he didn't mean to offend anyone. Again, the movie has a very tongue-in-cheek tone. You can't take this material seriously.

The movie marked a turn around for Almodovar. The movie gained international praise and was Almodovar's first widely praised film in America. It was Spain's official Oscar nominee. It was also nominated for a Golden Globe in the foreign language category. It won the National Board of Review of best foreign language film and won two awards at the Venice Film Festival; Best Actress (Maura) and Best Screenplay (Almodovar).

"Women On The Verge Of A Nervous Breakdown" is good Almodovar but not his best. For that I'd say watch "Talk To Her" (2002), "Bad Education" (2004), "Live Flesh" (1997) and "Volver".

Film Reviews: Coquette & It's A Pleasure

2011-02-10T12:39:00.009-06:00

"Coquette" **** (out of ****)

With the 83rd annual Academy Awards coming up I thought it would be interesting to write about some of the early Oscar winners. Last year, for instance, I dedicated the month to reviewing a couple of "Best Picture" winners. This year however I've been slightly distracted with other things and sadly haven't been writing on here as frequently as I once use to.

This leads us to "Coquette" (1929). Directed by Sam Taylor and starring silent screen superstar Mary Pickford, making her sound picture debut, it is the story of a love that cannot be (a la Romeo & Juliet or "Pretty in Pink" (1986) if your prefer).

"Coquette" has an unfortunate reputation. Many people believe the film is a disappointment. Normally I would attribute that attitude to an unknowing younger generation, which quite simply, sometimes finds it difficult to appreciate classic films (lets be honest). But, while perhaps there is a bit of that going on, it is not the full story. "Coquette" was dismissed upon its inital release. Too bad I say. I've seen "Coquette" several times and I must say I think it is an emotional, heartfelt tearjerker.

I've written about Mary Pickford on here before. I reviewed her in the fairy-tale romantic silent film "Suds" (1920). Pickford, whom sadly isn't as well remembered today, was a major figure in the early history of cinema. I would put her name alongside Lillian Gish, Clara Bow, Greta Garbo and Louise Brooks as the foremost silent screen actresses. She is best known for her performance in the title role "Pollyanna" (1920). She was a sweet, naive girl known for her curly hair. At one time she was given the nickname "America's Sweetheart". She also had a good business head. She was one of the founders of United Artist (along with Charlie Chaplin, D.W. Griffith and husband Douglas Fairbanks).

By the time "Coquette" was made Pickford was an older woman and wanted to erase the "good girl" image which had brought her fame. Naturally audiences didn't approve. This is nothing new. Even today we see this happen when stars try to make a career transition. Viewers like their movie stars to always remain the same. "Coquette" was going to signify something new. Gone were the curls. This time Pickford was going to play a young coquette (flirt in today's lingo). The kind of woman with many admirers who feels nothing for the men in return, but, appreciates all the attention. Lots of people feel this kind of role wasn't suited for Pickford. Better to let Bow or Brooks handle these kind of characters. But I think Pickford pulls it off quite nicely.

Pickford plays Norma Besant, daughter of Dr. Besant (John St. Polis), a wealthy, well-respected southern gentlemen. His wife has passed away and now he must raise Norma and his son, Jimmy (William Janney). He doesn't seem to mind Norma's flirty ways but would prefer if she would marry another southern gentlemen, like Stanley Wentworth (Matt Moore). Instead Norma has fallen for a poor, working class boy, Michael Jeffrey (Johnny Mack Brown). Her father will not allow this. Their difference in social rank is too much to overcome. Dr. Besant is convince Michael Jeffrey is only interested in the family fortune not Norma. So he forbids Norma from ever seeing Michael.

"Coquette" suffers from the same type of problems most early talking pictures suffered from. Staged, wooden performances, as actors try to hit their marks so the microphone will pick up their voice. Johnny Mack Brown has a high squeaky voice, oddly enough he would later have success in westerns. And William Janney is over-acting to levels never reached before. Still, the film seems sincere in its emotions. And while this story of forbidden love may come off as predictable to some viewers I was pulled into the story.

Besides Pickford I was most impressed with Matt Moore. His character is the kind of everyman, the kind of character most men can see themselves in. He genuinely loves Norma. And while she is too busy look elsewhere, we know Stanley will always wait for her. There are scenes in this film when, through simple gestures, we can see his heart break. No exaggerated moments of acting. Just a simple tilt of the head. A distant look in his eyes. A shrug of the shoulders. His actions speak volumes. He doesn't have to say a word. We know precisely what he is thinking and how he feels.

The most famous scene in the movie comes at the end. It is a courtroom scene. Norma is put in a difficult position. Betray her family or praise her love for Michael. Either way, her actions will have serious consequences. Again, some viewers may find the situation overly dramatic but I was caught up in the emotions of the situation.

"Coquette" was the only movie Mary Pickford ever won an Oscar for. Years later the win is looked upon as a "sympathy" Oscar. Her win is suppose to represent her lifetime in movies. Others say politics were at play. Pickford, as I said, was married to Douglas Fairbanks, the Academy's first president. Was there pressure put on voters to let Pickford win? Maybe, maybe not. Who can say? In the end I'm glad Pickford won. I think she gives a very good performance.

As for director Sam Taylor, it is a little odd to see him direct a melodrama. Taylor had a close association with comedian Harold Lloyd. Taylor directed such pictures as "The Freshmen" (1925) and "The Cat's Paw" (1934). He directed the terrific silent romantic comedy "Exit Smiling" (1926), the John Barrymore picture "Temptest" (1928) and "My Best Girl" (1927) also with Mary Pickford. His final film as director was for the Laurel & Hardy comedy "Nothing But Trouble" (1944). Taylor knew comedy, but, here he proves he knew drama too.

Despite popular opinion I'd say give "Coquette" a chance. The movie is only available on VHS (for now). Hopefully that will change soon. Too many great movies have not been put on DVD and too movie people have completely rejected VHS not understanding there are so many films which haven't been put on DVD. You still need your VCR! Don't throw them away!

"It's A Pleasure" *** (out of ****)

"It's A Pleasure" (1945) is a much different film, in tone, than "Coquette". This is a Sonja Henie vehicle, but, I wouldn't be so quick as to describe it as a musical. There is lots of figure skating but no singing. However, don't let that stop you from seeing this picture. In some ways it is the best showcase of Henie's skating ability.

Sonja Henie was a gold medalist Olympic skater. For reasons I've never been quite sure of, she decided she wanted to become a movie actress. She wasn't a great actress but 20th Century Fox signed her up. Knowing her limited range Henie correctly kept things simple. Every one of her films revolved around her playing a figure skater. Either by hobby or profession. The movies were generally musicals or light-hearted romance diversions. And it all paid off. For a time Henie was popular. Her films were box-office successes. But, just as quickly as fame came her way, so it went away. "It's A Pleasure" was her first non-Fox movie, RKO released the film upon its initial release.

I've written about Henie before. I reviewed her last 20th Century Fox musical, "Wintertime" (1943) and "Sun Valley Serenade" (1941). Both movies are worth watching. So are "My Lucky Star" (1938) and "Happy Landing" (1938). "My Lucky Star" features a wonderful "Alice in Wonderland" ice-skating interpretation.

In "It's A Pleasure" Henie plays Chris Linden, an ice-skater who works between hockey games, during half-time, dancing on ice. She is in love with hockey star, Don Martin (Michael O' Shea). Don is a drinker and a bit of a tough guy. When he punches a referee for a call he doesn't like, Don is suspended from hockey. What to do? Chris tries to get him a job in her figure skating show, which is run by Don's buddy, Buzz Fletcher (Bill Johnson).

The movie soon takes a turn as Chris and Don get married and vow never to separate, both professionally and personally. But things become difficult when Don's drinking gets in the way and Buzz's wife, Gale (Marie McDonald) has the eye for Don. The film is not too subtle about what is going on between the two of them(!).

When you take out the songs and dancing and leave the romance behind for a moment, "It's A Pleasure" is a good vehicle for Henie's figure skating. It plays a prominent part in the story and she has at least three good showcases to demonstrate her talent. I can't say the same about movies like "Sun Valley Serenade".

The movie was directed by William A. Seiter. Known primarily for musicals and comedies, he directed a few good ones. He was behind the Fred Astaire/Rita Hayworth musical "You Were Never Lovelier" (1942), the Marx Brothers comedy, "Room Service" (1938), the Laurel & Hardy comedy, "Sons of the Desert" (1933) a pair of Wheeler & Woolsey comedies; "Diplomaniacs" (1933) and "Peach-O-Reno" (1931), two of their best. Plus, he directed Loretta Young in the comedy "Three Blind Mice (1938), Alice Faye in "Sally, Irene and Mary" (1938) and the Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers musical "Roberta" (1935). He wasn't a great director, but he was lucky enough to work with such talented people. Many at the beginning of their careers.

"It's A Pleasure" is a predictable, harmless piece of Hollywood entertainment. It is not a great film but Sonja Henie has a certain charm to her which makes the movie watchable. We like her and therefore are willing to watch the movie. It doesn't go into great dramatic depths with these characters or their story. But it does enough to keep us watching.

Check out the terrific production number for the Brazilian song "Tico-Tico" as Henie skates to it. This is before Carmen Miranda sang it in the film "Copacabana" (1947).

I wonder if this movie was in any way an inspiration for the comedy "Cutting Edge" (1993) about a hockey player who faces suspension and teams up with a figure skater.

Top Ten Favorite "Best Picture" Oscar Winners

2011-02-06T15:08:00.008-06:00

I've never hidden the fact I am not a fan of the Academy Awards. If you mention to some people a movie won an Oscar it may in fact intrigued them to see that particular film. In my case it does nothing. It is the wrong approach to take if you want me to see a movie.

A lot of people simply cannot understand my strong anti-Oscar sentiment. It is a award show, it is all in good fun. Most people just like to see what the movie stars are wearing. It is something fun to do on a Sunday night. Sit back, relax, maybe order a pizza and watch the 18 hour show. But, I feel to simply look at the Academy Awards in that light in not fair and completely misses the point. Hollywood, and by way of brainwashing manipulation, society put a lot of stock into the Academy Awards. It means a lot in the business. It is at the very least a terrific marketing device. Look at all the ads in newspapers which proudly display in giant letters "Academy Award nominee". And as I said, it catches people's interest. They will seek out that film if only to see what all the fuss is about.

And that leads to my problem with the Academy Awards. The ceremony is given a great deal of prestige. To win an Oscar is suppose to signify the greatest artistic achievement. It is about honoring the best. But more often than not the Academy does the exact opposite. For several reasons. One of the most disturbing, to me, is how gosh darn political the whole process is. How image conscious the Academy is. It is not about presenting the "best film" or "best director" with an award, but, rather, all about publicity and saving face. What will make the greater headline in the next day's paper.

What you also have to consider are all the ridiculous rules the Academy has created and their bias towards certain films. How is it that no foreign language film has ever won an Oscar for "Best Picture"? But Alex, some of you will say, the Academy Awards are an American show, honoring only American films. That is and isn't true. Some foreign language films have been nominated for the top prize but they never win. My problem is, if we are going to truly celebrate artistic achievement why not play fair and say for this particular year the best film was made in a non-English language country (some smart alec will say a few U.K. productions have won the prize. So I must specify I mean a non-English language film).

Also, you must remember in years past, in the foreign language category voters weren't even obligated to see all of the nominated films! How on Earth can people vote for something when they haven't seen everything which was nominated? The Academy Awards, many times, feel like nothing more than a popularity contest.

But what bugs me the most about the Academy Awards goes along the lines of the popularity contest. How many great artist have not won an Oscar? The Academy tries to back pedal their ignorance and present these people with an "Honorary" Oscar, the Lifetime Achievement Award. This is the Academy's way of saying, "we are sorry we are a bunch of ignorant morons who did not recognize artistic merit when we saw it and instead over-looked you so we could let the latest flavor of the month win". Remember a few years back, Peter O' Toole didn't want their honorary Oscar because he knew what it signified. He felt he still stood a chance at winning a competitive Oscar (he was nominated that year for "Venus" (2006), but naturally lost). Think of all the great artist who never won a competitive Oscar; Alfred Hitchcock, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Greta Garbo, Fritz Lang, Ingmar Bergman, Istvan Szabo, Cary Grant. I can actually do this for days.

Still, despite the Academy's ignorance sometimes they fool themselves and actually allow a great film to win. Believe it or not this has actually happened. Here are my ten favorite "Best Picture" Oscar winners. The films will be presented in chronological order. You'll notice the 1940s is the most celebrated decade with four films from the decade, followed by the 1930s with three films. And I even had room to celebrate two "modern" films from America's last great decade, the 1970s. Here's my list!

1. All Quiet On The Western Front (1930) - The third "Best Picture" Oscar winner is one of the all-time great war films. For my money and time it is better than "Wings" (1927), the first "Best Picture" Oscar winner.

2. Grand Hotel (1932) - A movie years ahead of its time. I reviewed this masterpiece before. It had an all-star cast consisting of; Greta Garbo, John & Lionel Barrymore, Wallace Berry and Joan Crawford. Not just one my of favorite "Best Picture" winners, but, one of my favorite movies of all time.

3. Gone With The Wind (1939) - Maybe the greatest movie of the decade. One of the all-time great Hollywood epics. If anyone ever tells you classic Hollywood films are boring, tell them to watch this. And if they don't like it, simply never speak to them again. Every compliment that has ever been said about this film is true and well deserved. An American classic.

4. Mrs. Miniver (1942) - Another one of my all-time favorite films. The film was actually made mostly to keep up the moral of the British army. England was in the war a lot longer than the United States and the war was starting to take its toll on the people. This great film is about life on the home front. An emotional, sentiment film.

5. Casablanca (1943) - Like "Gone With The Wind" an American classic. That's about the highest compliment you can pay the film.

6. The Best Years Of Our Lives (1946) - Made right at the time when soldiers were actually returning home after WW2, here is a film that addressed the problems these men must face. Whether it is psychological, financial or bodily harm. Talk about a movie which represented the times. William Wyler's second films to win a "Best Picture" (he also directed "Mrs. Miniver").

7. A Gentlemen's Agreement (1947) - Seen as one of the first films to deal with anti-semitism, which was a very serious social problem after the war, even in America folks!

8. The Bridge On The River Kwai (1957) - In my opinion the 1950s were a low point in cinema. Very few of the "Best Picture" Oscar winners impress me, but, this David Lean epic is an exception. One of Lean's all-time great films.

9. The Godfather (1972) - A no brainer. There was no way I was going to make a list like this and not include this film. One of my all-time favorites. The acting in this film is remarkable. Every performance is near perfect. Who else could play these characters?

10. Annie Hall (1977) - Woody Allen's only film (to date) to win a "Best Picture" Oscar. It too is a film which resents its time period quite well. It is also one of the all-time great romantic comedies establishing the formula for all future romantic comedies. There would be no "When Harry Met Sally..." (1989) if "Annie Hall" wasn't made first.

Egyptian Cinema

2011-02-06T09:52:00.004-06:00

If you have been watching the news lately, surely you are aware of what is going on in Egypt. Given that, I'm willing to bet there may be those who may be looking to Egypt for the first time and they may have a sudden interest in their cinema. Perhaps, through cinema, we can come to learn something about these people and their country.

I'm one that firmly believes cinema can teach us about other cultures. Filmmakers usually make films about their society, about issues which are import to the people. Here we see what entertains people, what their interest are, how they live..ect.

So what all of this in mind I'm going to suggest those with a curiosity in Egyptian cinema should watch the films of Youssef Chahine, who was at one time considered the premier Egyptian filmmaker. The two films which I would suggest you watch are "Alexandria...Why? (1978) and "An Egyptian Story" (1982), which is in ways the sequel to "Alexandria".

In "Alexandria...Why?" Egypt is in chaos, it is the beginning of WW2. A young man however finds himself enchanted by Hollywood films. The movie tells the story of a country in political turmoil and how a filmmaker chooses to celebrate his country but also the power of cinema. Clearly the film must be based on Chahine. It is a very personal, rewarding film. A film which I believe would make a wonderful introduction in Chahine's films.

I am going to supply a link for readers to learn about Chahine's films and his life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youssef_Chahine

Film Review: Running Wild

2011-01-27T12:07:00.009-06:00

"Running Wild" *** (out of ****)

"Running Wild" (1927) directed by Gregory La Cava and starring W.C. Fields is an often neglected silent comedy in the Fields cannon of films.

The only reason for its absence has to be due to the fact it is a silent comedy. As of the date of this review the film has not been put on DVD however a majority (if not all) of Fields' talking comedies have been.

When we think of W.C. Fields and his style of comedy it is admittedly hard to picture his character silent. So much of Fields' humor was verbal. The way he would mumble insults to himself, the snarly remarks he had for his family and society. Plus, the simple sound of his voice was funny and the way he would place an emphasis on certain words. Put him in a silent setting and naturally you lose all of that. Now Fields has to succeed on his physical talents alone.

I've only seen Fields in two other silent comedies. One is called "Pool Sharks" (1915). It was Fields' screen debut. In it he plays a pool shark. I personally don't find the piece particularly funny. The other comedy was the D.W. Griffith film "Sally of the Sawdust" (1925, which I have reviewed). While, overall a watchable movie, Fields seems restricted. You get the feeling Griffith is holding him back to remain within the confines of the story. Perhaps Griffith didn't realize what a treasure he had in Fields.

In "Running Wild" Fields plays Elmer Finch, a character which bears some small resemblance to the character we would see Fields play in "It's A Gift" (1934, my favorite of his films), "You're Telling Me" (1934) or "The Bank Dick" (1940). He is a disgruntled family man who feels his family doesn't appreciate him. In later films his family's disapproval had to do with his drinking and lack of employment. Here the family simply doesn't respect him. He feels unwelcome in his own home. His wife (Marie Shotwell) keeps a photo up of her first husband and constantly compares Elmer to him. She dotes over her son, whom she calls Junior (Barnett Raskin), who is one of those overweight, spoiled mama's boys. The only person in Elmer's corner is his daughter, Elizabeth (Mary Brian), who was a product of his first marriage.

Elmer has worked at the same toy factory for 20 years, in the same position, a clerk, at the same pay. He is simply too timid to ask for a raise, even while his daughter has caught the eye of Dave (Claude Buchanan) whose father is Elmer's boss.

The film, while a satirical look at domestic life, is also a commentary on masculinity. What does it mean to be a man? How should men act? The humor from the film comes when Elmer starts to "man up". This happens when a hypnotist puts Elmer in a trance and tells him he is a lion, as part of the hypnotist's act. Now Elmer has strength and won't be bullied around.

The only problem I have with this set-up is it paints a pretty ugly picture. It suggest a man should act like a brute and be violent. What if Elmer went to a hypnotist who put him under a trance and simply made him assertive. You could still have plenty of comedic situations arise. Elmer could complain about home cooking and tell his wife, yes, she does look fat in that dress. Instead to play to the stereotype that all men are cavemen and secretly that is what a woman wants. After Elmer goes on his physical tirade his wife look adoringly at him. All he had to do was use force to put his wife straight.

I have a sense of humor, believe it or not. I don't mean to read into the movie so much, but, clearly that is the message. I can appreciate the slapstick humor and did laugh. But, it is not something I'd want my daughter to watch (when I have one) and feel that is an appropriate message.

Gregory La Cava was a twice Oscar nominated director for the films "Stage Door" (1937), that great, nearly all female cast movie and "My Man Godfrey" (1936). He also directed "5th Avenue Girl" (1938, which I have reviewed) with Ginger Rogers. It is hard to say how much he actually directed Fields. I can't imagine a personality like Fields taking direction. But, this was early in his career, so who knows.

"Running Wild" is a funny movie and maybe the best silent film I've seen Fields in. Still I think his talking comedies show him at his best. If you enjoy this, track down 'It's A Gift", "You Can't Cheat An Honest Man" (1939) and "Never Give A Sucker An Even Break" (1941).

Oscar Nominations

2011-01-25T08:59:00.005-06:00

It is going to be a "royal" engagement at the 83rd annual Academy Awards, as the British film "The King's Speech" (2010) led in Oscar nominations with a total of 12.

The "Best Picture" nominees are; "127 Hours", "Black Swan", "The Fighter", "Inception", "The Kids Are All Right", "The King's Speech", "The Social Network", "Toy Story 3", "True Grit" and "Winter's Bone".

As is the case every year, this year's announcement of Oscar nominations offered a few surprises. One of them is how well the Coen Brothers' "True Grit" did, winning a total of 10 nominations, especially when you considered it was shut out at the Golden Globes. The film is nominated for, in addition to "Best Picture", "Best Director", "Best Adapted Screenplay", "Best Actor" (Jeff Bridges) and "Best Supporting Actress" (Hailee Steinfeld).

Other surprises included Javier Bardem winning a nomination for "Best Actor" for his work in the Mexican film "Biutiful" (which still hasn't opened in Chicago!). Did Julia Roberts push help him? Many people are shocked Nicole Kidman won a nomination for "Rabbit Hole". I'm not. I'm glad she is nominated. In my review for the film I expressed my support. What personally surprised me was no nomination for co-Oscar host Anne Hathaway for her performance in "Love & Other Drugs". I wasn't a big fan of the film but Hathaway's performance was being thrown around as a possibility.

Amazingly Leonardo DiCaprio was shut out for both "Inception" and "Shutter Island", which I think is a big mistake. I still am unable to understand why Martin Scorsese's "Shutter Island" has been snubbed this award season. Some viewed it merely as a routine genre picture, but, with Scorsese at the helm, it became a little more than that. The overwhelming support for the indie film "Winter's Bone" has caught me off guard. Several critics have placed it on their top ten list and the film has scored a few nominations. Also support for "The Kids Are All Right" I find more disappointing than surprising. I felt the film played off as more as a sit-com than an actual motion picture.

The animated film category was disappointing to me. Only three films have been nominated this year; "How To Train Your Dragon", "The Illusionist" and "Toy Story 3". No nomination for "Tangled", "Megamind", or "Shrek Forever After". It would seem "Toy Story 3" is the favorite (especially when you consider it is nominated in the "best picture" category as well). But in all honesty "The Illusionist" is actually the better film.

The awards favorite "The Social Network" scored a total of 8 nominations including "Best Picture", "Best Director", "Best Actor" and "Best Adapted Screenplay". It has won nearly every major award for "best picture". It has to be the odds on favorite going into the Oscars. It has been slightly over-hyped in my opinion however with the comparisons to "Citizen Kane" (1941).

The 83rd Academy Awards will air February 27th and will be hosted by Anne Hathaway and James Franco.

For a full list of Oscar nominees click here: http://www.imdb.com/features/oscars/2011/nominations

Film Review: The Illusionist

2011-01-18T06:12:00.006-06:00

"The Illusionist" **** (out of ****)

I've always felt I had something in common with Jacques Tati's alter-ego, Monsieur Hulot. Both of us are men who simply don't belong in the world we occupy. We find it hard to fit in. The world keeps moving forward while we are stuck in the past. We can't keep up. Worst of all, we don't want to keep up. We are content and look at the world in confusion. What are the rest of you doing? Why all these contraptions?

There is an element of that in the new animated film by Sylvain Chomet, best known for "The Triplets of Belleville" (2003), based on a screenplay by Mr. Tati himself.

"The Illusionist" is as much a Tati film as it is a Chomet film. Jacques Tati's undeniable comic style and themes are present throughout the film. In fact, the lead character, an aging illusionist, is not only named Tatischeff, but is drawn to look like Tati's Mr. Hulot character.

Jacques Tati was a brilliant mime, who even in the modern world of 1950, was making homages to silent slapstick comedy. His character, Hulot, never spoke. The people around him did, but he was always silent. Always trying to adjust to the world around him. Trying to keep up with technology. A world which has lost its traditional values. Watch "Play Time" (1967), "Mon Oncle" (1958) and "Mr. Hulot's Holiday" (1953) as examples. If you are in the mood for good slapstick comedy, check out Tati's debut feature length film, "Jour de Fete" (1949) as well.

In "The Illusionist" we are taken back to a time which resembles the 1960s, though it is not directly referenced. Tatischeff (voice of Jean-Claude Donda, though there is very little dialogue) is a good magician. He knows his trade. However he is a small time act. He performs mostly for empty theatres and venues. His chance at fame has passed. But, what else can he do? This is what he knows and it is what he does well. In order to make a living he must stick with it.

One humorous moment deals with Tatischeff being booked at a theatre where a very popular rock band will be performing before him (whom strangely reminded me of the Beatles). The audience, primarily young girls, pack the theatre, and scream and swoon over the band. The band is so popular they do several encores. Meanwhile Tatischeff is never sure when he is suppose to go on. This actually reminded me of a joke in the Billy Crystal comedy "Mr. Saturday Night" (1992). If you remember in that movie there is a scene where Crystal's character is booked on the Ed Sullivan show on the same day the Beatles are. He must perform after them but the audience is still yelling for them while Crystal is on stage.

The scene also helps re-enforce the theme that Tatischeff is a by-gone taste. Young people don't want to see his tricks. His innocent brand of entertainment is boring to modern audiences, who are looking for something more cutting edge.

Tatischeff finds himself in Scotland, performing at a local pub. This audience actually turns out to be his most receptive. Mostly because they are older and lets face it, all the alcohol helps. But it is at this pub Tatischeff meets a young girl, whom we suspect has no family. She is amazed by Tatischeff's tricks. She thinks they are real. It is not an illusion. Tatischeff has a special gift. So, when he heads to Edinburgh, without being asked, the young girl follows him.

Tatischeff now takes on a parental role. Looking after the girl, while also trying to keep her innocence alive and not reveal the fact that he is an illusionist. The young girl doesn't know the way the real world works. She thinks everything in life is free. All Tatischeff has to do is wave his hand and things suddenly appear. So Tatischeff has to work doubly hard to support the girl, who has rather expensive taste.

I have been reading on-line and have come across some people who say the relationship between these characters is one-sided and the girl is not as nice as she seems. Yes, the young girl accepts Tatischeff's gifts and never once says thank you but she repays him in other ways. Companionship for one. You can't put a price on that. She also cooks and cleans for him. And shows a kind heart to others as well.

"The Illusionist", in many ways, resembles the work of Charlie Chaplin. Because we are dealing with a man and a child, you simply have to think of "The Kid" (1921). You also have to think of "City Lights" (1931). In that movie Chaplin tries to help a poor blind girl. Here of course Tatischeff provides for a young orphan. And finally Chaplin's "Limelight" (1952) about a music hall performer who now must face he is a has-been and helps restore a young dancer. It is "Limelight" that "The Illusionist" resembles most. Both deal with characters whom have lost that special ability to connect with and engage an audience.

But perhaps the most special aspect of "The Illusionist" is it gives us one more chance to see the Hulot character. The way Chomet has drawn this character and his ability to truly flesh him out is remarkable. All of Hulot's mannerisms are on display. I could have seen how Tati would have made this into a live action film, which was his intention.

The other great thing about "The Illusionist" is it is hand-drawn. Nowadays all we get are CGI animated films, not that I'm complaining, but, there is something magical about hand-drawn animation. Especially since it has become a rarity. But don't fool yourself. Yes, "The Illusionist" is an animated film, but, I wouldn't describe it as a children's film. When I attended the theatre a few people decided to bring their children. Big mistake. As I left the theatre I heard the disappointment of all the children. "The Illusionist" deals with adult themes and has an adult sensibility. This is nothing like "Tangled" (2010) or "Toy Story 3" (2010), which are fine pieces of entertainment, but, more geared towards a younger audience.

The film has went on to earn much acclaim. It was nominated for a Golden Globe (best animated feature) and won a National Board of Review award. The critics have also thrown much praise at it. The film opened in a few cities late last year, just so it would be eligible for awards but has only now went into wide release. I consider it a 2011 picture and even though we are only roughly 2 weeks into the new year, I'm pretty confident in saying this is one of the year's best films and a film I am almost certain will make my top ten list at the end of the year.

However much I may praise the animation, or the humor or themes in the film, it has also caused some mild controversy. It appears one of the grandchildren does not approve of this film because he believes Sylvain Chomet has mis-represented Tati's work and his true intentions. It is the family's belief that Tati was going to make "The Illusionist" as a semi-autobiographical film. The movie addresses Tati's decision to abandon his eldest daughter, for whom Tati would have dedicated this film to. "The Illusionist" was suppose to be a very personal movie. A movie which would help clear Tati's conscience for his deplorable behavior. Read Roger Ebert's review for more details.

Be that as it may, I don't feel "The Illusionist" should be avoided. This is a truly remarkable film which honestly touched me. It made me happy to see the Hulot character again. Just think of all the fun Tati could have had now, in a world with cell phones smaller than the size of your hand, the internet, i-pods, mp3 players, text messaging. I'm smiling just thinking about it.

Film Review: Tin Pan Alley

2011-01-15T22:11:00.006-06:00

"Tin Pan Alley" ** (out of ****)

I grew up in a household where Betty Grable and Alice Faye were considered major stars. To this very day I will talk about their movies with my grandparents. I always make sure to tell them when one of their movies will be played on TV.

I've never hidden my appreciation for the musical. A lot of great musicals were made in the 1930s. I find watching Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers to be movie Heaven. I can honestly sit and watch them for hours. I also love the Warner Brothers musicals with Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler. And finally, I adore the 20th Century Fox musicals with Faye and Grable.

Both Alice Faye and Betty Grable were considered to be the "queens" of the Fox musicals. Faye reigned supreme on the Fox lot in the 1930s in musicals such as "George White's 1935 Scandals" (1935), "King of Burlesque" (1936), "Hollywood Cavalcade" (1939) and "Alexander's Ragtime Band" (1938). She was all set to star in another Fox musical, "Down Argentine Way" (1940) but was replaced, last minute, by Betty Grable. That was the movie that turned Grable into a star (I have reviewed it) and made her a box-office champ. Her films were either number one or near the top spot for a decade. Many of you know during WW2 she was considered perhaps the most popular pin-up girl during the era.

I mention all of this because "Tin Pan Alley" (1940) is the only movie these two lovely ladies made together. I haven't seen the movie in years (I'd say around 20) and greatly looked forward to watching it again when it aired on TV recently. Sadly I was extremely disappointed.

In "Tin Pan Alley" Harry Calhoun (Jack Oakie) and "Skeets" Harrigan (John Panye) are a couple of struggling music publishers. In order to make some extra money Harrigan actually boxes and is considered to be pretty good. Maybe even championship material. Calhoun is a gambler and skirt-chaser. The two men consider closing down shop but when Calhoun notices a sister act, the Blane sisters, are in town, he thinks he can get them to plug one of their songs, since he knew them back in his vaudeville days. The sisters are Katie (Faye) and Lily (Grable).

The normal romantic set-up is used as Harrigan instantly falls for Katie and she for him. Harrigan thinks she is a great singer and wants to use her to plug all of his material. Meanwhile, sister Lily wants to find a nice sugar daddy in the music business to give her a break.

The complications become rather predictable. Harrigan is displayed as being power driven. He doesn't show Katie enough attention. All he thinks about is music and how to become famous. Katie would secretly like to quit the entertain game and settle down and start a family. She wants to fall in love.

This was quite a popular sentiment in movies. The majority of audiences who watched these movies back then probably weren't going to become famous, so Hollywood gives us a bit of the "Prince & the Pauper" story. Hollywood people secretly envy us as we long to be like them. Fame and money aren't everything. Better to lead a good life, fall in love and raise a family. Notice in movies when the women has to choose between the wealthy man, whom she really doesn't love, or the poor man, whom she does love, she always chooses the poor man. It is the same principle.

Though this story-line was also done before in another Alice Faye movie, "Hollywood Cavalcade" with Don Ameche (some suggest the film is based on comedy producer Mack Sennett and Mabel Normand). That film had the same set-up of a young man preoccupied with becoming famous and not paying enough attention to the woman who loves him. And in my opinion "Hollywood Cavalcade" does a better job. "Tin Pan Alley" doesn't go anywhere with the story. We don't believe these two people are really in love. Surprisingly Faye and Panye have little chemistry together, they fare much better in "Week-End in Havana" (1941) which I have also reviewed.

One interesting thing about "Tin Pan Alley" is the way Betty Grable is treated in this movie. By the time this film was made Grable had appeared in "Down Argentine Way", which was a hit. Here Grable has nothing to work with. She is really a supporting character, despite getting second billing behind Faye (!). Huge chunks of the film have nothing to do with her. She is not given a romantic interest and has only one song which showcases her properly. Alice Faye on the other hand is given much more screen time. The movie really wants to be a love story between her character and John Panye's. This is very telling about 20th Century Fox. It would appear, at this point in time, if they had to choose between Faye or Grable, they would have slided with Faye. I have to believe if this movie were made lets just say a year later Grable would have been given a love interest, possibly the Jack Oakie character and been allowed to sing more songs.

I also have a problem with the characters in this film. No one is really fleshed out. These characters are not real people, merely stereotypes and cliches. The film also doesn't have any feeling for the times, pre-WW1. It has neither a romantic sentiment towards the era or a celebratory one. I felt every performance comes off as bland. I'm not use to feeling that way about these actors. Alice Faye and Betty Grable had great star appeal. Other films took advantage of their beauty and their girl-next-door persona. They were beautiful but approachable. This time around I didn't feel that way.

Jack Oakie, whom was a popular comedian during the 30s and 40s, he is probably best known for his role in Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" (1940) for which he received his only Academy Award nomination (it was in the supporting actor category), isn't even funny in this movie. There is very little for him to do as well.

The film was directed by Walter Lang, a Fox studio director who made a career merely out of directing Betty Grable and Alice Faye musicals. His credits include "Moon Over Miami" (1941), "Song of the Islands" (1942), "Coney Island" (1943), "Greenwich Village" (1944) and "Week-End in Havana". I find all of those films slightly more entertaining than this film. They all do much more with their stars and have better writing.

That last remark is kind of an odd one because the writers were Robert Ellis and Helen Logan, who also wrote a good many Fox musicals such as "Sun Valley Serenade" (1941) which I have also reviewed and starred another popular Fox studio musical star; Sonja Henie. They were behind "Pin-Up Girl" (1944, which I have also reviewed), "Hello Frisco, Hello" (1943) and several Charlie Chan mysteries.

The film has a good supporting cast; Allen Jenkins, best known for his roles in Warner Brother musicals, the Nicholas Brothers, who appeared in several Fox musicals, Elisha Cook Jr., whom usually played thugs and gangsters and Billy Gilbert, who any fan of 1930s comedy will recognize.

The music on the other hand is so-so. Heard are "Moonlight Bay", "Goodbye Broadway, Hello France", "K-K-K-Katy" and two songs which historically don't belong in the movie, because they weren't written in the time period when the movie takes place, "Honeysuckle Rose" (Grable's only decent dance piece) and "The Sheik of Araby", which was written after Rudolph Valentino appeared in the film "The Sheik" (1921, which I have reviewed).

I'm usually a sucker for these type of films. I love Grable and Faye, honest I do. I have reviewed several of their films in the past and there is a good chance I will review more in the future but "Tin Pan Alley" just strikes me as a bit of a let down. Too bad. There was so much potential here with these two ladies in a film together.

Film Review: Shrek 2

2011-01-09T18:45:00.007-06:00

"Shrek 2" *** (out of ****)

Most movie fans know one of the golden rules of cinema; sequels are never better than the original. But, "Shrek 2" (2004) is an exception to the rule. I had a much better time watching "Shrek 2" than I did "Shrek" (2001).

My problem with the original "Shrek" was I've always felt it was inappropriate for children. The gimmick was suppose to be to take the fairytale genre, which is seen as pure and innocent, and add a certain element of adult humor. That within itself was suppose to be funny. But I've always felt that "Shrek" wasn't as clever as it thought it was. And, yes, I know "Shrek" has gone on to achieve great fame and Dreamworks Animation had a major box-office hit with the series. Though "Shrek", while I admit, at times humorous (I love the gingerbread man "torture" scene when he is threatened with a glass of milk) just didn't gel in my opinion.

So it was to my great surprise to find how much I enjoyed "Shrek 2". This film retains much of the original's sassy attitude but is much more kid friendly and smart enough to entertain the adults.

This time around Shrek (voice of Mike Myers) and Princess Fiona (voice of Cameron Diaz) are married and now Shrek must meet the parents; King Harold (John Cleese) and Queen Lillian (Julie Andrews). They are the rulers of "a land far, far away" and want to throw their daughter a party in honor of her wedding. What Fiona's parents don't know is how Fiona now looks and that she married an ogre.

If you remember from the first film, Princess Fiona had a curse put on her. Every night she would turn into an ogre herself, losing her beauty. So her parents thought the only logical thing to do was to lock her in a tower and wait for a prince to come, kiss her and break the curse. But Shrek rescued her instead.

These scenes and this situation is one any adult can relate to. We all hate the idea of meeting our in-laws or future in-laws for the first time. We are uncomfortable, afraid we will be judged and won't make a good first impression. For this reason adults will find themselves laughing while children will also be laughing but for different reasons. I noticed children like to see Shrek yell and scream no matter what.

Now what viewers don't know, is that during the first film, as Shrek was attempting to rescue Princess Fiona, there was another also attempting the same thing; Prince Charming (Rupert Everett). He makes it all the way to the tower only to find Fiona is gone, instead the Bad Bad Wolf is laying in her bed and informs him Fiona married. This makes Prince Charming mad. Rescuing the princess was his job.

Meanwhile King Harold and Shrek get off to a very bad start. King Harold doesn't want his daughter married to an ogre. How can Fiona live happily ever after with an ogre. Orge's aren't part of the happy ending in fairy tales. King Harold would rather Fiona marry Prince Charming. While Queen Lillian takes the usual mother position that she only wants what is best for Fiona. Shrek's appearance doesn't bother her at all.

But King Harold has made a deal with Fiona's Fairy Godmother (voice of Jennifer Saunders), who happens to be the mother of Prince Charming. They both agreed Charming would be Fiona's husband. Now King Harold must come up with a plan to get rid of Shrek and make Fiona fall in love with Prince Charming.

As I said "Shrek 2" has the original's sass and makes just as many spoof references. One montage has Fiona and Shrek being lovey-dovey as they are positioned in scenes from famous movies. Examples are the beach scene in "From Here To Eternity" (1954), the upside down kiss in "Spider-Man" (2002) and there is even room for a "Lord of the Rings" (2001) reference.

All of this gives "Shrek 2" that edge that most Dreamworks animated films have. These characters are sharp and have attitude. They can get in your face. Sometimes they think the way we think.

"Shrek 2" also does something most people feel is Dreamworks weak spot. It has emotional scenes and some heart. I honestly felt after an hour or so "Shrek 2" got boggled down in trying to have too much heart. The jokes started to fall a little flat for me and I was starting to get restless. "Shrek 2" could have used some trimming.

Two of my favorite new characters in "Shrek 2" is a Douglas Fairbanks, Erroll Flynn type swashbuckler pussycat, Puss-in-boots (voice of Antonio Banderas). The other is a saloon owner, the Ugly Stepsister (voice of Larry King, a funny, unexpected choice). Puss-in-boots is a very funny character who engages in a rivalry with Donkey (Eddie Murphy) over who should be Shrek's talking animal sidekick.

"Shrek 2" was directed once again by Andrew Adamson, who also went on to direct the first two "Chronicle of Narnia" movies. The film was, for many years, the highest grossing animated film ever grossing nearly a billion dollars worldwide and domestically taking in more than $436 million. Eventually "Toy Story 3" (2010) out grossed it. And once again "Shrek 2" was nominated for the palm d'or at the Cannes Film Festival.

I'd honestly skip over the first "Shrek", though the Broadway stage play is quite good, and just show the kids "Shrek 2" instead. This one is much more kid friendly, they will get a big kick out of Puss-in-boots and parents won't have to worry about that very broad, adult humor that the first "Shrek" film had.

"Shrek 2" was nominated for 2 Oscars. One for "Best Animated Feature", but lost to Pixar's "The Incredibles" (2004) which was probably the right decision and was nominated for "Best Song" (Accidentally in Love).

Film Review: Clash By Night

2011-01-05T08:41:00.009-06:00

"Clash By Night" *** (out of ****)

Fritz Lang's "Clash By Night" (1952) opens with a shot of a violent sea storm. We see waves clashing against the shore repeatedly. The shots serves two purposes. One, the film takes place in a fishing community and secondly, it foreshadows the violent nature of the characters and their eventual "clash" with each other.

We see this shot again, later in the picture, only this time, one of the characters, Mae Doyle (Barbara Stanwyck) is watching the storm from her window. At that moment, the storm is symbolic of the rage inside her, her own emotional storm if you will.

Mae Doyle returns home to her brother Joe (Keith Andes) after a ten year absence. Mae Doyle had big plans in life. Plans which the small fishing community would be unable to make come true. She wanted to marry money and live the easy life. She was in fact the mistress of a New York politician. After he died she was left with nothing. With no place to go, she heads back home.

The only fishermen we meet in the film is Jerry D'Amato (Paul Douglas). He lives with his aging father, (Silvio Minciotti) and his alcoholic, loafer Uncle Vince (J. Carrol Naisn). Mae's brother Joe works for Jerry.

After a two week period we learn Mae mostly keeps to herself, she doesn't even leave the house. The nightlife in this town is much different than the one in New York. At Joe's insistence, Jerry asks Mae out. She accepts. Dinner and a movie.

But why does Mae accept? We suspect Jerry isn't really Mae's type. Jerry is a decent guy. A loyal, reliable person. He has a job, looks after his father, allows his uncle to take advantage of him. Mae, we suspect, is looking for more adventure. She's a tough cookie. The type of person that doesn't let out her feelings. She doesn't like to stay in one place too long.

Mae and Jerry see a lot of each other. Then, one day, Jerry introduces Mae to his friend, Earl Pfeiffer (Robert Ryan), a projectionist at the local movie theatre. Earl is similar to Mae. At first Mae doesn't hide her dislike for Earl. Could it be because she realizes they are alike? She doesn't want to fall back into her old habits?

I really don't feel I have to write too much more as most readers can probably guess where all of this is going to go. Mae and Jerry end up getting married, they have a child. Mae feels Jerry can offer her some comfort and a place to settle down. Notice love never enters the picture. But soon after the birth of their child Mae starts to get the itch. She can't stay married to Jerry. She has to move on. She feels confined.

"Clash By Night" felt like a Tennessee Williams play to me. It was based on a stage play by Clifford Odets who wrote such works as "Humoresque" (1946), "The Sweet Smell of Success" (1957) and "The Country Girl" (1954). It was adapted by Alfred Hayes who worked with Fritz Lang on another picture, "Human Desire" (1954). He also wrote the drug addiction film "A Hatful of Rain" (1957) and was nominated twice for an Oscar; "Paisan" (though made in 1946, it wasn't released in America until 1950) and "Teresa" (1951).

One of the problems I have with "Clash By Night", and it might be the only problem I have with it, is it takes forever to reach its predictable conflict. The viewer knows where this is all headed but the movie delays the action in the name of creating atmosphere and establishing the character's personality. That is all very important no question, but, I believe it could have done all of these things and still move events along.

One of the things which makes "Clash By Night" interesting however is the portrayal of women in the film. The two main female characters are Mae and Peggy (a young Marilyn Monroe), she is engaged to Joe. Both women are attracted to wild men. Dominate men who will control them. Peggy says she doesn't want to be bossed around, yet, she still remains with Joe and accepts his marriage proposal, after she says they had a major fight and he broke down the door to ask for her hand.

It suggest women like the "bad boy" type but don't want any of the drama associated with them. Which I suppose is true in real life as well. But then there is the issue of Mae and her child. Mae doesn't want to leave her baby behind. This would suggest a baby changes everything. Responsibility changes a person. Compare and contrast Jerry and Earl in the course of the film and what each man represents. Compare and contrast Mae at the beginning of the film and who she becomes at the end.

Marilyn Monroe fans should know she is not the star of this picture and the usual glam we associate with her is not on display here. Her looks are downplayed. She was still a young actresses at this point who may have been best known for her brief role in films such as "The Asphalt Jungle" (1950) and "All About Eve" (1950). The following year would prove much more successful for Monroe. She would appear in "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" (1953) and "How To Marry A Millionaire" (1953) and still ahead would be "The Seven Year Itch" (1955).

Barbara Stanwyck is the playing the bad girl we saw her play in "Double Indemnity" (1944) and "Baby Face" (1931) and for laughs in "The Lady Eve" (1941). She creates a character which at times is not sympathetic at all. Her hard shell makes it difficult for people to get to know her. She doesn't treat her husband with the kindness you would expect a couple in love to.

As I said, compare and contrast Jerry and Earl. I suppose on some level there is a comment about what makes a man. Jerry has to prove himself as more than a nice man who would never hurt anyone. That simply is not attractive to Mae and makes him appear less masculine. Earl is a man. But Earl isn't stable. Does it matter?

Director Fritz Lang was good at making semi film noir stories with strong psychological undertones. I prefer "The Woman in the Window" (1944) and "Scarlet Street" (1945) which are also about masculinity. Both star Edward G. Robinson and I have reviewed both. At this period in Lang's career many would argue his work suffered in comparison to his earlier films. Lang had hit hard times and wasn't as critically respected as he was back in the days of "M" (1931), "Metropolis" (1927) and his first American film "Fury" (1936).

For whatever reason, once in America Lang didn't command the respect he deserved. He made films on a cheaper budget and lack the grand scope of his earlier films. He was also, unfairly in my opinion, snubbed by the Academy Awards. Lang never received as Oscar nomination for his directing. He hasn't even been given an honorary Oscar as the Academy does often when it realizes many times it has wrongfully neglected to celebrate a great artist.

"Clash By Night" is not one of Lang's great films. I admit that. It isn't a bad film however. There are interesting social themes floating around throughout the picture. And the acting for the most part is very good. Lang was something of a perfectionist, so he was going to demand a lot from his actors (though actors often claimed they hated working for him).

This doesn't make for a good introduction into Lang's work. For that I'd suggest "Metropolis", "M" or "Fury". "Clash By Night" is good for those familiar with his work already.

Top Ten Films Of 2010!

2010-12-31T20:13:00.028-06:00

Two years ago when making my list of the best films of the year I wrote "what a pathetic, mindless, worthless year 2008 proved to be for cinema". Last year when trying to make my list, I wrote I simply couldn't do it. The year had been so bad I was unable to comprise a list of ten films which I liked. The last two years sucked the joy of cinema right out of me that I even stopped writing on here for a couple of months.

However, I am very happy to say, that is not the case this year. In fact it has been the complete opposite. I had difficulty limiting myself to only ten films, so I am going to have to do something I normally don't do; create a runner's up list. Funny enough though, the majority of movie critics have been complaining that it hasn't been a good year for movies. Why is it that I am always dancing outside of public opinion? I honestly didn't see as many films this year as I had the last two years but because of my extreme selectivity I made plenty of good choices and saw a lot of entertaining films.

Whenever making my list I like to concentrate on a shared common theme and how that theme relates to our society. How do my choices fit into the larger social picture? This year it seems that common theme was "connecting". All of the films on this list are about people trying to connect to one another or their environment. I suppose I could play Freud for a second and say my pleasure from these films comes from my own personal desires to connect with people, maybe. But now is not the time or place for that.

One of the most acclaimed movies of the year, "The Social Network" (2010), is about people "connecting". The highest grossing film of the year "Toy Story 3" (2010) is about the relationship between a boy and his toys and the desire which his toys have to connect to other children so they can be played with. "Inception" (2010) boggled the mind with its special effect and alternate world of dreams, but underneath all of that was a story about a young man trying to get his father to accept him. To connect. The Woody Allen comedy "You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger" (2010) was about a group of people so desperate they turn to the stars to find love, to find acceptance, to connect with someone. George Clooney in "The American" (2010) is a hit-man of sorts on one last job who wants to call it quits because of love. He has found someone to connect with.

We can take this theme of connecting and apply it to where our society is. Think in terms of politics and the last election. Voters sent Washington a message; listen to us. People decided they couldn't connect with the Democrats or President Obama. So they sent people to Washington whom they felt they connected with. Politicians whom they felt would listen to them and shared their concerns.

In the end this theme of "connecting" I suppose I can be applied to any year of movies but this year, in these economic times, it was the most prevalent issue. People are hurting. They have lost their jobs, unsure of when they will find their next job. It may cause a strain on a relationship, a marriage or one's single life. In that context we are all looking for someone to connect to. To listen to our problems, to share our dreams with.

My feeling has always been movies don't exist on their own. They are a product of their environment. Movies are a reflection of our society. The year 2010 is the year we tried to come together and solve our problems.

Here are my choices for the best films of the year as well as a runner's up list!

1. METROPOLIS (Dir. Fritz Lang; Germany, 1927) - The ultimate movie about connecting and the major movie event of the year!

Some readers may think I'm cheating by putting this Fritz Lang masterpiece, made in 1927, on my list. My reason for including it though is simple. Two years ago, in Buenos Aires, 25 additional minutes of this film was found. They were believed to be lost. Now the film is in its most complete form since its debut in Germany back in '27. Only 5 minutes of the film remain missing.

Kino, which has distributed the film, premiered this version at festivals and gave it a theatrical run in several major cities. Seeing this "complete version" was like seeing the film for the first time. Everything made sense to me. Character motivations and situations had become clear to me.

"Metropolis" takes place in a futuristic world where people are divided into the "workers" and the "wealthy". The workers only purpose in life is to work. They live under the city, out of sight of the wealthy people, who do not have a care in the world. Eventually one man, the son of the creator of Metropolis, discovers the underground world of the workers. He takes pity on them and their harsh life and falls in love with their leader, who tells them one day a mediator will come along to bring these two worlds together. And thus our theme of connecting.

The film has strong Communist rhetoric and religious undertones. Prior to seeing this "complete version" my feelings were "Metropolis" was a very good film. Now my thoughts have changed. "Metropolis" is a masterpiece. One of the greatest films ever made.

It is also a perfect example of how classic films overpower modern cinema. Compare "Metropolis" to any film released this year. To make it a fair fight, lets compare it to the acclaimed movies of the year; "The Social Network", "The King's Speech" (2010) or "The Fighter" (2010). "Metropolis" has images which have lingered in my mind since I saw it in theatres. This is epic filmmaking. It is bold and even to this day feels fresh and relevant. This is cinema.

Read my review here: http://alex-udvary.blogspot.com/2010/06/film-review-metropolis-2010-restoration.html

2. A WOMAN, A GUN & A NOODLE SHOP (Dir. Zhang Yimou; China) - Several American critics bashed master filmmaker Zhang Yimou's adaptation of the Coen Brothers film "Blood Simple" (1984). My guess is because the Coen Brothers are considered a national treasure and "Blood Simple" is considered one of their best films. Naturally American critics would get a little defensive if a Chinese filmmaker comes along and changes it. But that kind of logic doesn't go over well with me. "A Woman, A Gun & A Noodle Shop" is a tightly constructed movie and has wonderful visuals. I was engaged from beginning to end.

3. THE AMERICAN (Dir. Anton Corbijn; U.S.) - Another film which received a mix reaction from critics. It was not the type of film most movie goers were expecting. This is not a fast paced, action packed film. It has more of a European sensibility. It is meditative. Correctly many have compared it to the work of Jean-Pierre Melville and films such as "The Red Circle" (1970), "Le Samourai" (1967) and "Second Wind" (1966). Actually some of Melville's films move a little faster than this film but "The American" has its own charms. This is a well crafted film with a terrific performance given by George Clooney.

4. HEREAFTER (Dir. Clint Eastwood; U.S.) - Here is a movie about people trying to figure out what happens after we die. This is a movie about people who are alone and search for life's impossible answers in the wrong places. A little more sentimental than I'm use to from Eastwood. But the film won me over.

Read my review here: http://alex-udvary.blogspot.com/2010/11/film-review-hereafter.html

5. YOU WILL MEET A TALL DARK STRANGER (Dir. Woody Allen; U.S.) - It is nothing new to say audiences and critics turned their back on Woody Allen, but, I'm not one to follow the crowd. Here is a movie about people searching for love. Allen is having a little cosmic fun with us. The film is also about how we choose to interpret what life throws our way. Happiness is in the eyes of the beholder.

Read my review here: http://alex-udvary.blogspot.com/2010/10/film-review-you-will-meet-tall-dark.html

6. INCEPTION (Dir. Christopher Nolan; U.S.) - One of the biggest brain teasers of the year. Left lots of audience members scratching their heads in confusion but I was able to follow it pretty closely. What is so great about this film is I bought everything the film was selling. The film takes us into its world and makes us believe this all seems possible. It follows its own logic.

7. WILD GRASS (Dir. Alain Resnais; France) - French master filmmaker Alain Resnais gave us this charming little film about a man finding a woman's wallet in a parking garage, finding the woman attractive and hoping by returning the wallet to her they can connect on some level.

8. TANGLED (Dir. Nathan Greno, Byron Howard; U.S.) - It was a pretty good year for animated films but Disney's 50th feature film, a modern retelling of Rapunzel, was my favorite. Of course it is a story of a young girl who dreams of experiencing the world around her, which she has been denied, in other words she wants to connect with her environment. Good songs, lots of humor, and a story good enough to hold an adult's attention and silly enough to entertain the younger audiences.

Read my review here: http://alex-udvary.blogspot.com/2010/12/film-review-tangled.html

9. SHUTTER ISLAND (Dir. Martin Scorsese; U.S.) - How strange that when a Martin Scorsese film comes out, no one pays attention. The film seems to have been forgotten by the critics and audiences. Very, very few critics (less than 10) have placed this film on their "top ten" list according to http://www.moviecitynews.com/.

The film was Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio's fourth collaboration together and in my opinion their weakest but it is still a strong film and more then mere genre storytelling. Scorsese is having some fun with this one.

It also is a story, much like "Inception" of a man longing for the woman that got away. A story of two souls trying to connect

10. THE SUN (Dir. Aleksandr Sokurov; Russia) - Actually made in 2005 it has taken five years for this film to finally reach us in America. It is the story of Emperor Hirohito, who was regarded as a God to the Japanese, and the last days of WW2. The Emperor soon admits that he is not a God, only a man, and a man with flaws.

The film had amazing cinematography which put us in a claustrophobic, chilling mood. In some ways it reminded me of "The Shining" (1980).

RUNNER'S UP!

1. BLACK SWAN (Dir. Darren Aronofsky; U.S.) read my review here: http://alex-udvary.blogspot.com/2010/12/film-review-black-swan.html

2. THE KING'S SPEECH (Dir. Tom Hooper; U.K.)

3. MEGAMIND (Dir. Tom McGrath; U.S.) read my review here: http://alex-udvary.blogspot.com/2010/11/film-review-megamind.html

4. YOU DON'T KNOW JACK (Dir. Barry Levinson; U.S.)

5. MILLENNIUM TRILOGY (THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, Dir. Niels Arden Opiev, THE GIRL WHO PLAYED WITH FIRE, Dir. Daniel Alfredson, THE GIRL WHO KICKED THE HORNET'S NEST, Dir. Daniel Alfredson; Sweden)

6. RED RIDING TRILOGY (Dir. Julian Jarrold, James Marsh, Anand Tucker; U.K.)

7. WHITE MATERIAL (Dir. Claire Denis; France)

8. MORNING GLORY (Dir. Roger Michell; U.S.) read my review here: http://alex-udvary.blogspot.com/2010/12/film-review-morning-glory.html

9. RABBIT HOLE (Dir. John Cameron Mitchell; U.S.) read my review here: http://alex-udvary.blogspot.com/2010/12/film-review-rabbit-hole.html

10. SCOTT PILGRIM VS THE WORLD (Dir. Edgar Wright; U.S.)

Film Review: Rabbit Hole

2010-12-30T19:29:00.010-06:00

"Rabbit Hole" *** (out of ****)

So much has been made of the fact that Nicole Kidman hasn't starred in a box-office success since 2001 when she appeared in "Moulin Rouge!" and "The Others". Since that time she has done some interesting work but the films have not had a mainstream appeal, including "Dogville" (2004), "Margot at the Wedding" (2007) and the critical acclaimed "The Hours" (2002). A few films were expected to be hits like "Austrilla" (2008) and "Nine" (2009) but they managed to be disappointments both critically and commercially.

Unfortunately I doubt "Rabbit Hole" (2010) is going to change her box-office appeal. But whether or not the film does well at the box-office is quite frankly besides the point. The real question which should be asked is whether or not the film is any good. The answer to that question is yes. And Nicole Kidman demonstrates why she is one of the best actresses we have working today.

"Rabbit Hole" is to put simply about two damaged souls and the grieving process. Becca (Kidman) and Howie (Aaron Eckhart) are a married couple whose 4 year old son died in an accident 8 months ago. The boy was chasing after his pet dog when a car rode down the street, swirled out of the way to avoid the dog and killed their son instead.

What exactly is the "correct" way to deal with such a traumatic event? Can one ever recover from such an ordeal? Is there even a "correct" way to deal with that type of grief? Becca and Howie try going to group therapy where they meet other couples who have also lost a child. For Becca it is not working. One couple in particular annoys her because they have turned to God in their hour of need. In Becca's mind God was the problem. Why did He take their son away. Becca takes their son's old clothes and give it to Goodwill. She removes old drawings off the refrigerator. Gives the pet dog to her mother. She is trying to remove all the things which remind her of her son.

Howie on the other hand is a different story. We find out every night Howie watches video clips of their time together with their son on his cell phone. Howie is upset that Becca has removed everything. In his mind she is trying to act like their son never existed. Howie continues to go to the group therapy.

Here we have two different approaches to deal with the same problem. In my mind, Becca's choices are correct. She is trying to move on. Having objects around which reminds her of her son only makes the process more difficult. If you are unable to get over the past you can never move forward. That is Howie's problem. He needs more time. Of course each person has to deal with their problems in their own way and at their own pace.

The movie actually has the same problem I wrote about as "The Fighter" (2010). It is monotone. There is no fluctuation in tone. The emotions in the film are somber. We don't get the big emotional payoff we are expecting. The emotional breakdown scene isn't as powerful as it could have been.

Still there are moments of very good acting by Kidman and Eckhart. We believe they are a married couple. We can relate to their situation and their grieving process feels sincere. There are a few choice moments when the two do engage in highly charged arguments concerning what steps to take in order to move forward.

Yet there are times when I felt the movie could have done more. The film doesn't examine these two people in the same intense way Ingmar Bergman studied his characters in "Scenes From A Marriage" (1974). Of course the issues each couple faces is different but Bergman kept his characters under a microscope. "Rabbit Hole", in the third act, feels a little too contrived. It reaches it conclusions a little too easily. This goes back to my comments about not getting a strong enough emotional payoff.

But why nit-pick? We should enjoy watching these two performances here by Eckhart and Kidman. Not to mention some fine supporting players like Dianne Wiest as Nat, Becca's mother. And Tammy Blanchard as Izzy, Becca's sister. Miles Teller as Jason and Giancarlo Esposito as Auggie, Izzy's boyfriend.

The film was directed by John Cameron Mitchell. This is only his third film. His two previous films include "Shortbus" (2006) and "Hedwig and the Angry Inch" (2001). I haven't seen either of these two movies but Mitchell strikes me as a competent filmmaker. I didn't quite sense a personal style coming from him however.

The script was written by David Lindsay-Abaire, who adapted his own stage play. The story goes Abaire based the play on his own experiences. He had a brother who died at a young age and according to him it is an incident which his family is continuously dealing with.

So far the film has received some critical attention. Nicole Kidman is nominated for a Golden Globe in the "Best Actress" drama category and she received an Independent Spirit Award nomination. The film is also up in three other categories including "Best Director". And I personally hope Kidman wins an Oscar nomination. Even though it seems to be Natalie Portman's year.

"Rabbit Hole" is a strong film with effective performances. Audiences, as of now, don't seem to be paying attention to it, hopefully that will change.

p.s. - what exactly does the title "Rabbit Hole" mean? When I think of a "rabbit hole" I think of "Alice in Wonderland" and the rabbit hole which took Alice to a world where nothing made sense. Becca's rabbit hole leads her to the real world where once again, nothing makes sense.

Here's Nyuck In Your Eyes!

2010-12-29T15:37:00.009-06:00

Whether readers are aware of it are not, I am a great fan of classic Hollywood comedy. I love writing about my favorite comedians and comedies. Comedy is my favorite genre. It has had the biggest impact on me. I have tried to discuss many of the great comics and comedy teams of the 1920s, 30s and 40s. I have written about Laurel & Hardy (my favorite comedy team of all time), Charlie Chaplin, Abbott & Costello, the Marx Brothers, Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd. But I have also tried to introduce readers to the comics time has forgotten. I have discussed Harry Langdon, the comedy team of Wheeler & Woolsey, Olsen & Johnson and Joe E. Brown among others. However, there has been one very popular comedy team I have not written about; the Three Stooges.

There has been a reason for their absence. The Three Stooges are not known for their work in feature films. They are best known among their fans for the 2 reelers they appeared in at Columbia Pictures. Though they did appear in feature films these were made later in their careers and do not feature the most famous line-up of Moe, Larry and Curly (or Curley as he is credited). As a result I have not mentioned them. I don't want to review individual 2 reelers. I prefer to review feature length films.

So now some of you might be asking yourself, if that is my rule, why am I writing about the Three Stooges. The reason is rather straight forward. I recently received some DVDs of the Stooges' work and wanted to discuss them. Not necessarily review individual shorts but their work in general and the impression it has left on me.

Even at a young age I've taken pleasure in watching comedies from the 20s, 30s and 40s. I appreciate many of the great comics; W.C. Fields, Laurel & Hardy, Chaplin, Bob Hope...ect. But for some reason I was never a Stooge fan. Their approach to comedy didn't appeal to me. Even as a child I actually found them childish. Not to mention my mother gave me the same warning most mothers gave their sons and told me not to watch the Three Stooges. She felt they were too violent.

I've had friends over the years try to show me what I am missing. They tell me the Stooges were great reactionaries. Pay attention to their facial expressions I was told. But, it didn't matter to me. They just weren't funny. Oh sure, I could handle them in small doses. Maybe watch a short or two at a time. But after a while, their antics; slapping each other in the face, poking one another in the eyes, pounding their fist on each other's head, became boring and predictable. After I've seen Moe poke Curly's eyes once I may in fact laughed at it. But when he does it 6 times in the same 2 reeler I'm no longer laughing.

It was to my surprise someone would buy me a DVD of the Stooges for Christmas. Their logic was since I am an admirer of classic comedy therefore I must like the Stooges. I thanked them for the gift and part of me was anxious to watch them again. It had been years since I done so. Could my memories have been wrong? Maybe there wasn't as much violence as my mother warned me about. I remembered their comedies being a battle royale. Perhaps I was wrong.

An 8 volume DVD collection simply titled "The Three Stooges Collection" was released in 2007. It features all 190 plus 2 reelers the boys appeared in while at Columbia Pictures. I was given volume one, which showcases their first 19 shorts and volume eight, which features the last 32 they appeared in and includes the 16 shorts Joe Besser appeared in. Those 16 shorts are actually a matter of controversy to Stooge fans which I will discuss later.

Volume one has the most famous line-up; Moe, Larry and Curly. Here we see the team working out the rough edges and establishing what each man's role would be in the team. Moe is the leader, Curly is the "second" stooge, the one who takes most of Moe's hits. Curly is the most adversarial. Meanwhile, Larry is their to take up space and say "it was an accident Moe" when accidentally hitting Moe.

What really surprised me was how many gifted people worked with the Stooges. A good number of their shorts were written by Felix Adler. I've actually discussed him on here before. He was a very good gag writer who worked with Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd. Vernon Dent also appeared in several shorts with the boys. He would play "heavy" to Harry Langdon in his 2 reelers. And Raymond McCarey (Leo's brother) directed a few of these shorts. Raymond, at one time, worked for Hal Roach and did some behind the scenes work for Laurel & Hardy. His brother Leo, is credited as being the man who paired them together.

There are also a lot of famous shorts in this first volume which also surprised me. It would appear right from the beginning the Three Stooges were making memorable comedies. Their second short at Columbia, "Punch Drunks" (1934) is quite famous, even I had seen it before. This is the one where Moe is a boxing manager, Larry is an out of work fiddle player and Curly is a timid man who goes berserk whenever he hears the tune "pop goes the weasel". Their third short, "Men in Black" (1934) is equally famous. It was their only short to be nominated for an Oscar, "Best Short Subject". This is the one where they are doctors as a loudspeaker repeatedly says "calling Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard". Next there is "Three Little Pigskins" (1934) which features a very young Lucille Ball (!). I honestly didn't know Lucille Ball worked with the Stooges. I knew she had worked with the Marx Brothers, but was extremely surprised to see her here.

Also on Volume one is "Three Little Beers" (1935) which is only famous to me because this is where the boys try to learn how to golf and wear their famous golf costumes. And lastly, "Disorder in the Court" (1936) is here, perhaps their most famous short. I know of many people who regard it as a comedy masterpiece.

As I watched these shorts my opinion of the Stooges changed very little. None of these shorts really made me laugh. However, I do have a favorite from the set. One called "Movie Maniacs" (1936) which has the boys trying to break into Hollywood. There is one gag as the boys try to direct a movie and show the actors how to make the proper gestures which really did have me laughing out loud. But notice, it had nothing to do with hitting. Just non-violent physical comedy. The things I came away laughing at watching these shorts were a lot of the verbal gags. I liked one moment in "Men in Black" when the boys are about to perform surgery (for the first time) as a nurse is whispering to them. So the boys start to whisper to until finally one of them ask why are they whispering, to which the nurse replies, she doesn't know why they are but she is because she lost her voice asking for a raise. Some my think it is a corny joke, but, I've always been one to appreciate a good corny joke. I also like a moment in "Disorder in the Court" as Curly is about to be sworn in before he testifies.

The biggest problem with all of these shorts is they lack a strong structure. There really is no beginning, middle and end. A lot of the stories don't resolve anything. The shorts are merely a collection of jokes. Depending on the comedians I may not mind that very much if I'm laughing. But, with the Stooges I notice the plot holes.

At first the idea with the Stooges seemed to be the same approach taken with most comics. Try to put in comedians in the most outrageous situation and let the sparks fly. So in one short they are doctors, in another football players and yet another soldiers in the army. Put them in the past as knights defending a queen or put them in outer space. It is suppose to be funny to see these characters played in environments out of the normal and see what would happen.

Now I said volume 8 of the collection has been a matter of debate. A great many Stooge fans hate Joe Besser. Some go as far as to say the man really wasn't a Stooge. In a sign of just how bloody minded Stooge fans are, their main compliment is Joe didn't get hit enough. Stooge fans go as far as to say Joe was a wuss and make insinuations that the man was a closeted homosexual. Not just the character he played but Joe Besser himself! They insist the man wasn't even funny. I simply cannot go along with these extreme comments.

First of all Joe Besser was not a homosexual. Neither him or his character. And even if the man was, so what! That is no one's business. What Stooge fans don't realize is the character Joe Besser played while with the Stooges was the character he played all his life. An overgrown man child. For those unware who Joe Besser was. He is best known for the catchphrase "not so haaarrrdddd". He worked with Abbott & Costello, Joey Bishop and even Jack Benny. He was a very funny man and if put in the right situation his character could be humorous. As far as not taking a hit, Joe did take a hit, though I will admit not as often as Curly, Shemp or Larry. And I should point out Joe did have it in his contract he didn't want to take too many hits in the face.

Remarks regarding Joe Besser didn't fit in as a Stooge I feel are correct. I can nod in agreement with that. But once Stooge fans start going overboard with all those other criticisms I have to start drawing the line. And to further irritate Stooge fans I must say I don't mind the Besser shorts. In some ways I prefer them because now the hitting doesn't take up as much screen time as before, Though I must also admit, the stories weren't very good. That wasn't Joe's fault though. You have to remember the Stooges had been working at Columbia since 1934. Joe Besser became part of the act in 1957 making his debut in "Hoofs and Goofs". They were simply starting to run out of steam. Many of the shorts made during Besser's years were actually remakes. Though the Stooges also did remakes when Shemp was part of the act too.

My favorite Joe Besser short is "Pies and Guys" (1958) which is a remake of "Hoi Polloi" (1934) which was one of the Curly shorts (found one volume one of the collection). Here the boys are part of a bet to see if they are able to learn manners. The short "Triple Crossed" reminds me of a Laurel & Hardy movie "Our Relations" (1936). In fact a great many of the gags the Stooges were doing remind me of Laurel & Hardy gags. You have to remember as far as screen comedy goes Laurel & Hardy precedes the Stooges, the Marx Brothers, Bob Hope, Abbott & Costello and Jack Benny. Laurel & Hardy were around in the silent era. Comics stole from other comics all the time, so I'm not suggesting the Stooges started something. I realize it is a reality. But, as a Laurel & Hardy man myself, I kept thinking about them as I watched the Stooges and how I prefer Stan & Ollie over Moe, Larry and Curly.

Still my opinion isn't as harsh as it once was concerning the Three Stooges. I'm somewhere in the middle regarding them. However, this DVD collection is a must have for Stooge fans. The shorts look great, very crisp sharp image.

Film Review: The Fighter

2010-12-29T08:49:00.006-06:00

"The Fighter" *** (out of ****)

Walking into "The Fighter" (2010) I admit my expectations may have been too high. Given all the critical acclaim which has been thrown at the movie (which honestly should have been my first signal something was up) I was anticipating a masterpiece. A film which I would consider one of the best of the year. Unfortunately, for me at least, "The Fighter" isn't the knockout I wanted it to be.

"The Fighter" is suppose to be one of those heartwarming, sympathetic, inspiration stories of an underdog beating all the odds. A story of perseverance. How we can all achieve great things if we put our mind to it. It just so happens to be a boxing melodrama, so there will be those who will want to compare it the "Best Picture" Oscar winner, "Million Dollar Baby" (2004) or "Rocky" (1977), also a "Best Picture" Oscar winner. But "The Fighter" isn't as emotional as "Million Dollar Baby" and didn't strike me as inspirational as "Rocky".

The problem for me is with the story's structure. All the ingredients are here quite frankly to make a memorable film. However the screenplay doesn't go about introducing us to these characters in the right way and doesn't build up enough emotion.

The story starts off with Dicky Eklund (Christian Bale) as a local boxing legend. Though, now he is a crack addict. He only has his memories to get by on and repeatedly tells the story of how he beat Sugar Ray Leonard in the ring. Dicky now is the corner man for his half-brother Mickey Ward (Mark Wahlberg). But Dicky isn't reliable. He shows up late for training. He is always at the crack house. Mickey's mother, Alice (Melissa Leo) serves as his manager and lately hasn't been getting him the fights Mickey deserves. Mickey needs to tell his family to back off, but, with this clang, it is hard. The family motto is never trust anyone that isn't family.

In these early moments we can see neither Dicky or Alice really believes in Mickey. Dicky only thinks about himself. Whether it is doing drugs or his memories of the past. He is even under the delusion he is going to stage a comeback and believes HBO is following him around to cover his story. An HBO crew is following him but not for the reasons Dicky think. Alice on the other hand, still puts great pride in Dicky never giving Mickey enough attention or credit.

Naturally things soon change for Mickey after he meets Charlene (Amy Adams). A bartender with a lot of sass who speaks her mind. They seem to instantly hit it off. It is Charlene who tells Mickey the uncomfortable truth, he needs to leave his family behind if he wants to make it as a boxer.

The script's dialogue is actually very good. I found it very colorful and alive. The people speak in a realistic manner. It is just that the film never really has a shift in tone. The tension never really rises. Everything is fairly conventional. No major surprises with this story.

What I think would have made this film better was if we see Dicky as the great fighter he once was and then slowly see his fall, while little brother Mickey looks on. Dicky would then be his inspiration to succeed. I actually find Dicky to be the more interesting character, not Mickey. Dicky has more of a background story. He seems to have lead the more difficult life. More struggles. More to overcome.

I also thought the film's ending, a big boxing match, wasn't as powerful as it could have been. This should have been a very uplifting moment in the film. By this point in the movie the audience should have been overcome with emotion. We should be feeling every punch in that ring. But this is such a somber, monotone, it just doesn't come off. There is no real emotional reward.

If I sound like "The Fighter" isn't worth seeing, that is not my intention. The movie has good performances, I especially like Christian Bale, and as I said, the dialogue is very good.

The film was directed by David O. Russell, the man behind "I Heart Huckabees" (2004), a film which I liked more than most, and "Three Kings" (1999), a film which I disliked more than most, which also starred Mark Wahlberg. Russell does a good job getting strong performances out of his actors and gives the movie a nice look.

The film has won 6 Golden Globe nominations including "Best Picture" and "Best Director" and Christian Bale has already won the National Board of Review award for "Best Supporting Actor". Don't be surprised if Bale gets an Oscar nomination either.

"The Fighter" is worth seeing for the performances and the dialogue. The story however just isn't all it could have been. Too bad. There was a lot going on here which could have made this a truly great film.

Film Review: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

2010-12-21T19:06:00.008-06:00

"The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader" *** (out of ****)

"The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader" (2010) gives the Narnia series a much needed boast, but, it may not matter in the end, as this may represent the conclusion of the series. However, the film is better than "The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian" (2008). But falls slightly short of the original film, "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" (2005).

I've often complained that the Narnia series lacks a certain amount of movie magic. The films aren't told with fascination and joy. The audience isn't "wowed" by the world of Narnia. The film doesn't take delight in introducing us to its characters and make us feel we are witnessing something special. "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" however does have moments of splendor and grandeur. A few times I sat in awe of the special effects and took some delight in where this latest Narnia adventure would lead us.

Watching these Narnia films it has been my opinion that Narnia doesn't exist. The world was created by our lead characters' imagination. They created this world in order to deal with the troubled world of WW2 London. The children's father is a solider fighting abroad. Their mother has not been seen since the first film. They are separated from their family. And as our heroes grow older they face the same identity issues all teenagers face. It is during these moments of great emotional stress when the children have found themselves in Narnia in every film.

There is a key line in "Voyage of the Treader" which is spoken by Aslan (voice of Liam Neeson) a wise, old talking lion. He tells one of the characters to remember each life has value. Do not wish to be something else. Learn to appreciate who you are and what you have. That ladies and gentlemen has been the theme of these Narnia films, especially this last (?) adventure.

In "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" the characters learn three lessons dealing with beauty, bravery and the power of imagination. Each one of these themes will have a profound effect on these characters. Lessons which will have an ever lasting effect on their lives.

There are a lot of changes in this latest Narnia adventure. As was suggested at the end of "Prince Caspian" two of the Pevensie children are not along for the journey; Susan (Anna Popplewell) and Peter (William Moseley). They were the two oldest children. In order to explain their disappearance we are told they are in America with their father. But, because of the war the remaining two; Lucy (Georgie Henley) and Edmund (Skander Keynes) cannot travel. It would be far too dangerous. So, they live with their cousin and we are introduced to a new character, Eustice (Will Poulter) their spoiled, all logical cousin, who feels superior to Lucy and Edmund, especially when he hears their fairy tales about Narnia.

Between Lucy and Edmund, it is Edmund which seems to have grown the most. The movie opens with him trying to enlist in the war. He is tired of being treated like a child. He complains in Narnia he is a king, he fought in battles and lead men. Here, in the real world, he feels useless. He wants to prove to others his bravery. He is a man. Lucy however retains a naive innocent child's mentality. During one moment in the film she seems so pure that she doesn't even have fearful thoughts, she doesn't even feel temptation. She will eventually learn that one day we must all grow up.

That aspect of the film reminds me of Peter Pan. Narnia was a vessel for these children to learn about growing up. In the first two films, Peter, must also learn lessons of bravery and leadership. He must take care of his brother and sisters since he is the oldest one. Now with Peter gone, Edmund feels he too must now step up the challenge. The reason Peter and Susan are not in this film is because at the end of "Prince Caspian" Aslan tells them, they have learned all they can from Narnia. Meaning they have become adults and just like in Peter Pan, when you become an adult you lose your imagination.

The introduction of the Eustice character is two-fold. It is Eustice who learns the power of imagination. Eustice is only concerned with facts and the real world. He has no time to read fairy tales. As he goes along with Lucy and Edmund on their adventure he discovers sometimes we need an escape from reality. His character's other importance to the story is if these Narnia adventures continue we will be going on his adventures. He will pick up where the Pevensie children left off.

Other changes to the Narnia world is Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes) is no longer a prince, now he is a king. And for the first time Narnia is at peace. There are no wars. All the creatures of Narnia live in harmony and without fear.

This time around the adventure revolves around King Caspian and the gang trying to track down the legendary seven swords of the lords as they sail on uncharted waters. They need the swords because of a powerful, deadly mist which slave traders sacrifice human life to. The only way to stop the mist will be to place all seven swords on Aslan's table.

We eventually learn this adventure will take them to a dreaded island where once they land their deepest, darkest fears will come true. This sub-plot actually reminded me of "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" (2005). It is on this island the final sword has been placed.

One of the problems I've had with the Narnia films is the human characters aren't interesting. The Pevensie children aren't really memorable characters. King Caspian is rather dull and boring. The most memorable characters were the non-human ones; Tumnus (James McAvoy), the White Witch (Tilda Swinton), Aslan, Beaver (voice of Ray Winston) and in these last two films a swashbuckler mouse, Reepicheep (voice of Simon Pegg). The problem is C.S. Lewis killed off a majority of these characters after the first film. This hurts the films because we have no characters which we are emotionally connected to. And the films no longer have an effective villain.

Directing "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" is Michael Apted, taking over for Andrew Adamson, who directed the first two films. Apted has directed titles such as "Gorillas in the Mist" (1988), the Jennifer Lopez vehicle "Enough" (2002) and the James Bond outing "The World Is Not Enough" (1999). With Apted at the helm, "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" is actually the shortest of the three films. It has the most action and probably the best special effects. It also has some darker moments. Some of these moments, one including a sea battle with a giant serpent like animal, may turn out to be too scary for younger viewers.

The script was adapted by the same team which adapted the first two films; Stephen McFeely and Christopher Markus and a new name was brought in, Michael Petroni, who wrote "Queen of the Damned" (2002).

As I said "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" is a better film than "Prince Caspian" and is probably the kind of sequel most viewers where expecting from the series. But it may be too late. After the disappointing box-office of "Caspian" even Disney dropped out and decided not to distribute this film, 20th Century Fox did instead. "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" seems to suggest this is the end of the line, even though more books do exist. I don't believe though that those novels will be filmed and to be quite honest, I don't think I personally want to go back to Narnia again.

"Voyage of the Dawn Treader" is an entertaining film with lots to say about beauty, bravery, imagination and growing up. There is more to the film than what is on the surface. And that will give audience members, who are old enough, something to think about.

Film Review: The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

2010-12-21T08:24:00.011-06:00

"The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian" *** (out of ****)

"The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian" (2008) was the sequel to "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" (2005). And was considered by many people to be a disappointment. I can see their point but, the movie works, in a way, just not in the ways you might expect it to.

When I first saw "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" my main compliant was the first film lacked a certain movie magic. The movie didn't seem to take great joy introducing us to the world of Narnia. It was a rather somber film with a message, which I interpreted as, children using their imagination to mask the terrors of the outside world.

If you recall the first film it took place in London during WW2. The children's father is a solider and their mother has sent them to the countryside for their safety, where they live with Professor Kirke (Jim Broadbent) and discover an empty wardrobe closet which transports them to the world of Narnia.

In "Prince Caspian" a year in human time has elapsed. The children miss the world of Narnia and have not returned since. When we meet the Pevensie children we find Susan, (Anna Popplewell) the eldest daughter, has become a bit of a loner. The eldest son, Peter (William Moseley) gets into fights in school, where he gets beat up. He still wants to live in Narnia where he is a king and known for his bravery. In the real world he is just another boy who gets picked on. Edmund (Skandar Keynes) and Lucy (Georgie Henley) still retain their innocence from the first film.

Just as in the first film, I came away with a story of children disappointed with the real world who use their imagination to escape into a fantasy world which they have created. Soon, in Harry Potter style, a subway train speeds by them and somehow opens a portal which takes them in Narnia.

But Narnia is not the same place they (or we) remember. The White Witch (Tilda Swinton) no longer rules. Narnia is not a winter wonderland anymore. It now looks like a tropical island. We learn 100 years have passed since the children have been there. Gone are all their friends from the past; Tumnus (James McAvoy), Beaver (voice of Ray Winston) and Aslan (voice of Liam Neeson) has not been seen since.

The creatures of Narnia have had to live underground due to a war with the Telmarians (who basically look like humans) who thought they completely killed off every Narnia creature. They are now ruled by Miraz (Sergio Castellitto), who has order his men to kill his nephew, Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes) after Miraz's wife has given birth to a son. Prince Caspian, who has been told stories of what Narnia was once like, finds himself befriending the creatures of Narnia and the Pevensie children to fight the Telmarians and restore order once again.

The reason a lot of people were disappointed by this movie, I think, is because first of all the tone of the film is much different. If "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" was a children's fantasy picture, "Prince Caspian" is a medieval period piece adventure story, no different than the "Lord of the Rings" stories and the movie I kept thinking about while watching this, "The Two Towers" (2002). Also all of the beloved characters are gone here. Only the White Witch and Aslan make cameo appearances. They were quite frankly the most interesting characters, not the Pevensie children. There is no mention of the children's parents. Is the father even alive? No wardrobe in this movie either. Wasn't that the only way to enter Narnia?

As I said, the first movie lacked magic, this movie doubles that lack of magic. Instead the movie evokes a sense of nostalgia. We yearn for the first film and its world and cast of characters. There is a great sense of lost hoovering over this film. A desire to return things to the way we remember it. But this also coincides with the children's emotions. They wanted to return to Narnia because of their dissatisfaction with the real world.

I'm still of the belief Narnia doesn't exist and is all in the children's mind. I won't reveal the ending and I haven't seen "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" (2010) yet, but, it seems the movie has the same message as "Peter Pan". Once we grow older we lose our imagination. It is suggested two characters will no longer return to Narnia because they have gotten older and have learned all they can from Narnia. What a mistake from an audience's point of view. Why keep eliminating all the characters we've come to know?

But I'm recommending "Prince Caspian". Why am I doing so if I find fault with the movie? I only find fault with the movie when compared to "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" and what my expectations were. As an action/adventure story "Prince Caspian" is your typical film with the usual results. In that sense it delivers on what you would expect from this genre. To compare the film to the original, I admit, "Prince Caspian" is the weaker film and an odd continuation of the Narnia saga.

Directing duties were taken on once again by Andrew Adamson and adapted by the same writing team of Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely. I've never read the Chronicle of Narnia books so I'm at a disadvantage. I don't know how successfully these films have been adapted. But even if the writers followed the book to the letter, this is a bizarre adventure.

"Prince Caspian" was a major letdown for Disney studios, which didn't even release "Dawn Treader". The movie grossed 150 million less than the first film domestically. It didn't even break even. Although I'm of the opinion a movie's box-office is not an indication of a film's quality. The movie is worth seeing just be prepared for something different.

Golden Globe Nominations

2010-12-15T15:32:00.006-06:00

Yesterday the 68th annual Golden Globe nominees were announced and it might turn into a night of "royal" entertainment as the British film "The King's Speech" (2010) led with 7 nominations.

Other major nominated films included "The Social Network" (2010), the facebook movie, which won 6 nominations in a tie with the boxing drama "The Fighter" (2010), which also won 6 nominations. Also nominated were the box-office hit, "Inception" (2010), "Black Swan" (2010) and the indie hit "The Kids Are All Right" (2010).

Unfortunately missing were nominations for Leonardo DiCaprio in "Inception" and/or Martin Scorsese's "Shutter Island" (2010), which was completely shut out. No nominations for Roman Polanski either and his film "The Ghost Writer" (2010), despite both Scorsese's film and Polanski's receiving generally positive reviews.

The Golden Globes, unlike the Academy Awards, separates the nominated films into two categories; drama and comedy/musical. The nominated films for "Best Picture" (drama) are; "Black Swan", "The Fighter", "Inception", "The King's Speech" and "The Social Network". The "Best Picture" nominees in the comedy/musical category are; "Alice in Wonderland" (2010), "Burlesque" (2010), "The Kids Are All Right", "Red" (2010) and "The Tourist" (2010).

In the acting categories the nominees for "Best Actor" (drama) are; Jesse Eisenberg ("The Social Network"), Colin Firth ("The King's Speech"), James Franco ("127 Hours", 2010), Ryan Gosling ("Blue Valentine" 2010) and Mark Wahlberg ("The Fighter"). For "Best Actress" (drama) the nominees are; Halle Berry ("Frankie and Alice", 2010), Nicole Kidman ("Rabbit Hole", 2010), Jennifer Lawrence ("Winter's Bone", 2010), Natalie Portman ("Black Swan") and Michelle Williams ("Blue Valentine").

In the comedy/musical category the nominees for "Best Actor" are; Johnny Depp for his performances in "Alice in Wonderland" and "The Tourist", Paul Giamatti ("Barney Version", 2010), Jake Gyllenhaal ("Love & Other Drugs", 2010) and Kevin Spacey ("Casino Jack", 2010). For "Best Actress" the nominees are; Annette Bening ("The Kids Are All Right"), Anne Hathaway ("Love & Other Drugs"), Angelina Jolie ("The Tourist"), Julianne Moore ("The Kids Are All Right") and Emma Stone ("Easy A", 2010).

A lot of people dislike the fact the Hollywood Foreign Press, whom decides on the nominees, separate the two categories but I actually like their decision. So often comedy has to take a backseat to hard hitting dramas. Comedies rarely get their due. At least at the Golden Globes comedies have a chance to be celebrated too. However, in the "Best Director" category the nominees are the same five people who directed the "Best Picture" nominated films in the drama category. I guess none of the comedy nominees were finely directed.

A lot of the nominated films have not opened in Chicago yet; "The Fighter", "The King's Speech", "Frankie and Alice", "Rabbit Hole", "Blue Valentine" and "Barney's Version", so I don't know if the nominations were worthwhile. I also can't predict any winners. But I was surprised "Burlesque" scored a "Best Picture" nomination. The movie was universally panned by critics. Why not nominate the Woody Allen film "You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger" (2010) instead? Or how about James L. Brooks (usually a critical darling) and his romantic comedy "How Do You Know?" (2010)?

I also can't understand all the hype over "The Kids Are All Right". The movie played like sit-com material in my opinion. I also feel "The Social Network" has been over-hyped as well. Many people are saying that is a front runner for an Oscar. Dear God, what a mistake that would be. The comparisons to "Citizen Kane" (1941) are really over-blown. The children have to stop doing that.

The Golden Globes will air on Sunday, January 16, 2011 and will be hosted by Ricky Gervais. For a complete list of all the nominated films and television shows visit here: http://www.goldenglobes.org/nominations/

Film Review: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

2010-12-14T19:48:00.006-06:00

"The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" *** (out of ****)

In preparation for the release of the latest "The Chronicles of Narnia" adventure, "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" (2010) I have decided it is about time I watch the other films in the series so when I see "Dawn Treader" I'll know what is going on.

"The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" (2005) is the most popular book in author C.S. Lewis' series of Narnia stories. Since its release both the book and all of its adaptations were seen as religious allegories. In fact a lot of critics condemned this movie because they felt the film became too much of a religious parable. As one might expect, I disagree with that sentiment.

The first thing which struck me as I watched "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" is the tone of the film. The movie lacks the magic of say "Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone" (2001). That movie told its story with fascination and joy. It took great pleasure in introducing us to the world of Hogwarts and its characters. "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", which takes us to a world just as spectacular, doesn't tell its story with such fever delight. It is more somber and doesn't seem to be trying to "wow" us.

The movie takes place sometime in the 1940s in London. We open with an air raid. Bombs are dropping everywhere as our four young heroes; Lucy (Georgie Henley), Edmund (Skander Keynes), Susan (Anna Popplewell) and Peter (William Moseley) seek shelter. We learn their father is a soldier fighting in the war. They are left with their mother, who is afraid she is unable to take care of them properly. She sends them off to the countryside to live with Professor Kirke (Jim Broadbent). It is in the professor's home the children discover the world of Narnia as they enter it through a wardrobe closet in an empty bedroom.

Though the movie does have some religious undertones what I came away with most watching the film is a story similar to that of the Spanish film "Pan's Labyrinth" (2006). Both are stories of children who use their imagination to help them escape the grim realities of life. Here it is the war years in Britain. The children worry about their father and are away from their mother. How will this war further affect their lives? So, to help shield them from the real world the children create an escape, where there is an equally high amount of danger, but it helps them take their mind off of the true horrors which are outside their door.

Or at least that's what I think "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" is all about. But what if Narnia is a real place? That's what Prof. Kirke thinks when he hears the children speak of a secret world which is hidden in one of his wardrobe closets.

When the children arrive in Narnia they discover a world where it is always winter but never Christmas, to little Lucy's major disappointment (no presents!). It has been this way for 100 years. Narnia is now ruled by the White Queen (Tilda Swinton). But there is a prophecy which speaks of four saviours who will come and restore order to Narnia. Two daughters of Eve and two sons of Adam. In other words, four humans. These children along with the help of a brave and wise lion, Aslan (voice of Liam Neeson) will fight the White Queen in an epic battle of good and evil.

Actually the set-up here is no different than any western. An unwelcome stranger rides into town to discover the town is under the rule of some bad bandits and it is up to our unknown stranger to protect the village. The children are our strangers who ride into town (AKA Narnia), the bandit is the White Queen and along with the help of the sheriff (Aslan) the strangers will fight the bad guys.

The world of Narnia is filled with talking animals like a beaver (voice of Ray Winston) and a faun, Tumnus (James McAvoy) and centaurs, not to mention that talking lion.

But as I say, "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" doesn't allow us to pause in wonderment and digest this world. The viewer doesn't truly feel they are witnessing something magical. Or at least I didn't. "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" seems too preoccupied with its story and religious aspects.

The biggest religious allegory here is the character of Aslan, who is almost a Jesus Christ-like character.

SPOILER ALERT

He offers his own life to protect one of the children, who has committed a crime in the world of Narnia. But like a Christ like figure, he rises from the dead.

END SPOILER

The religious undertones though I felt were very subtle and didn't overpower the story. And I say this as someone who went to Catholic school for six years.

The film was directed by Andrew Adamson, who directed "Shrek" (2001) and "Shrek 2" (2004). Adamson would also go on to direct the second "Chronicles of Narnia" adventure, "Prince Caspian" (2008). The screenplay was written by an unusual group of writers; Ann Peacock, who wrote the John Booreman film "In My Country" (2004) and the team of Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, the men behind "You Kill Me" (2007). Nothing about those films, which are all worth seeing, would suggest these people would be a good choice to adapt Lewis' story. And I'm happy to say I find "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" much more suitable for children when compared to "Shrek", which I've reviewed and find inappropriate for children.

"The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" was also nominated for three Academy Awards and won one for its make-up. It was such a box-office success that of course two more sequels have been made. If this latest film does well at the box-office it has been suggested Lewis' entire series will be adapted to screen.

Overall I like "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe". I'm now looking forward to seeing "Prince Caspian".

Film Review: Young and Innocent

2010-12-10T04:28:00.007-06:00

"Young and Innocent" *** (out of ****)

"Young and Innocent" (1937) is one of Alfred Hitchcock's early British films. Though it isn't as well remembered as "The 39 Steps" (1935) or "The Lady Vanishes" (1938), two of Hitchcock's best British films, it is a typical Hitchcock film which shows the seeds of what was to come.

"Young and Innocent" deals with Hitchcock's favorite theme, the innocent man wrongfully accused. This time around the man is Robert Tisdall (Derrick De Marney) whom happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. He has discovered the body of a well known actress, Christine (Pamela Carme) on a beach. Two witnesses swear they saw him running away from the body. He admits he did but only to go and get help. A belt from his raincoat was used to strangle the woman. Robert however swears his coat was stolen from him. Since the police have no other clues or suspects, Robert is arrested.

Robert manages to escape and finds himself hiding in the car of Erica Burgoyne (Nova Pilbeam), whose father, (Percy Marmont) works with the police. Robert confides in Erica and pleads his innocence. His plan is to find his raincoat. If he can find who stole it maybe it is the same person who murdered Christine.

With Robert and Erica on the road together naturally Hitchcock has the two fall in love. Erica slowly begins to believe in Robert's innocence and desperately wants to help him clear his name before the police catch him again.

As I have said, Hitchcock has made films with similar story lines. The best example is "The 39 Steps". Other examples include "North By Northwest" (1959) and "Saboteur" (1942). All three are better pictures. If Hitchcock had made "Young and Innocent" in America I think it would have been a better film. "Young and Innocent" suffers from the same short comings most of Hitchcock's British films do. The film was made on a small budget, the acting is a bit raw and the film lacks great suspense.

Although Hitchcock fans may argue forever and a day over which period produced Hitchcock's best films, I prefer his American films. They have greater artistic sensibilities, better acting, better music and more suspense.

"Young and Innocent", like a good number of Hitchcock films, also has room for some dry humor. One entertaining scene involves Erica and Robert visiting Erica's aunt (Mary Clare) not realizing there is a birthday party being thrown for Erica's cousin. The two get stuck helping serve cake and ice-cream. Meanwhile the aunt tries to find out all the information she can about Robert, only she gets different stories when speaking to Erica and Robert alone.

The film was based on a novel written by Josephine Tey entitled "A Shilling For Candles" and was written by Anthony Armstrong, Edwin Greenwood (this was his final script before passing away) and Charles Bennett, who wrote a few of Hitchcock's British films including "Secret Agent" (1936) and "The Man Who Knew Too Much" (1934). He also wrote one of Hitchcock's first American films, "Foreign Correspondent" (1940), which also happens to be one of his best.

Another downside to the film has to do with the ending. It feels rushed and ends too neatly. Everything just happens so suddenly and right on cue. You get the feeling the writers didn't really known how to satisfyingly resolve this mystery. And in typical Hitchcock fashion the killer's motive isn't very clear. It appears to be a random act of violence.

Also into question is the film's title. Young and innocent can refer to Robert - a young man whom is innocent of murder. It can also be Erica though. She too is young and is innocent herself. Strangely enough the movie is also known by the title "The Girl Was Young". This makes one think the movie is actually her story not Robert's. Can young and innocent refer to their love?

Even though I admire Hitchcock's American films more, I haven't reviewed them. The only one I did review was my favorite, "Rear Window" (1954). I also reviewed "The Lodger" (1927) which I think is his best silent film. Right now though I've been watching his British films. I'm curious to see how it all began. "Young and Innocent" is no masterpiece but it has some great moments. It is a little rough around the edges but is still pretty solid entertainment wise. Those interested in Hitchcock's work should try and find this.

Film Review: Morning Glory

2010-12-09T23:38:00.012-06:00

"Morning Glory" *** 1\2 (out of ****)

Sometimes people are too hard on good Hollywood entertainment. Film critics like to use these movies to sharpen their chops. To demonstrate they know how to cut a movie apart. They know how to use venomous words. I admit, I'm not really to right guy to sing the praises of mainstream Hollywood films but when a movie is as good as "Morning Glory" (2010) I want to tell people about it.

For some strange reason the film hasn't made much of a dent with the public. Was their too much competition? Did the movie get lost in the shuffle? Was it because of the critics, whom were largely unfair to it? Have audiences simply grown tired of Harrison Ford and Diane Keaton (I hope not!)? Or is because Spider-Man didn't make a cameo? I bet if he did critics would be changing their tune. Those seem to be the only mainstream films critics get behind; comic book adaptations and Pixar animated films. Sadly, "Morning Glory" is neither.

"Morning Glory" is a sharp, perceptive, finely acted, well-written, funny movie. And besides Ford and Keaton the movie gives us Rachel McAdams, in perhaps her best starring vehicle.

A word about McAdams. I love her. Rarely have I seen a modern actress who has as much charm. McAdams, and I would argue Amy Adams, remind me of those great actresses from the 30s and 40s. They have a wonderful old-fashion appeal to them. I mean that as a compliment. To some people if you use the term "old-fashion" they take that as an insult. But remember who is writing this. Coming from me that is quite the compliment. Even when McAdams is in a movie I don't understand, "The Time Traveller's Wife" (2009) or a movie she doesn't belong in, "Red Eye" (2005), I still take pleasure in watching her perform.

"Morning Glory" is really her movie. She is the center of attention. And while that suites me just fine I have to admit they waste a pretty good cast here; Jeff Goldblum, Ford and Keaton. Of the three of them Harrison Ford is given the most to do but poor Diane Keaton wasn't given much of a character in which she could flesh out. Don't get me wrong, it is fun watching her but there just doesn't seem to be much there. The screenplay doesn't explore her personality enough. Goldblum is just a face on-screen. A lot of the movie rest on McAdams' shoulders and exactly how much we will like her. And she's the right woman for the job.

McAdams stars as Becky Fuller, a young, struggling TV news producer working out of New Jersey. She thinks she is in line for a promotion when in fact she is being fired. She is now desperate looking for work. In our current economic times this is a familiar problem. But good fortune strikes on Becky's door (depending how you look at it). Jerry (Goldblum) contacts her and calls her in for an interview. His station is looking for a producer for its morning news program which is in fourth place behind CBS' "Early Show", NBC's "Today" and ABC's "Good Morning America", which makes you wonder what channel is Becky working for? The show is called Daybreak and currently is being co-anchored by Colleen Peck (Keaton). Despite everything Becky takes the job. A job is a job and she needs money.

Things immediately go wrong when Becky fires the lead male anchor, who makes a strange pass at her. Now Becky needs to find a replacement. Who can she possibly get? How about Mike Pomeroy (Ford)? Who is waiting out his contact, not doing any assignments, and is getting paid. He is a veteran television anchor, think Dan Rather, Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw. He deems morning news programs as trash, beneath a man like himself who has won Emmy's and a Peabody award. But Becky reminds him he is still under contract and if he wants those paychecks to keep coming he better accept the offer.

At this point "Morning Glory" starts to play around with an interesting idea. What makes the news? Do news programs concern themselves more with "good television" or presenting us with hard hitting news? What is the line between entertainment and news?

Unfortunately "Morning Glory" gives us a message I disapprove of, but, it is a reflection of our times. "Morning Glory" goes out of its way to tell us, morning news programs are meant to entertain. When Mike tries to present a worthy news story, a governor tax scandal, Becky passes. She tells Mike the battle between entertainment vs news is over. Mike's side lost.

Start watching your local news and I bet we will all begin to notice the same thing. News anchors always have to appear chummy. They laugh and smile and make comments on the headline stories. There is usually a male and female anchor, adding a sort of sexual vibe. And did you ever notice how attractive these people are. Here in Chicago every female weather person we have is, excuse the phrase, hott! No ugly people study weather? They have turned the news into a model shoot.

As someone who studied journalism in college this goes against everything I was taught in school. At the start of every class our professor would tell us our opinion doesn't matter. People aren't buying a newspaper or watching the news to know our opinions. They want to know the facts. In that sense I was on Mike's side. I personally only watch the first 20 minutes or so of those morning news programs, that's when they discuss politics and hard news.

Because of my journalism background I was able to pick up on how true a lot of things in "Morning Glory" are. Admittedly the movie may exaggerate certain things for comedic effect but the movie has a sense of what it is doing. It knows the ropes.

"Morning Glory" also manages to avoid a few cliches but not all of them. It offers us a brief romance between Becky and another producer, one who worked with Mike previously, Adam (Patrick Wilson). And we get scenes where she has to pick between her romance or career. We get scenes where Mike has to break down a bit and show he has a heart. Though for the most part "Morning Glory" works.

After the first hour of the film I was ready to put it on my "top ten" list but then it becomes a bit too sentimental for my taste. I thought the movie was going to turn into another "Love & Other Drugs" (2010), which starts out great and then after an hour goes downhill. "Morning Glory" seemed to be making that same shift in tone but it manages to find its way back. It doesn't turn into a weeper.

The film was directed by Roger Michell, who has a pretty good track record. He was behind "The Mother" (2004) and "Venus" (2006), which I found slightly creepy, even though Peter O' Toole does have some good moments. He has also directed his share of mainstream titles; "Changing Lanes" (2002) and "Notting Hill" (1999). The script was by Aline Brash McKenna, who wrote "The Devil Wears Prada" (2006), which I liked much more than I thought I would. You can compare both of these films if you like. Young ambitious women facing cranky older people. McKenna also wrote "Laws of Attraction" (2004) which I liked more than most people did.

Had this film been made a few years ago I'm sure it would have done more with Ford and Keaton's characters but Rachel McAdams is a delight to watch on-screen. I really hope more people seek this movie out. It is a real charmer.

Film Review: Zoo in Budapest

2010-12-08T19:50:00.006-06:00

"Zoo in Budapest" ** (out of ****)

"Zoo in Budapest" (1933) is a movie I had looked forward to seeing for years. Only because the film took place in Budapest (for unaware readers, I'm Hungarian). During the 1930s and 40s a great many films were centered in Budapest. Films like William Wyler's "The Good Fairy" (1935) and "One Heavenly Night" (1931). But sadly "Zoo in Budapest" is not as good as those movies.

The main problem with "Zoo in Budapest" is it wants to be all things at once. It wants to be a romance, an adventure movie, a comedy, and an animal rights movie. In the end it becomes nothing. Just an unsatisfying combination of genres which don't belong together. There is little to care about the characters and practically no chemistry between the two lead actors; Gene Raymond and Loretta Young. And why on earth the movie is suppose to take place in Budapest is beyond me. The Hungarian setting adds absolutely nothing to the film. It could have been the Brooklyn zoo or the Los Angeles zoo. They didn't have to pretend they were in Budapest.

Gene Raymond stars as Zani, one of the many zoo keepers. He is an animal lover and enjoys playing with the "wild" creatures at the zoo while young children watch. Zani feels the animals are harmless and dislikes when he sees people mistreat the animals. He is something of an animal rights activist because he even steals furs from various women at the zoo. Humans should not wear furs in Zani's opinion. I also wondered how on earth did the writers come up with the name Zani? Did they mean Csanyi (pronounced Shawny) which is short for Sandor (which means Alexander)? I've never met a Hungarian with the name Zani.

Loretta Young is Eve (which isn't even a Hungarian name to begin with. Why couldn't they call her Agnes?). She is an orphan. Every Thursday Eve and the other orphans go on a field trip to the zoo to learn about the animals. Eve desperately wants to escape. She has also managed to catch the eye of Zani, who encourages her to run away. One day Eve finally escapes and hides out in the zoo until closing time.

Right now a lot of readers may jump the gun and feel they have the entire movie figured out. It is a romance picture between Zani and Eve, right? I wish! There is also a little boy, Paul Vandor (once again, what the heck kind of name is Vandor? Did they mean Sandor, which is also a Hungarian surname?) who wants to ride the elephants. While his caretaker isn't looking he also hides in the zoo until closing time.

But wait, there's more! The police are soon looking for Eve after it is found out she has escaped. The zoo is their only clue. The police are also after Zani because he has stolen another fur. And the police are looking for Paul after his parents report the incident. So everyone is on the run and soon or later you know they are all going to meet.

The movie plays around with atmosphere almost making it appear as if the zoo has been transformed into a private island, a love nest for Eve and Zani. And there are some romantic moonlight scenes which evaporate quicker than fog as the movie hops, skips and jumps to other plot points.

The zoo is not a romantic location, so for the life of me I can't figure out what director Rowland V. Lee and his writers were hoping to accomplish. If "Zoo in Budapest" was an action movie maybe it would make more sense. But Gene Raymond isn't Tarzan and Loretta Young isn't Jane.

At this point in time Loretta Young wasn't Loretta Young yet, the major Hollywood star of films such as "The Bishop's Wife" (1947) and "The Stranger" (1946). She was just a young actor at Fox studios, trying to become a star and Fox gave her a good push. Strangely enough this is the third movie, which I know of, where Loretta Young plays a Hungarian. Shortly after this movie she would appear in "Caravan" (1934) with Charles Boyer, another forgotten Hollywood romance. And she was in "Ladies in Love" (1936) which makes much better use of the Hungarian setting. They even put a real Hungarian in it, Paul Lukas (!).

Gene Raymond wasn't a major star yet either. Though he did appear in "Red Dust" (1932) with Clark Gable and Jean Harlow, which had some risque scenes (this is the movie where Harlow is naked wearing a barrel). Later that year he appeared in "Flying Down To Rio" (1933, which I have reviewed). That was the first film Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers starred in together.

Unfortunately the romantic aspect of the film is very weak. We never really believe Zani and Eve are on the brink of a great romance or even that they love one another. What a shame since you had two rising stars here and the film doesn't take advantage of them.

The movie ends with a cliffhanger sequence (which I won't reveal) but it just further leaves you scratching your head. What is this all about? What was the point of this scene. To redeem Zani for stealing the fur? To show us he is not a bad guy? It doesn't resolve anything for the Eve character. By the end of the movie it tries too hard to tie everything up. I knew I should expect a happy ending, but, it just felt rushed and underdeveloped.

The cliffhanger sequence though may have foreshadowed things to come for Rowland V. Lee who would go on to direct horror films. One of his best known is probably "Son of Frankenstein" (1939), which served as the basis of the Mel Brooks comedy "Young Frankenstein" (1974).

I'm really sorry I can't recommend this movie. My loyal readers know of my great appreciation for classic Hollywood films. Still I'm sure there are going to be a few old-timers like myself who may want to sneak a peek at the movie because of their love for classic Hollywood movies and/or an interest in some of the stars. The problem is I don't think the movie will inspire a second viewing. Watch "Caravan" instead.

Film Review: Black Swan

2010-12-08T16:09:00.006-06:00

"Black Swan" **** (out of ****)

"Black Swan" (2010) is a weirdo masterpiece.

Here is a film about the battle of good and evil within us, the desire to achieve perfection and artistic dedication.

The movie was directed by art-house favorite Darren Aronofsky. I'm usually a fan of Mr. Aronofsky. His films have a way of dividing an audience. But, even on his more experimental films such as "Pi" (1998) and "The Fountain" (2006), I find myself in his corner.

"Black Swan" wants to be a modern adaptation of "Swan Lake", but it becomes a weird, brain teaser that for most of the film's running time had me shaking my head in bewilderment.

The film switches between fact and fiction so often, sometimes without much warning, that I was getting so confused after I while I just said to Hell with it and gave up. To steal a line from Cole Porter, I just decided to let Mr. Aronofsky do that voodoo that you do so well. I was going to stop trying to interpret the movie and throw caution to the wind.

Natalie Portman stars as Nina Sayers. A young ballet dancer who wants a starring role in the new production of "Swan Lake". The ballet director, Thomas (Vincent Cassel) however feels Nina is too restricted and lacks the ability to loosen up and become sexually uninhibited. He even asks her, as a "homework" assignment to masturbate.

Nina is presented as a child, living with her mother (Barbara Hershey) who is over protective. They seem to have a close relationship on the surface but underneath it all may be some resentment. Nina just might think her mother is envious of her and perhaps mom, who gave up her career to raise a child, really doesn't want her daughter to succeed. Or is it all in Nina's head?

A new dancer enters the company, Lily (Mila Kunis) who might just be after Nina. Does Lily want to kill Nina? Does Lily want to star in "Swan Lake". Is Lily a stalker?

Aronofsky keeps dropping very subtle hints concerning deep, dark secrets within Nina. We see scar marks on her back. She locks herself in her room. And has a tendency to steal from the now retiring principle dancer in the company, Beth (Winona Ryder).

At first I was bothered by all of these subtle hints and wish the film had been more open with Nina's secrets. What are the implications of these scars? How does this raise dramatic tension? Where is the conflict? Mr. Aronofsky wouldn't show us these details if they weren't part of a larger picture. Still during most of the film I couldn't help but feel Nina was too much of a secret herself.

But then events explode in the final act. The movie turns itself upside down and we have to start all over again.

Soon we have to rethink Nina. And credit must be given to Ms. Portman. She should get an Oscar nomination but I'm not sure she will. The movie is quite frankly too damn weird. It is probably too weird for a mainstream group like Academy Award voters. And it is going to be too unconventional for a majority of movie-going audiences.

There is vulnerability to Portman's performance. She risks so much in this role. She puts herself out there. It has to be one of her bravest performances to date.

"Black Swan" is a dizzying experience yet it is enthralling and exhilarating. I don't know if it is one of the year's best films but Mr. Aronofsky and company put on one damn good show.

Film Review: Harry Potter & The Chamber Of Secrets

2010-12-07T08:42:00.006-06:00

"Harry Potter & The Chamber Of Secrets" *** 1\2 (out of ****)

As Harry Potter's adventures come to an end I have decided to go back and re-watch the Harry Potter series, many of these films I will be watching for the first time. "Harry Potter & The Chamber Of Secrets" (2002) was Harry's second adventure.

After watching the first Harry Potter film, "Harry Potter & The Sorcerer's Stone" (2001), I wrote the film was filmed with a wide-eyed child's fascination. The world presented to us was filled with wonderment and joy. "Harry Potter & The Chamber Of Secrets" is a much different film. This time around the adventure is much darker. The film centers around death and as a result I don't think is for the same audience that watched "The Sorcerer's Stone". This one might scare the youngsters. But as I understand it, this film kind of set the tone for the following films. As Harry and his friends grow older the adventures become more dangerous.

"Harry Potter & The Chamber Of Secrets" makes direct references to the first film and feels like a sequel, a continuation of Harry's first adventure. At the end of the first film Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) battles the ultimate evil, a wizard who must remain nameless. But that evil wizard, Harry is told, will come back to stop him. At the start of "The Chamber Of Secrets", Harry is warned by an elf-slave, Dobby (voiced by Toby Jones) he must not return to Hogwarts. It is too dangerous. Someone (or something) wants to kill Harry Potter. But Harry doesn't heed this warning. Hogwarts is the only place Harry is happy and the only place Harry feels he can be himself. Living with the Dursley's, his non-wizard Uncle (Richard Griffiths) and Aunt (Fiona Shaw) and their spoiled son, Dudley (Harry Melling) is too complicated for Harry. They still mistreat him.

Once Harry arrives at Hogwarts trouble begins. Harry keeps hearing a strange voice which talks about blood and killing. But only Harry can hear the voice, which worries his friends, Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson). It seems even in the wizard world, hearing voices is a bad thing. But this voice is said to be responsible for attacking several of the students at Hogwarts. It seems something called the chamber of secrets has been opened and many believe it is Harry that opened it. Harry must clear his name and find out the secrets of the chambers of secrets.

In Harry's second adventure we hear a lot about muggles, which are non-wizards, and mudbloods, wizards born to non-wizards parents. You see, whatever is attacking these students is out to get mudbloods. This spirit believes that Hogwarts should only be a school for pure bloods. This leads Harry and the gang to suspect their old nemesis Malfoy (Tom Felton), who never liked Harry and his friends. And we learn Hermione is a mudblood.

While a majority of the cast from the first film has returned there are some new additions. The best new character is Professor Gilderoy Lockhart (Kenneth Branagh) a celebrity, best-selling novelist wizard, who is a big hit with the ladies. He tells of great adventures he has been on however, we suspect he may be exaggerating or perhaps flat out lying. His scenes supply the movie with a good amount of humor. The other new character is Dobby. One of the film's few wrong steps. Dobby is not a lovable character. He gets Harry into a lot of trouble all in the name of "protecting" Harry. Quite frankly, I was starting to wish Harry would cause some permanent harm to Dobby. He is an extremely annoying character. I hope he is not in any films after this one.

Director Chris Columbus has also returned. This would be the last film in the series which he directed. As I said it is a remarkably different film in tone despite Columbus at the helm. And Steve Kloves adapted J.K. Rowling's novel once again. Kloves has adapted every story in the series except for one. He must have done a very good job with these adaptations because I am unaware of any backlash against the film by fans of the novels.

Part of me likes the first film a little bit more because the film seemed to take more delight in introducing us to these characters and their world. Like Harry we were seeing all of this for the first time. It was more magical (no pun intended). However this time around the story is a little stronger. It is much more suspenseful. The plot caught my attention more this time around. The first film impressed me more with its visuals and good nature.

This darker tone though may have been the reason the film actually grossed less than the first film. This time around "Harry Potter & The Chamber Of Secrets" grossed $261 million, less than the $317 million of the first adventure. And didn't receive any Oscar nominations like the first one did. Though supposedly Daniel Radcliffe has said "The Chamber Of Secrets" was his favorite book in the series.

Still I'm looking forward to finding out what happens to Harry and where the events of "The Chamber Of Secrets" will lead him. From the look of things it seems more danger lurks ahead. Good luck Harry.

Film Review: Tangled

2010-12-06T21:34:00.014-06:00

"Tangled" **** (out of ****)

"Tangled" (2010) is Disney's 50th animated film and here they show us why they are the best in the biz when it comes to making family entertainment.

"Tangled" is one of the year's best films.

For the last month or so I've been reviewing a few animated films. In this year alone I've seen Dreamworks' "How To Train Your Dragon" (2010), Pixar's "Toy Story 3" (2010), another Dreamworks movie "Megamind" (2010) and now this film. As much as I enjoyed "Megamind" (which I reviewed) I must say "Tangled" is my favorite animated movie of the year.

To be fair, I should say I've mostly enjoyed the films of 2010. I haven't had the same bad reaction I did the two previous years. This year has been a major rebound. But still, "Tangled" is an animated film which managed to convey more human emotions than a good many live action films. Oh, I'm sure there will be those who claim the film, based on the Brothers Grimm fairytale "Rapunzel", is predictable, and I'm not saying it isn't, but it tells its story with so much energy, humor, wonderful music and heart, I couldn't help but become immensely involved in this adventure.

"Tangled" doesn't closely follow the "Rapunzel" story, it makes some subtle changes but overall I approve of what Disney has done. In some ways they've improved upon the story and have given it that classic Disney touch. Disney (and Pixar too) have that great ability to tell stories in a way which are entertaining to children and can hold the attention of adults as well. I saw this movie with my six year old niece and we both enjoyed it. In fact, I'm not all at embarrassed to admit this, but, I suspect I liked this movie more than her. The sentimental scenes probably touched me more than my niece.

Here young Rapunzel (Mandy Moore) has been kidnapped from her parents since birth and has been taken care of by Mother Gothel (Donna Murphy), the same woman who kidnapped her. You see Gothel discovered a secret gold plant which had the power to keep her young but one day Rapunzel's mother became very ill during her pregnancy. Her husband, the King, had his men search for the mythical golden flower which Gothel had kept hidden for her own selfish needs. The men find the flower and save the queen. When Rapunzel was born the magic from the flower was transported to her in her hair. That is why Gothel has kidnapped her. And has refused to let her cut her hair. Once that happens her hair will lose its power.

Because of her terrible act Gothel has locked the girl in a tower. When Rapunzel turns 18 however she wants to escape the tower and see what life is like in the real world. Instead of a prince though Flynn Ryder (Zachary Levi) accidentally becomes her rescuer. And thus begins their adventure.

"Tangled" has all the elements which makes a great Disney animated film. We have the heartfelt scenes, the moral, the interesting villains and a terrific musical score done by Alan Menken, the man behind "The Little Mermaid" (1989), "Aladdin" (1992) and "Beauty & the Beast" (1991). Each one of those movies had memorable songs. I don't know if any of the songs here will become family favorites but I had a good time listening to them. And Mandy Moore (whom I think is a much better vocalist than Britney Spears) and Donna Murphy have wonderful voices. It is a real pleasure to hear them sing, especially Moore.

Now while "Tangled" does have the expected "message" scenes I do have to say I found myself really caught in the action scenes. They are extremely well done and I was with these characters every hop, skip and leap. I was actually caught in the suspense of the moment.

The animation here is very well done. It looks just as good as any Pixar movie. And like I said, this is my favorite animated movie of the year, including "Toy Story 3".

The movie was directed by Nathan Greno and Bryon Howard who directed Disney's "Bolt" (2008). The script was by Dan Fogelman who wrote "Cars" (2006), "Bolt" and the live action comedy "Fred Claus" (2007).

With "Tangled" Disney proves they are still a major force in the animation game. Pixar and Dreamworks aren't the only two players in town. "Tangled" is a wonderful, heartfelt, humorous, exciting movie. It is sure to please children and adults. One of the year's best.

In Memory: Leslie Nielsen

2010-11-30T08:52:00.006-06:00

Comedy spoof icon Leslie Nielsen died on Sunday at age 84 due to complications from pneumonia. He was surrounded by friends and family.

I can honestly say I never thought Leslie Nielsen was a great actor but I can pay Mr. Nielsen a compliment anyway, he was very good at what he did. No, he never won an Academy Award, he wasn't a top box-office draw, he didn't make the women swoon, like George Clooney or Brad Pitt, but he did something just as important. He entertained us. He made us laugh. And that is a great accomplishment. Whenever I was having a bad day due to an incident at work, an argument with a friend or girlfriend, a case of road rage, sitting down watching a Leslie Nielsen spoof was sure to put a smile on my face and ease the worries of the day.

Nielsen was one of those actors that seemed to have a great cross-over appeal. As much as I enjoyed watching his movies so did my grandfather. I remember numerous times watching "The Naked Gun" movies with him as we both laughed. Both younger and older movie fans could find something to laugh at watching any number of his movies.

What a great many younger fans may not know is Nielsen was actually a serious actor at one time. His best known performance in a serious movie may very well be in the now considered science-fiction classic, "Forbidden Planet" (1956) he also played the Captain in the 70s disaster movie "The Poseidon Adventure" (1972).

He got his start doing work mostly on television shows in the 50s and 60s including shows such as "Rawhide" (where Clint Eastwood got his start) and "Peyton Place", based on the great movie.

The turning point in Nielsen's career came in the 1980s when the Zucker Brothers and Jim Abrahams offered a role to Nielsen in the disaster movie spoof, "Airplane!" (1980). A lot of people thought Nielsen stole the show and had some of the film's best lines. His "and don't call me shirley" line has probably been quoted by every person on the planet, including me.

From that time onward Nielsen had a close relationship with the Zuckers and their co-writers. He came to define the modern day spoof. Once upon a time Mel Brooks was seen as the king of the spoof with films like "Blazing Saddles" (1974), "Young Frankenstein" (1974) and "High Anxiety" (1977). But Nielsen gave him a run for his money. The two eventually worked together on Brooks' last film as director, "Dracula: Dead & Loving It" (1995). Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert, in his "Scary Movie 3" (2003) review, called Nielsen "the Olivier of spoofs".

Unfortunately the spoof genre has went into a decline. The public seems to have lost interest in the genre with movies such as "Epic Movie" (2007), which I actually like despite popular opinion, "Disaster Movie" (2008) and "Dance Flik" (2009). Many feel the films no longer seem fresh and original. They are more corny than funny. Still I usually look forward to a good corny spoof.

Nielsen was married four times and had two children with his second wife, Alisande Ullman. His last wife was Barbaree Earl Nielsen, whom he married in 2001.

Here are my ratings for Leslie Nielsen movies.

1. How To Commit Marriage (1969) *** (out of ****)

2. The Poseidon Adventure (1972) *** (out of ****)

3. Airplane! (1980) *** (out of ****)

4. Nuts (1987) *** (out of ****)

5. The Naked Gun (1988) *** (out of ****)

6. Repossessed (1990) * 1\2 (out of ****)

7. The Naked Gun 2 1\2 (1991) *** (out of ****)

8. The Naked Gun 33 1\3 (1994) ** (out of ****)

9. Dracula: Dead & Loving It (1995) *** (out of ****)

10. Spy Hard (1996) ** (out of ****)

11. Wrongfully Accused (1998) ** (out of ****)

12. Scary Movie 3 (2003) * (out of ****)

13. Scary Movie 4 (2006) *** (out of ****)

14. Superhero Movie (2008) * (out of ****)

Film Review: A Bug's Life

2010-11-26T02:53:00.009-06:00

"A Bug's Life" *** (out of ****) Watching the Disney/Pixar CGI animated film "A Bug's Life" (1998) makes me realize just how impressive the Pixar track record is. Now that I have finally seen this film, I can proudly claim, I have seen all 11 feature films Pixar has released. And I've liked every single one of them.

"A Bug's Life" was Pixar's second feature film coming behind "Toy Story" (1995), the movie that revolutionize animated films. Sadly over the years "A Bug's Life", much like "Cars" (2006, which I have also reviewed) seems to have gotten the short end of the stick. These two films are generally considered Pixar's weakest films. They are the two lowest scoring films on imdb.com with the least amount of voters. Why has the public turned their back on these wonderful, highly entertaining family films?

As I sat and watched "A Bug's Life" I was amazed. I would even argue "A Bug's Life" was more ambitious than "Toy Story". "A Bug's Life" offered more possibilities for Pixar. It had greater scope. More attention to detail was shown here. Look and watch how much thought went into making the environment look real and to actually supply these various bugs with personalities. Look at the shapes of the leaves and rocks, the ripples in the water, the shadows of the ants. It is a technical marvel.

Back at its time of release "A Bug's Life" was in the middle of a small war which was starting to brew between Pixar and Dreamworks. "A Bug's Life" was released one month after Dreamworks had released their first CGI animated film "Antz" (1998). It has been suggested Dreamworks deliberately released the films so close together as to steal "A Bug's Life"s thunder. I have seen both films and would say overall "A Bug's Life" is the better of the two. Though "Antz" has its own charms. And you have to love Woody Allen's voice work.

"A Bug's Life" is a comedic version of Akira Kurosawa's epic masterpiece "Seven Samurai" (1954). Which wasn't anything new. "A Bug's Life" is also comparable to another comedic re-telling of Kurosawa's classic film, "Three Amigos" (1986) with Steve Martin and Chevy Chase. Here we follow Flik (Dave Foley) a wildly ambitious inventor. Flik is the outcast of the ant colony. He doesn't live by tradition. He sees the world differently. He believes the ants have to change with the times. But ants are simple insects. They don't want to be bothered with change and new ideas. They know their function in society. Their main job is to gather food for the grasshoppers, led by Hopper (Kevin Spacey), before the rain season. This puts pressure on the ants because by collecting food for the grasshoppers it takes away time for the ants to collect food for themselves. But there is always the threat of the grasshoppers stomping on the ants, which in turn keeps them in line. It is a power struggle.

As the ants, headed by their Queen (Phyllis Diller) and her two daughters, Atta (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) and Dot (Hayden Panettiere), have finished their harvest for the grasshoppers, Flik causes a terrible accident when one of his latest inventions inadvertently knocks down the food supply causing it to fall in the river. Now what will the ants do when the grasshoppers come looking for their food? In order to make up for their lost time Flik suggest they get help. Why not track down warrior bugs to protect them from the grasshoppers so the ants never have to work for them again. Flik even volunteers to find these warriors himself. Flik thinks he has found the answer to his problems when he meets a gang of bugs; Slim (David Hyde-Pierce), Francis (Denise Leary) a masculine ladybug, Gypsy (Madeline Kahn), a gypsy moth, Rosie (Bonnie Hunt) a black widow spider (who has been married 12 times), Dim (Brad Garrett) a dung beetle and Manny (Jonathan Harris) a prying mantis. He hires them to protect the ant colony not realizing these bugs are circus performers who use to work for P.T. Flea (John Ratzenberger).

"A Bug's Life" has a sweet message about community and believing in one's self. Because of all his failed inventions Flik soon believes he is a loser. Incapable of performing a good deed. Atta, who is preparing to take over the colony from her mother, is afraid she will never live up to others' expectations of her. And the ants must learn to stand up to the grasshoppers. If they stick together they can accomplish great things. I guess if there is anything wrong with "A Bug's Life" it is that I felt the heartfelt "lesson" scenes were too far spread out. And I questioned some of the voice work decisions. The choice of Dave Floey struck me as rather odd. Maybe David Hyde-Pierce would have been a better choice, especially given his reputation for playing Niles on the TV show "Frasier", who was himself insecure and timid. I did however like Julia Louise-Dreyfus. I wish she would do more voice over work. And what a pleasure to hear Phyllis Diller, whom I've always thought of has the female Bob Hope.

The movie was directed by John Lasseter and Andrew Stanton. Lasseter directed "Toy Story" and "Toy Story 2" (1999) and Stanton directed "Finding Nemo" (2003) and "Wall-E" (2008). It went on to receive an Oscar nomination for its musical score which was done by Randy Newman and a Golden Globe nomination. Despite the movie's perceived disappointing reputation is was a box-office hit grossing more than 162 million, surpassing "Antz". Now that I have seen all the Pixar movies I wouldn't put this at the top of the list but it is still an enjoyable movie and tells its story with much heart, warmth and humor. It is a visual delight as well. "A Bug's Life" has lots of rewards for those willing to give the movie a second chance.

Film Review: Bee Movie

2010-11-25T03:47:00.008-06:00

"Bee Movie" *** (out of ****)

Only Jerry Seinfeld could make us like and care about bees, even when they are suing humans!

If you think about this Dreamworks CGI animated film, conceived and co-written by Jerry Seinfeld, long enough it really asks us to accept a lot. Too much I'd say. More than any movie should. Yet, it might just work for the younger audience.

"Bee Movie" (2007) follows a bee colony and one bee in particular, Barry B. Benson (Seinfeld). Today is his graduation day. He is finally done with school. Now all of his hard work, school last three days, has finally paid off. Today he is a man (is that the right term?). Today he will start a job. A job which will last him the rest of his left, with never a day off. This terrifies Barry. They never told him this in school. The idea of only having one job for the rest of his life puts him in a panic. His entire life is planned. There is so much he wants to do, like leave the bee colony and explore the world around him. His best friend on the other hand, Adam (Matthew Broderick) simply wants to devote his life to making honey. Barry shouldn't think about such adventures.

This concept probably will connect more to any kid who has ever graduated college or any parent that can remember what life was like after college. Now you're an adult. You have your degree. And, if you're lucky, you will immediately find a job in your field. And you will work at that job, if you are lucky, for many, many years. But at such a young age, do you really know what you want to do for the rest of your life? Is it possible you may have made a mistake?

That is one of the messages buzzing around "Bee Movie". It is a message most animated films tell us. Follow your heart. Live out your dreams. Never settle. I suppose it is a good message for kids. But "Bee Movie" starts to complicate things.

Barry does leave the bee colony and embarks upon the human world. He has never had to deal with human interaction. What is the human world like? Barry is not to happy about constantly being attacked by people afraid of bees but he becomes even more furious when he finds out humans eat honey.

Honey is the world to a bee. It is all bees do. They devote their lives to making honey. But beekeepers actually take bees out of their natural habitat and steal the honey they produce. It is then sold and bees receive no compensation. What kind of scam is this! Barry decides it is time to teach the humans a lesson. So he sues the honey companies of America.

Much of the movie, at this point, actually works. A lot of it has to do with Seinfeld and his co-writers, Spike Feresten and Andy Robin, both of whom also worked on Jerry's television show and Barry Marder. Because of Seinfeld's involvement it gives the adults something to look forward to. And because Seinfeld is so talented and funny, the children will laugh too, even if they don't know who Seinfeld is.

Seinfeld, like most comics, actually has a funny voice. He has the ability to say normal things in a funny way. The pitch of his voice. The words he chooses to emphasize. The highs and lows of his voice all are funny. If you never paid much attention to Seinfeld's vocal rhythm before, hearing him voice an animated character, will make you take notice. His voice rather than his physical qualities are on display.

Where "Bee Movie" gets a little shaky is in its romantic sub-plot between Barry and a human, Vanessa (Renee Zellweger). Vanessa saves Barry's life after her husband, Ken (Patrick Warburton, whom shall always remain as Puddy to me) tries to kill him. Barry is grateful and feels an obligation to break one of the bee's laws, never speak to a human. For Barry it is love at first sight. For Vanessa, Barry's offers her something Ken doesn't. How can I possibly accept this? Maybe if it was a different animal. Maybe a dog, a big lovable dog, but how can a woman develop feelings for a bee? We just have to keep reminding ourselves this is a children's movie.

But soon the message of "Bee Movie" starts to change. All things serve a purpose. Nature is built on a law of order. There is a chain reaction. I felt this new message contradicts the previous message. "Bee Movie" is arguing both sides. At first it tells us to be individuals and follow our dreams and then tells us the importance of the social order of things. We all have a job we must do.

As in most animated movies there are a ton a voice cameos ranging from Ray Liotta (as himself) as a celebrity honey manufacturer, Larry King, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Richards, Larry Miller and Rip Torn.

A lot of the humor in "Bee Movie" comes from how many bee puns Seinfeld and the gang could think of. They sadly missed a golden opportunity by not having any Bee Gees songs on the soundtrack. Where is a parody of the opening sequence in "Saturday Night Fever" (1977)? We get a "The Graduate" (1967) reference, with Barry floating on a raft in a pool of honey while his parents (Kathy Bates and Barry Levinson) give him guidance. And my guess is children are too young to get the joke and probably have not seen that movie.

"Bee Movie" is fast and funny with a nice message for children and has enough adult references to keep the parents entertained. For the first 45-50 minutes it is quite engaging. A lot of credit has to be thrown Seinfeld's way for his very impressive voice work here and his ability to give both children and parents something to enjoy. "Bee Movie" is no masterpiece but it is nice and pleasant.

Film Review: Shrek

2010-11-20T10:15:00.010-06:00

"Shrek" ** 1\2 (out of ****)

It was with some trepidation I revisited the world of "Shrek" (2001) and this giant ogre character.

I know "Shrek" has went on to become a family favorite and much to my surprise has actually been endured by children but I've just never quite been able to fall under the film's so-called charms. So much of the movie I find wildly inappropriate for children and feel the movie lacks the heart most enchanting family film possess.

But of course that was suppose to be the appeal of this Dreamworks CGI animated film. It was suppose to be an animated film which turned the fairy tale fantasy on its head. As we find an ogre named Shrek (Mike Myers) who finds one day his forest is filled with unwanted story book characters (the three little pigs, pinocchio, the three blind mice) by order of Lord Farquaad (John Lithgow) ruler of the city of Duloc (which was meant to resemble a Disneyworld theme park).

Lord Farquaad desperately wants to become a king and turn Duloc into his kingdom but of course in order to do that he must marry a princess. A magic mirror (which resembles the one in "Snow White" ) in a dating game show fashion tells him of his options of eligible princesses. There is Cinderella, Snow White (whom despite living with seven men is not easy) and Princess Fiona. He chooses the one without a Disney copyright attached to it.

Since Shrek is not pleased with Farquaad's decision to rid Duloc of fairy tale characters and place them in his forest a deal is arranged. Princess Fiona lives in a castle which is guarded by a dragon. If Shrek and his side-kick, a talking Donkey (Eddie Murphy) can rescue the Princess, Farquaad will remove the fairy tale characters and give Shrek the peace he requires.

The concept of "Shrek" is to make a satire on the fairy tale genre while becoming one itself following the usual guidelines associated with one. The wicked ruler, the damsel in distress, the mean ogre...ect. But I just don't find "Shrek" to be as clever as it thinks it is.

There are a lot of adult jokes planted throughout the movie. Lord Farquaad is a very short ruler. When looking at the size of his castle, Shrek wonders if Farquaad is trying to compensate for something. Adults get the implication and children are going to wonder what does compensate mean. Another moment has Shrek reading a fairy tale and then suddenly ripping the page out and use it to wipe himself while in the bathroom. Some children will find this funny. Bathroom humor is usually a winner with children but with so many other highly entertaining kid films out there like "Toy Story" (1995) or "Kung Fu Panda" (2008) why watch this? Those movies are much more innocent and in my opinion, funnier.

"Shrek" wants to shock us for shock's sake. The idea is a cartoon with characters using semi-vulgar language would be funny. I recently attended a comedy improv show here in Chicago which centered on hand puppets cursing. It is the same concept. Take something innocent and turn it into something risque. That within itself should make it funny. But it doesn't always work.

The background story regarding "Shrek" is actually much more interesting than the movie itself. The film's producer and co-founder of Dreamworks, Jeffrey Katzenberg supposedly made this film as a sort of retribution against Disney and Michael Eisner. Eisner, according to Katzenberg would not offer him a promotion and forced him to give his resignation. It is believed the Lord Farquaad character is based on Eisner. And that is why there are so many direct Disney jibs and jabs in the movie.

I guess in the film's defense it did supply Dreamworks with a formula it would use on all of its following films. "Shrek" set the standard. Dreamworks is a little more edgier than Pixar (its main CGI rival). The characters in a Dreamworks movie have more sass to them. They have more street smarts. And these films are usually some kind of satire. "Kung Fu Panda" for example is a martial arts spoof, in a way.

Though I am completely aware I'm in a minority when it comes to "Shrek". The movie made millions at the box-office and inspired three sequels. The second one becoming one of the highest grossing animated movies of all time grossing a little less than a billion dollars. It was also turned into a Broadway musical, which I happened to see while on tour in Chicago. The show is surprisingly very entertaining. I'd even say it is better than the movie. If you want to see "Shrek" see it on stage.

The movie was even nominated for two Oscars, winning one for "Best Animated Feature" and being nominated for "Best Adapted Screenplay". And was even shown in competition at the Cannes Film Festival.

The movie was directed by Andrew Adamson, who also directed "Shrek 2" (2004) and the first two "Chronicles of Narnia" movies. It was co-directed by Vicky Jenson, who would direct "Shark Tale" (2004) which I prefer.

Like most animated movies there is a message lurking around "Shrek", something about learning to be yourself and accepting who you are. Shrek isn't really a bad guy and isn't as ugly as he thinks he is. But I honestly feel there are much better, more heartfelt and kid friendlier animated films to see.

Film Review: Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone

2010-11-20T08:32:00.011-06:00

"Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone" *** 1\2 (out of ****)

With the release of the final Harry Potter adventure in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" (2010) I thought it would be interesting (for me at least) to go back to the beginning as we get ready to say our goodbyes to Harry and the gang.

The last time I saw "Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone" (2001) was back in theatres. I hadn't seen the film since and forgot a great many things. I kind of lost my way with the series, after the third film I just stopped watching them. Not that I have anything against these films, it is just they got lost in the shuffle of other releases. I plan on going back and watching all of the films in the series.What amazed me on a second viewing of the film was simply how magical (no pun intended) it is.

Director, Chris Columbus, tells this story with a wide-eyed child's fascination. The movie moves at a high energy pace and is filled with wonderment and joy. This wizard world nearly explodes on-screen and captivates us. The movie has an almost spellbinding quality in the way these characters are introduced to us as we witness their special powers.

I'm sure much of these qualities were in J.K. Rowling's novels (which I'm sorry to say I've never read) but much credit has to be given to the film's screenwriter Steve Kloves because he is able to retain so much of what is magical to readers of the series onto the screen. That is not an easy feat. How often do book lovers complain when their favorite book is adapted to the screen? I'm willing to bet most readers would agree with me that Kloves has done a fine job adapting these books. There has not been a strong backlash against the films by devoted readers. That must mean something, right?

The film starts off with Prof. Dumbledore (Richard Harris) and Prof. McGonagall (Maggie Smith) delivering baby Harry to the Dursley's, his aunt (Fiona Shaw) and uncle (Richard Griffiths). They have a child of their own, Dudley (Harry Melling). It is clear from this sequence (which I completely forgot) that Harry is not one of us. We learn something has happened to his parents and these wizards feel it is in Harry's best interest to lead a normal life and know nothing about his wizardly ways until he is old enough to understand.

At this point the film almost takes a Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist turn. Poor Harry (now played by Daniel Radcliffe) is neglected and treated unfairly by the Dursley's who lavish attention on their rotund son. In one sequence it is Dudley's birthday, the house is cluttered with presents. But young Dudley has a suspicious look in his eyes. He surveys the presents and angrily declares "how many presents are here?". His father, rather intimidated, cries "35". He assures Dudley he even counted them himself. But you see that is the same amount Dudley received the previous year. He demands there be more presents each year. The things kids have to put up with.

Of course when Harry's birthday comes around there is no celebration. Harry is the outcast of the family. He sleeps in a closet underneath the stairwell. But it doesn't matter because on this day young Harry will learn the truth when a messenger is sent, Rubeus (Robbie Coltrane), to tell Harry now is the time he must attend Hogwarts, a wizard academy.

Harry now learns he is a wizard and the true nature of his parents, whom he thought died in a car accident. He also learns who killed them, a evil wizard who still strikes fear in the residents of Hogwarts that they dare not say his name. He also, for the first time, makes friends; Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint). Hermione is one of those know-it-all students but has a great talent for spells. Meanwhile Harry and Ron are still learning as they go along. With Ron almost serving as comic relief.

The interesting thing about the story is like a Charles Dickens novel, Harry is actually the least interesting character. All the surrounding characters are much more fascinating because they have mastered their skills. Harry's background is a mystery and hasn't yet become the great wizard others expect him to be. Even Hermione has more skills than Harry.

A large part of the charm for "Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone" is just to sit back and watch this world unfold. To merely witness all the special effects and dazzling creative talent which went into making this world seem real. From a visual standpoint "Harry Potter" is a knockout.

Since I am only able to judge the first three films, I've always felt if there is a downside to these beginning films it is that they were kind of weak on plot. "Harry Potter" does a very good job establishing who Harry is and introducing the other characters but after we get past all of the introductions not much happens. There is some story involving the sorcerer's stone and a belief one of the teachers, Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) wants to kill Harry. But the movie almost glides over this part of the story as it mainly takes delights in showing us the goings on at Hogwarts. For instance there are pictures hanging on the walls in which the subjects actually move and change their positions. The stairwells are also constantly shifting. This helps give the building its own personality and become one of the characters in the story.

Chris Columbus is no stranger to directing mainstream Hollywood blockbusters, though I don't think he has ever directed something of this caliber. He was the man behind the first "Home Alone" (1990) and its sequel, "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York" (1992). He also directed the Robin Williams comedy "Mrs. Doubtfire" (1993) and the Julia Roberts tearjerker "Stepmom" (1998). I'm not exactly sure what made the studio think this guy would be a good choice for "Harry Potter" however, given his credits. But Columbus does live up to expectations.

Steve Kloves hasn't had much of a career outside of Harry Potter, he has written all of the following sequels in the series. Prior credits include "Wonder Boys" (2000) which is also a wonderful movie in a completely different way. And "The Fabulous Baker Boys" (1989).

If I pretend the other Harry Potter films don't exist yet, "Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone" suggest a wonderful adventure is ahead of us. Great secrets are going to be revealed about "the one who must be nameless", who killed Harry's parents. It also suggest Harry will become a strong and powerful wizard and learn much about about his true identity. Though, knowing what we know now, certain scenes have a nostalgic appeal to them.

I'm actually excited to go back and rewatch all of these movies. I can't wait to finally see all the dangers Harry, Hermione and Ron will face. What amazing possibilities lie ahead.

Of course upon its release "Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone" received much critical praise and became a box-office smash. It was the top grossing film of 2001 taking in nearly 318 million dollars, surpassing the first "Lord of the Rings", that other great epic adventure. It even went on to win three Academy Award nominations (for music, costume design and art direction).

This is a wonderful, dazzling spectacular film that children are going to enjoy and most of the adults will to. I personally can't wait to continue watching these films. We're going to miss you Harry.

Film Review: Castle in the Sky

2010-11-18T23:59:00.016-06:00

"Castle in the Sky" *** 1\2 (out of ****)

What a welcome treat it is to watch a Hayao Miyazaki animated film. The great Japanese animator is one of my favorite filmmakers. He is responsible for my late interest in animation and the man behind two of my all time favorite animated films; "Spirited Away" (2002) and "Howl's Moving Castle" (2005). "Castle in the Sky" (1986, though released in the U.S. on DVD in 2003) is one of the great master's best works.

Watching a Miyazaki film is so radically different from the animated films we get in America by Pixar and Dreamworks. There are no talking donkeys, toys, fishes or any other wild animals here. Just people. The characters in a Miyazaki film are not the wise-cracking sassy figures we find in American animation. They don't make pop culture references and sexual innuendos which go over children's heads. And best of all Miyazaki doesn't make CGI animated films. His animation is hand drawn.

Since I've been watching quite a few Pixar and Dreamworks movies I noticed Miyazaki's movies, particularly "Castle in the Sky" seem to move slower. The pace is much different here, more relaxed. You can also say that about live action foreign films when compared to American movies. The rhythm is different. Same goes for animated films too I guess. This is despite the fact "Castle in the Sky" is actually an adventure story.

"Castle in the Sky" starts off with a thrilling heist sequences. A gang of thugs, led by a mother, (voiced in the American version by Cloris Leachman) and her sons, hijack a military plane which has a young princess, Sheeta (Anna Paquin) on board. The thugs want to kidnap her because of a special necklace she wears. It is also because of that necklace the military has her in their custody along with a secret agent, Col. Muska (Mark Hamill). Sheeta manages to escape by jumping out of the plane. It seems certain the young princess has fallen to her death but then the magical powers of the necklace is revealed. It shields Sheeta from danger as it softens her blow by making her float in the air and gently land. She falls into the arms of a miner's assistant, Pazu (James Van Der Beek). Once the princess lands in this small mining town so does the gang of thugs and Col. Muska.

Pazu quickly figures out all of these people are after Sheeta (whom he doesn't know is a princess yet) and concludes it must be because of the necklace. Now Pazu has decided to act as Sheeta's guardian. There are quite a few exciting chase scenes planted throughout the movie. But Miyazaki also finds ways to inject humor into the story. But it is not the kind of vulgar humor of "Shrek" (2001) which feels inappropriate. In this movie the humor stems from the character's personalities and the situations in which they find themselves.

There is also room for a serious message. Miyazaki is something of an environmentalist. Each one of his brilliant films has a message about humans relationship to the Earth and their destruction of nature. "Castle in the Sky", which was Miyazaki's third film, is no different. But it can also be read as a warning of the industrial age. The movie takes place around the early 1900s. Technology within itself is not bad but when bad people want to use technology for power they hurt the land. A civilization must be fueled by love and kindness, not only for nature but for mankind as well, not power.

You see the necklace which Sheeta wears is believed to have come from a mythical floating island in the sky called Laputa. The people who lived on the island where said to have developed advance technology which would make them able to rule the world below. It is that power the thugs and Col. Muska are after.

Many times after I watch a Miyazaki movie I often feel his films are really more so for adults. Miyazaki makes very complex films. They have serious messages and he treats his stories in a very mature way. Because there is animation and young characters and action this may please some of the younger viewers but is it adults who will fully comprehend the movie's motives.

I suppose this has to do with a cultural difference in the way we Americans view animation and the way it is viewed in Japan. Animation is big business in Japan. But it is not just for children. Some of Miyzaki's movies are among the highest grossing in Japan. In Japan they also make sexually explicit animated movies. Animation clearly serves more than one purpose. Great stories can be told through animation. Just because a movie is animated that does not mean the film has to play down to its audience. It doesn't have to avoid making meaningful statements.

"Castle in the Sky" is an intelligent movie. A movie which deserves to be taken seriously. Hayao Miyazaki's first movie was "Lupin the Third: The Castle of Cagliostro" (1979) it is the only movie among all of his feature films which doesn't exactly fit in with the rest. It is a good story, also involving thieves, but doesn't make Miyazaki's usual commentaries. He really came into his own with "Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind" (1984, which I have reviewed) and continued down a similar path with this film. In some ways I actually prefer "Castle in the Sky". This movie is more magical. I take more delight in the characters. It is also, in my opinion, more kid friendly.

Because of all the CGI animated films I have been watching lately I forgot how special hand drawn animation is. I wish there were more American animated films done this way still. There is something charming about it. It takes great artistry to do it. It is beautiful to look at it. Many times I am more amazed looking at a Miyazaki movie than any special effects in today's movies.

"Castle in the Sky" is a wonderful adventure movie with an important social message. That message might go over the head's of children but there is still a lot for them to enjoy. The movie may also be a bit long for them. It clocks in at two hours. So maybe you should show this to slightly older children. Still the movie feels epic. It would make a wonderful introduction into Miyazaki's work. This is a real achievement. One of Miyazaki's best films.

Film Review: Hereafter

2010-11-17T19:48:00.015-06:00

"Hereafter" **** (out of ****)

What happens after we die? It is a question a lot of us would like to know the answer to. Not to reveal too much about myself but death has always been a big subject for me. The concept was brought to my attention at a very young age and has left an emotional scar which has stood with me til today. That was only part of the reason I wanted to see Clint Eastwood's latest masterpiece "Here-after" (2010).

"Hereafter" follows three separate people. People who do not know one another. There is an American psychic, George Loneage (Matt Damon). He claims to have the genuine ability to be able to contact the dead after a medical illness as a child, which allowed him to get "visions". Then there is a French journalist, Marie LeLay (Cecile De France) who is on vacation in Hong Kong when a tsunami hits. She claims she died and was brought back to life. Upon her return to France her life is not the same. She is no longer able to go about her job. Finally we have twin brothers Macus and Jason (Frankie & George McLaren). Jason dies in a terrible accident leaving Macus unable to function without his brother.

The movie is clearly about death and how we cope with it. Two of these characters question whether or not there is a hereafter. They ask the big questions. What happens after we die?

Actually "Hereafter" has something in common with another movie released this year (get ready for it) Woody Allen's "You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger" (2010). Both movies are about people looking to connect with someone or something. They are about people so desperate and alone they turn to religion or psychics to answer life's big questions. Even in Allen's film one of the characters turns to a psychic. Allen's film focuses on love and of course Eastwood centers on death.

So where does "Hereafter" side on the issue? Does it support the belief in an after life or not? The movie, correctly in my opinion, never answers that question. George is presented as having a unique gift but does he really? The first time we meet George is when his brother, Billy (Jay Mohr) brings one of his business clients to him, after revealing George's secret. You see George was once famous but turned away from the business. He feels his visions are a curse not a talent. George doesn't want to spend his life with the dead. However the main question, after that first meeting with the client is, does George have any true insights or does he merely supply closure for these damages souls? Through most of "Hereafter" I would say George is the real deal, but, there is a moment at the end of the picture when he meets one of the other main characters. He does not offer good news and for a moment we suspect the next words out of his mouth are not that of a spirit but instead his own as he tries to offer comfort.

"Hereafter" doesn't seem to be Eastwood's kind of movie. It is a movie which relies a lot on emotion. Plus, I've never known Eastwood to be interested in this subject. Last year when Eastwood released "Invictus" (2009) which was also with Matt Damon, my main criticism was the film needed more heart. It wasn't sentimental enough. I thought a better director for that project might have been Ron Howard, who is well known for making effective sentimental, uplifting films such as "Cinderella Man" (2005) and "A Beautiful Mind" (2001). But "Hereafter" has all the emotion "Invictus" lacked.

The main strength of "Hereafter" I feel is the self-reflective mood the film puts you in. The film has a meditative quality. When the movie was over I didn't want to immediately leave. I wanted to sit and ponder what I had just seen. What was the movie really saying? How can I apply lessons learned here to my own life?

The film also has a beautiful look and very strong performances. In the Matt Damon character is seems to get everyday life just right. We can feel George's pain. He is a man who just wants to lead a normal life. He eventually starts to take cooking classes in the hopes of meeting new people. He meets Melanie (Bryce Dallas Howard). Their scenes together feel sincere. It is so rare to find that level of honesty in a screenplay. They flirt and talk in a realistic way. But their romance is short lived. But we don't blame anyone. It had to be. Even that rings true.

Cecile De France and Frankie McLaren are effective as well. Each wants to believe in something greater. Marie is constantly looked down upon whenever she brings up the issue. Her lover, Didier (Thierry Neuvic) explains to her after we die there is nothing. And she should stop thinking about such foolishness. That's a French liberal for you. No belief in God or a hereafter. But Marie is kind of the soul of the film. She researches the subject. She wants to learn more about people with near death experiences. She knows what happened to her and no one can tell her otherwise.

There are some cynical moments though. When Marcus seeks to find answers he turns to psychics, none of whom are able to contact the dead. After a while poor Marcus lies to them and tells them their readings are correct. They are presented as nothing more than frauds, feeding on people's pain and suffering. In these moments we can tell Marcus' heart and spirit are crushed. He will never be able to communicate with his brother again. At these moments we just want to reach out and grab him and tell him it will all be okay. At least I did (what can I say I'm a soft touch).

But those moments are balanced by George. So what is true?

I also thought of "Good Will Hunting" (1997), the movie that made Matt Damon famous, while watching this. His brother consistently tells him because of his gift he has a duty to use it and provide a service to those in need. If you remember in "Good Will Hunting" Damon was a math genius who was told with his gift he too had an obligation to society. He should not deny the world his gift.

Unfortunately "Hereafter" is dividing audiences and the public. The movie has only grossed close to 30 million. A lot of this has to do with a truly lousy PR campaign. The studio made a serious mistake in the way they promoted this movie. Look at the film's poster. You'd think it was another "Sixth Sense" (1999). Yes, Matt Damon sees dead people but this movie has a completely different tone and addresses the material in a profoundly different way than that movie. But that is how the studio tried to sell this movie. Why? Why couldn't they simply let Eastwood be Eastwood? The man has an amazing track record. He has made some of his strongest films to date in these past few years; "Mystic River" (2003), "Million Dollar Baby" (2004), "Changeling" (2008) and his ambitious Iwo Jima films. Why not merely promote it as a Clint Eastwood film. You'd be surprised at how many people would show up for that alone.

I should also point out the film was written by Peter Morgan. A very talented writer who normally writes more political films. He wrote the made for TV movie, "The Special Relationship" (2010) about Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. He also wrote "The Queen" (2006) and "Frost/Nixon" (2008). Naturally "Hereafter" has nothing in common with those movies but at least it showcases Morgan's diversity as a writer.

I hope more people seek "Hereafter" out. Now that it is almost the end of November and December is coming we can expect a lot of holiday themed movies and usually this is the time the studio's release their Oscar contenders. I hope "Hereafter" doesn't get lost in the shuffle. See it. Enjoy it. This is one of the year's best films!

Film Review: Cars

2010-11-16T13:51:00.016-06:00

"Cars" *** 1\2 (out of ****)

Walking into Pixar's "Cars" (2006) I honestly wasn't sure what to expect. I hadn't seen the movie before but its reputation precedes it. It is considered, along with "A Bug's Life" (1998), to be one of Pixar's "lesser" films. A good effort, but, not an instant family classic in the same league as "Toy Story" (1995), "Finding Nemo" (2003) or "Wall-E" (2008). But, not surprisingly, for me, I disagree with the majority.

"Cars" had a lot going against it, I initially thought. Mostly because of the film's reputation. New York Times film critic Manohla Dargis correctly pointed out the world inhabited here is absent of living creatures. There are no humans. The cars drive themselves. This seems to have disturbed Ms. Dargis a great deal. And I too thought this might create a problem. Am I honestly going to care about these vehicles? Then there was the issue of the film's running time. "Cars" clocks in at just under two hours. Pretty long I thought for an animated children's film. Are kids really going to sit patiently that long in one spot? Not my niece and nephew (!).

But that's why it's important not to judge a movie based on preconceived notions. "Cars" is a stunner. A perfectly constructed movie. If it was a live action film, I might dismiss it as predictable. It doesn't have a very original plot. We've seen this story before. Outsider city slicker meets small town folks and learns to embrace small town values. Frank Capra did something similar in "Mr. Deeds Goes To Town" (1937). Though with Pixar at the helm, I somehow found the movie fresh and heartwarming. Near the end of the second act, start of the third, I actually came to care about these little cars. They had won me over. Each has a distinct personality.

The star of "Cars" is Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) a rookie in the world of race car driving. The movie opens up with him racing for the Piston Cup. He is one of the favorites to win the race. Though he has some competition. There is the racing legend, The King (Richard Petty, who is actually considered the king of car racing), in his last race, and the permanent runner up, Chick (Michael Keaton). One of these three men are going to win the race. But the unexpected happens. A three way tie. Now, a tie breaker race is going to happen in L.A.

These opening moments reveal McQueen's personality. He is the cliche hot shot rookie. He can do everything by himself. He even calls himself a one man show and has no pit crew. He doesn't need it. He is a great showman and lives to be in front of the camera. He devours all the attention he is getting, especially from the young pretty female cars. He likes life in the fast lane and doesn't want others to slow him down. But we also learn McQueen has no friends. No one to share his glory with.

Mack (John Ratzenberger), McQueen's trailer, is suppose to take McQueen to California, but at McQueen's insistence, he must make the drive in one night. This is too much for Mack, who is very tired. Without revealing too much, McQueen finds himself without Mack in a small town called Radiator Springs, in Carburetor County.

Radiator Springs is a near ghost town. It has been taken off the map when Route 66 was built, the famed highway. There is a tire shop, run by the Italian car Luigi (Tony Shalhoub, re-doing his old "Wings" shtick), a gas station run by Flo (Jennifer Lewis), an organic fuel shop operated by a 60s stoner car, Fillmore (George Carlin, going back to his stoner Weatherman days), the town's judge, Doc Hudson (Paul Newman) and Sally (Bonnie Hunt) who owns the town's only hotel. They haven't had customers in years. But at least they have each other. They are a small knit community not impressed by big city life. They don't even know who Lightning McQueen is.

And now poor McQueen is stuck with these cars. Naturally at first he doesn't like it and desperately wants to leave. But soon he comes to know the story of each of these cars and finds each of them has something to offer.

Besides an appreciation for small town values there is also a message about the commericalization of America. We are always in a hurry to get nowhere. How many times have you seen a car race towards a red light? "Cars" yearns for the simple life. A time when people (or cars) took their time and enjoyed the view. When we found the beauty in the simple things in life. When we lived in a world where we actually knew our neighbor's name.

It is a sweet message but as some critics have pointed out, who is Disney to give us this message. They are a giant corporation which has only contributed to the problem. Maybe. But would you want Pixar to make a movie with the opposite message? Even if they are being hypocrites, it is a good message for kids.

The more animated films I am watching and starting to catch on to the Pixar/Dreamworks war, the more I see the difference between the two. Before I never really paid attention to which studio was releasing these animated films. They all looked the same to me. But now I see, Pixar makes much more innocent movies. Their characters are sweet and naive. They don't really inhabit our world but that's okay. I wouldn't want them to. They might get corrupted. Dreamworks characters have a little more sass. They know of our world and give us a wink. The characters in "Cars" are no different. They are simple and want to lead simple lives.

As is the case with most animated films though, we get pop culture references and plenty of voice cameos. This is usually thrown in for the adults. Here we have Bob Costas playing a sports announcer Bob Cutlass. Race car champs Darrell Waltrip (Darrell Cartrip) and Mario Andretti. Anyone who listens to NPR will notice the "Car Talk" host; Tom and Ray Magliozzi. And there is Jay Leno, who has a reputation as a car guy as well as the permanent "Tonight Show" host.

So why does "Cars" have such a bad rep? On imdb.com the movie has the second lowest rating of any Pixar film, 7.8, and the least amount of voters. "A Bug's Life" has the lowest. Yet the movie won the Golden Globe for "Best Animated Film", it won the National Board of Review award for "Best Animated Feature" and received two Oscar nominations. One for "Best Animated Feature" and "Best Music", the score was done by "Toy Story" composer Randy Newman. And it was a box-office hit. So what happened?

You even have John Lasseter directing it. As far as I'm concerned he is the face of Pixar. He directed the first two "Toy Story" movies as well as "A Bug's Life".

For me "Cars" is a sweet, engaging story of lost America. It is a fitting story even in our current economic times. Jobs are leaving this country. Businesses are closing down. Towns are empty. Maybe people should give "Cars" a second look. They probably will however as Pixar has plans for a sequel coming out next year.

"Cars" is good, decent family entertainment, with a message. It has characters the kids are going to like but they are profound enough that the adults will take notice too. I wouldn't say it is Pixar's best, but, I'd say it is in a class with my personal favorites; "Toy Story 2" (1999), "Finding Nemo" and "Up" (2009).

Film Review: How To Train Your Dragon

2010-11-16T07:35:00.009-06:00

"How To Train Your Dragon" *** (out of ****)

"How To Train Your Dragon" (2010), one of the latest Dreamworks CGI animated films, is a major improvement from the studio's last film, "Monsters vs Aliens" (2009).

"How To Train Your Dragon" continues in Dreamworks decision to release all of their films theatrically in 3-D. A decision which began with "Monsters vs Aliens". First, I'd like to say a word about this. I personally find this to be a mistake on Dreamworks part. I'm of the opinion 3-D is merely a theatrical gimmick. You have to remember the majority of people are going to see this film in 2-D. I saw this movie on DVD and it was in 2-D. If this movie plays on television it will be shown in 2-D. Ten years from now if someone were to watch this film they will most likely see it in 2-D. It is my guess, but, I think 3-D is just a current fade. What will Dreamworks do once people lose interest in 3-D? It just feels like Dreamworks is trying to cash in on a popular trend. That within itself is fine. My question is, do these films need to be told in 3-D? Does the technology further develop the story?

Now that I have gotten that out of the way, lets focus on the story. For the most part I would say "How To Train Your Dragon" is solid entertainment. It is one of Dreamworks better films. Not quite as good as "Kung Fu Panda" (2008) or "Megamind" (2010) but among their quality. "How To Train Your Dragon" has some wonderful visuals.

The story, which was based on a novel written by Cressida Cowell, follows a young Viking boy, Hiccup (Jay Baruchel). Hiccup lives in a village to finds itself constantly under attack by dragons. It is Hiccups great ambition to one day go out alongside his father, Stoick (Gerard Butler) and fight those mean nasty dragons. Hiccup wants to live up to the traditions of his family and become a great Viking.

However, Hiccup doesn't have the brute strength of his father, or his boss, master cobber Gobber (Craig Ferguson). He is presented as being accident prone. Someone who creates weapons to kill dragons which never seem to work. Will he ever be able to kill a dragon?

Besides that Hiccup has the same problems most pre-teen boys have. He is at that awkward stage where he is starting to notice girls but has a hard time talking to them. How on Earth is he going to impress Astrid (America Ferrera), a young girl who has more strength than him? She actually fights dragons.

Beneath all of this is a story of a young boy seeking his father's acceptance. He wants to make his father proud of him. Then there is a commentary on how people should learn to live together. The Vikings kill the dragons but they don't understand their "enemy". Everything they think they know about them is wrong. Their fears are based on preconceived notions. If we learn to get past out fears of the "other" and find out who they are we will find we have nothing to fear.

Pretty serious message for an animated movie, right? Though there's nothing wrong with that. Animation doesn't have to avoid making serious points. It doesn't have to be filled with slapstick comedy and sly pop culture references. Think about animated films like "Princess Mononoke" (1999) or "Grave of the Fireflies" (1988). That is not to say "How To Train Your Dragon" is anywhere near as complex as those films.

I didn't find "How To Train Your Dragon" to be particularly funny. But again, that is okay. I also thought there were too many fight scenes which go on too long. I would have preferred more sentimental, emotional scenes. It also ends on a rather dark note for its lead character, which honestly caught me by surprise.

You see, Hiccup eventually befriends one of these dreaded dragons, whom he names Toothless. And as they become friends Hiccups learns some secrets about the dragons. Part of me actually wishes the dragon would talk. It would make it more of a complete character.

Still one has to admire the look of "How To Train Your Dragon". Pay close attention to the details of the village. I love the scenes when the Viking are out in the sea. Notice the waves of the oceans. They constant motion as the waters goes back and forth. Notice Hiccup's hair blowing in the wind as he flies on Toothless' back. The way the fog appears out in the distance. It all really helps create the proper atmosphere.

"How To Train Your Dragon" was directed by Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders. They both worked on the Disney animated film "Lilo & Stitch" (2002). DeBlois also worked as a writer on another Disney film, "Mulan" (1998) while Sanders worked on the stories for a number of Disney classics including "Beauty & the Beast" (1991), "Aladdin" (1992) and "The Lion King" (1994). Both men also wrote the screenplay along with the help of William Davies. A rather odd choice. Almost all of the films Mr. Davies wrote were live action movies. His previous screenplays include "Twins" (1988) and "Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot" (1992). Two of my least favorite movies and may explain why I didn't find this film to be funny.

There has been a pretty strong positive reaction towards the film. On the website rottentomatoes.com, a site which collects critical reaction to films, the movie scored a 98%. Out of 156 reviews, 153 were positive. There is talk the movie is a shoe-in for an Oscar nomination in the "Best Animated Film" category. And the public seems to have enjoyed the movie, helping it gross more than 200 million dollars in the U.S. alone.

None of this really matters in the end in relation to the quality of the movie. But "How To Train Your Dragon" is well made and worth watching. There are a lot of little pleasure in the movie that I think both adults and children can enjoy. A very positive step for Dreamworks, which is sometimes accused of making animated films which lack a heart.

Here is an interesting story I found concerning this year's Oscar race in the animated category.
http://www.thewrap.com/awards/column-post/15-animated-features-qualify-3-oscar-slots-22530

Film Review: Monsters vs Aliens

2010-11-14T07:35:00.009-06:00

"Monsters vs Aliens" ** (out of ****)

After watching the wonderful Dreamworks animated film "Kung Fu Panda" (2008) I was greatly looking forward to seeing "Monsters vs Aliens" (2009), another CGI animated film given to us by Dreamworks. How on Earth could the same studio give us both movies?

For years I use to feel animation was a waste of my time. The concepts would be too childish to hold my attention. I need a live action movie with some good acting, intelligent writing and crisp directing. What I don't need is to see talking animals make pop culture references. Well, at least "Monsters vs Aliens" avoids that. There are no talking animals, well, except for a talking cockroach.

But animation is big business. These movies make hundreds of millions of dollars for studios. "Monsters vs Aliens" pulled in (domestically) close to 200 million. My guess is families are so starved for decent entertainment they will take a chance on anything. When you place all of your chips on the table sometimes you'll get lucky and find a "Toy Story" (1995), "Finding Nemo" (2003) or "Kung Fu Panda" in the shuffle. But other times you'll have to sit through something like "Monsters vs Aliens".

To be fair "Monsters vs Aliens" has a pretty decent set-up. Susan Murphy (voiced by Reese Witherspoon) is about the marry the man of her dreams or so she thinks, a weatherman, Derek Dietl (Paul Rudd). She has plans to move to Paris where hopefully Derek will find a job as a top anchorman and they will live happily ever after. Unfortunately just before Susan walks down the alter a meteorite hits her turning her into the 50ft Woman.

The government kidnaps her and takes her to a secret lab which has been in operation for more than 50 years. You see, in the name of national security our government has been lying to us (go figure!). For years the existence of monsters has been denied but all the while the government has been collecting them. The operation has been headed by General W.R. Monger (get it? War monger. Voiced by Kiefer Sutherland) for 50 years. Susan is his latest find.

The other monsters are B.O.B (Seth Rogen, who also lent his voice to "Kung Fu Panda") a version of the Blob, Dr. Cockroach (Hugh Laurie) a scientist who devised a machine to give humans the survival instincts of a cockroach but accidentally turned himself into one. I can only imagine this was inspired by "The Fly" (1958). And The Missing Link (Will Arnet).

What exactly does the government plan on doing with them? Why keep them for 50 years? In the name of national security why didn't they just kill them? But there I go, thinking like an adult when I'm watching a movie called "Monsters vs Aliens". What's wrong with me? I should know full well, you don't ask these kind of logical questions.

Soon America finds itself under attack by a space alien, Gallaxhar (Rainn Wilson). Even after President Hathaway (Stephen Colbert) tries to make friends with it (by playing the "Beverly Hills Cop" theme song on an electric keyboard) the alien still attacks. The military is not capable of destroying it. What to do? Why of course. Send the monsters to fight it.

What I dislike about this movie is for one thing, quite frankly it isn't that funny. I don't know what children are going to be laughing at. Maybe they will find the B.O.B character funny. He is said to have no brain and can absorb everything. They may think his antics are funny. But there is not much here for adults. I also thought some of the language was out of place here dealing with marital infidelity and words such as "jerk" peppered into the screenplay. Then again, this is the same studio which gave us "Shrek" (2001) which I also thought was inappropriate for children.

The other disappointing element of the movie is the characters lack personality. Nothing really makes them memorable. The animators did not make use of the actors lending their voices by incorporating their screen persona's into their characters. There is a great cast here but for what? So Reese Witherspoon provides the voice of Susan. They can have gotten Jane Doe. What's the difference? What does Witherspoon add to the character another actress couldn't?

The adults who watch this may catch some of the pop references. A war room conference will make us think of Stanley Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" (1964). George C. Scott's character seems to have been the main inspiration for the Gen. Monger character. We will also catch the references to 50s science-fiction movies like "Attack of the 50 Foot Woman", "The Blob" and "The Fly". And you might take pleasure in hearing Stephen Colbert and Amy Poehler (the voice of the space ship).

"Monsters vs Aliens" was co-directed by Rob Letterman, who directed "Shark Tale" (2004) and the upcoming version of "Gulliver's Travels" (2010) and Conrad Vernon, the man behind "Shrek 2" (2004). The script was written by Maya Forbes, who actually wrote "The Larry Sanders Show" and Wallace Wolodarsky, who has worked on "The Simpsons". So what the heck happened here? How did the film go so off course?

"Monsters vs Aliens" has a good premise but does almost nothing with it. It needed to take more time establishing the set-up and delaying the big fight. We get two big fight scenes. After the first big battle the movie runs out of interesting ideas. It also needed more character development. And for the life of me I can't figure out the moral of the story. Is it women should be independent? Don't judge a book (or monster) by its cover? Or simply monsters are better than aliens?

Dreamworks doesn't have the long list of animated classics Pixar does. I think many times Pixar films are over-hyped. But they generally tell well developed stories. Pixar movies seem a little more polished to me. Dreamworks is a little rough around the edges. It reminds me of the old days in Hollywood during the studio system and the musicals of the 1930s. MGM was much more classy and sophisticated. Warner Brothers on the other hand had a more "common folk" touch. That's how I feel about Pixar (MGM) and Dreamworks (Warner Brothers). "Monsters vs Aliens" is a movie I doubt will become an enduring family favorite. This is a giant step backwards for them. Luckily "Megamind" (2010) is a much, much better movie.

Film Review: Kung Fu Panda

2010-11-13T20:27:00.008-06:00

"Kung Fu Panda" *** 1\2 (out of ****)

Just when I said no animated film is able to impress me visually, I see "Kung Fu Panda" (2008) the Dreamworks CGI animated film, and I'm completely blown away. When will I learn?

Merely looking at "Kung Fu Panda" gives me pleasure. Even if I shut the volume off and just sat and stared at it. What beautiful colors and attention to detail. "Kung Fu Panda" doesn't know it is an animated film. It thinks it is directed by Akira Kurosawa. It believes it is an actual martial arts movie.

How fitting given this is the story of a panda, Po (Jack Black, who was also a voice in another Dreamworks animated film, "Shark Tale" (2004), which is also worth watching) who dreams of becoming a great warrior. Unfortunately Po doesn't look much like a warrior. He is slow and over weight. He lacks the discipline to be a great fighter. Instead, according to his father, Mr. Ping (James Hong) his life is all planned out for him. Mr. Ping runs a noodle shop and it is his hope Po will take over the family business. But that is not what is in Po's heart.

Word strikes this small Chinese village that a menacing fighter, Tai Lung (Ian McShane) has escaped from prison. Now two legendary masters; Oogway (Randall Duk Kim) and Shifu (Dustin Hoffman) seeks to find the Dragon Warrior, the great savior who will protect the village from Tai Lung. Shifu believes one of his five students; Tigress (Angelina Jolie), Monkey (Jackie Chan), Mantis (Seth Rogen), Crane (David Cross) or Viper (Lucy Liu) would make a worthy candidate. But Oogway says it is another. Through a terrific misunderstanding and sheer coincidence, Po finds he is the chosen one. And now it is up to Shifu to train him. But Shifu doubts his talents.

"Kung Fu Panda" then becomes a nice story about how even though we may not look like a hero we all have the ability inside us to do great things. We must believe in ourselves. Only then can we achieve great things. I admit this is not the most original message in the world, but, hey, it is an animated film about a panda that learns martial arts. What were you expecting? Trust me, this is more than enough to keep the kids entertained. And, I must admit keep the adults entertained too (I'm one of them).

"Kung Fu Panda" actually does something I kind of embarrassed to admit. It kept me in suspense. I was genuinely excited to see what would happen to Po and all the characters. I don't think the movie quite reaches the level of dramatic depths "Up" (2009) or "Grave of the Fireflies" (1988) does but "Kung Fu Panda" simply tells a good story. And that's nothing to sneeze at. The movie is funny, charming and on occasion enduring and tender. Maybe it could have used more sentiment but overall, the movie is quite effective.

The voice work here is very good. Jack Black is one of those actors I really don't care much for in live action films but here he won me over. His screen persona really comes through here and he seems like a natural choice to lend his voice to this character. He has some funny lines. And a couple of memorable catchphrases. I use to hear my niece say lines from the movie not knowing, until now, where she heard them.

I also like Dustin Hoffman. Though perhaps not ones first choice to play a Chinese martial arts master, Hoffman's voice does work. His character reminds me of a master Yoda type. They are about the same height too.

The film was directed by Mark Osborne and John Stevenson. Osborne has directed a few episodes of the animated series "SpongeBob Squarepants" and worked with "Weird" Al Yankovic. Stevenson has worked as a storyboard artist on a few animated films including "Madagascar" (2005). The script was written by Jonathan Aibel and Glenn Berger. They have worked on another Dreamworks film "Monsters vs Aliens" (2009) and the series "King of the Hill".

"Kung Fu Panda" was also a critical success. It was nominated for an Oscar in the best animated feature film category but lost to Pixar's "Wall.E" (2008). It also received a Golden Globe nomination. The film grossed more than 200 million dollars and as one can expect with those kind of numbers a sequel is going to be released next year.

Given the animated war going on between Dreamworks and Pixar, most people would give the edge to Pixar. They are critical darlings. Film critics see Pixar's films as the only legitimate animated films worth celebrating. The only ones they feel comfortable placing on their "top ten" list. But "Kung Fu Panda" is something Dreamworks should be proud of. It matches Pixar's artistic level. It is dazzling to look at. A real achievement. This is one of those special animated films the entire family can enjoy (as cliche as that sounds).

Film Review: Planet 51

2010-11-12T02:25:00.006-06:00

"Planet 51" ** 1\2 (out of ****)

"Planet 51" (2009) is an interesting sci-fi family film with a twist. The world created here is not unlike our own, say 50 years ago. Doo-wop music plays on the soundtrack, girls wear mini shirts, guys drive convertibles. But, the twist is it is not planet Earth. We are on another planet occupied by green creatures. For some reason their planet is the equivalent of 1950s America. And we (the humans) are the dreaded space invaders.

I couldn't understand why this title was decided. Does it represent the year the movie takes place, 1951? Or is it a reference to Area 51, the supposed military base where alien spacecraft exist? And why are they trapped in the 50s? They also speak English and are surprised to find out people on Earth do too.

"Planet 51" has a nice look to it but I've come to notice pretty much all of today's animated movies look the same. What is so different about this movie and say "Shrek" (2001)? With the technology "Toy Story" (1995) introduced each studio has tried to duplicate the same look. So visually nothing really strikes me anymore. "Planet 51" has your standard animated look. But what separates it is the feel one gets from the time period created.

Our hero is Lem (voiced by Justin Long). Lem is a science teacher who teaches his students space is 500 miles wide. On his planet he is pretty educated. But Lem is one of the bashful, shy, guy next door types that has a crush on the neighborhood beauty, Neera (Jessica Biel). If only he can muster up enough courage to ask her out on a date.

As fate would have it, Lem never gets the opportunity to ask his dream girl out. You see, an alien spacecraft has landed on his family's yard, causing wide spread fear. Does the alien want to take over their planet? Will it turn everyone into zombies?

The "alien" is really Captain Charles T. Baker (pro wrestler Dwayne Johnson) an astronaut. Once he becomes public enemy number one Charles needs a place to hide. And his only hope is Lem and his friends like Skiff (Seann William Scott), a sci-fi movie junkie who thinks Charles wants to eat their brains for dinner.

Charles needs to find a way to sneak back onto his ship so he can head back home. But the planet's military, headed by General Grawl (Gary Oldman) have barricaded the space ship and have called for the help of Professor Kipple (John Cleese) who wants to run experiments on the alien's brain.

"Planet 51", which was directed by Jorge Blanco and co-directed by Javier Abad and Marcos Martinez, is quite political. It can be interpreted many different ways and be seen as having several different political agendas. However, the underlying theme here seems to be tolerance of the "other". We all need to learn to get along. It is a big world out there and there is room for everyone.

Since a majority of the production crew seems to be Hispanic it is not a crazy idea to assume the movie is about illegal aliens. Everyone is afraid of Charles because he is different and don't know what his intentions are but, once they realize he is friendly they learn to accept him. Isn't that what the open border crowd says? Illegal aliens aren't drug dealers or violent. They are merely here looking for jobs and a better life. They mean us no harm. They come in peace.

One of the more interesting characters is Glar (Alan Marriott). He is presented as a possible rival for Neera's affection but is also a man (?) ahead of his time. He is the cliche liberal stoner. He has developed a new concept called "protesting" which he has persuaded Neera to do in support of the alien. He also warns her "the times, they are a different", echoing the immortal words of Bob Dylan, well, almost.

Despite "Planet 51"s good nature and important social message I ultimately don't think the movie is going to please its target audience very much. There are too many references to things they don't know about. The 1950s, Area 51, Bob Dylan, the hippie movement. And worst of all, I didn't find the movie particularly funny. It doesn't have that cross-over appeal the best animated films have like "Finding Nemo" (2003), "Toy Story 2" (1999) or the recent "Megamind" (2010) where both adults and children can laugh at it. There also aren't any memorable characters. A child is going to be more interested in Buzz Lightyear and Shrek than Lem.

"Planet 51" isn't a bad movie. It has some entertaining moments. Though in the end, the kids are going to want to watch something else instead.

Film Review: Megamind

2010-11-11T15:59:00.010-06:00

"Megamind"
*** 1\2 (out of ****)

Although I try to review as many different genres as I possibly can there are a few I have not devoted as much time to as I should. One of those genres is animated films. In fact, animation is one of my weakest points in cinema. I know about the history of live actions films; the Lumiere Brothers in Paris, the early films of Georges Melies and the importance of D.W. Griffith and how "Birth of A Nation" (1915, which I have reviewed) changed cinema. But animation. I couldn't tell you much about its history.

What was the first animated short? I have no clue. All I know is Mickey Mouse made his debut in 1928 in Walt Disney's short "Steamboat Willie". The first animated feature film was also given to us by Disney, "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" (1937) and I know "Toy Story" (1995) changed modern animation as we know it. But that about does it.

Outside of a few Pixar films and the work of Hayao Miyazaki I rarely watch animated films. It is big business though for Hollywood. There is a lot of money in making family films. And a lot of them have managed to find there way into our pop culture. Recently I saw the Broadway adaptation of "Shrek" based on the extremely popular "Shrek" series of films.

But as I've gotten older for some reason I've been watching more and more animated films. And this all leads us to "Megamind" (2010). The latest animated work from Dreamworks.

It's hard out there for a super villain, isn't it? Think about it. All day planing out ways to take over the world. Always getting beaten by the hero. Landing in jail. Where's the appreciation of all of their hard work? People always boo them, cheering on the hero. Hoping for the villain to fail. What about the villain's side of the story?

That is basically what "Megamind" is. It is the story of a super villain, the supreme evil genius Megamind (voiced by Will Ferrell).

Megamind, since a child, has wondered, what is his place on this planet. What was his fate. How does he fit in? What is he good at. Like any young person (what exactly is Megamind) he flounders through life attempting to fit in. He gets picked on in school. He's different. And all the kids seem to love Metro Man (voiced by Brad Pitt).

Metro Man is everything Megamind isn't. He's popular, good looking, and good. He is out to save the day. To fight evil and protect the fair city of Metro City.

Their rivalry started as school children when Megamind and Metro Man attended the same school. Megamind became jealous of Metro Man's popularity and decided the one thing he was good at was being bad. But Megamind wouldn't just settle on being bad. He was going to go all the way and thus the birth of a super villain.

Walking into "Megamind" I wasn't exactly sure what to expect but for some reason I really wanted to see this. And I'm glad I did. "Megamind" is one of the most enjoyable times I had at the theatre. The film is a pure delight from beginning to end. A very pleasurable, light diversion. Judging from the audience response, it is also something the kids are going to enjoy. The kids I saw this movie with couldn't stop laughing.

But like most animated films there is a lesson to be learned here. Some of those lessons are the battle of good and evil within us. We are only as good (or bad) as the decisions we make in life. We all have the ability to do good. It is possible to change who we are. And there is a love story mixed in here which tells us, the love of a good woman can change any man or thing (I still don't know what Megamind is).

The love interest is given to us by ace reporter Roxanne Ritchi (voiced by Tina Fey). She is thought to be the love interest of Metro Man. But in actuality is the love interest of all the major male characters including her cameraman Hal (voiced by Johah Hill) who has not been so subtle in revealing his feelings towards her.

The idea of giving us a movie told from the villain's point of view apparently has already been done this year, "Despicable Me" (2010) was the animated film which beat "Megamind". I must admit I have not seen that movie so I cannot compare which film does a better job with this material. But, I'd like to believe there is room for both films to be enjoyed.

I really enjoyed the voice by Ferrell. I'm not usually a fan of his goofy live action comedies but he has some funny lines in this movie. It allows him to go into different accents and gives him a lot of room for comedy. I wouldn't be surprised if Ferrell is asked to do more of these type of films. He is a giant kid himself and I bet had a pretty good time voicing this character.

I did have some questions about Metro Man though. Without revealing too much, is he really as good as he seems? Metro Man seems a bit too arrogant in my opinion. He gloats too much about his accomplishments. Is that what a superhero is suppose to do?

Throughout this month I plan on celebrating the animated film. I'll be coming back to this genre. For now "Megamind" is well worth seeing. It is a real joy and if you have kids I'm going to bet they will enjoy it too. But, even if you don't have children, the adults and older teenagers are going to get a kick out of this. And that's the mark of a good movie.

Note: "Megamind" is being marketed as a 3-D movie. I saw the movie in standard 2-D.

Film Review: Night of the Demon

2010-10-30T09:15:00.010-05:00

"Night of the Demon" *** 1\2 (out of ****)

"Night of the Demon" (1957) is a British horror film directed by Jacques Tourneur. And oh what a missed opportunity. Why couldn't he and Val Lewton have made this picture together!

Over the years, for Halloween, I have reviewed the wonderful, classic Val Lewton horror films of the 1940s. The first three pictures Lewton produced were directed by Mr. Tourneur. I've often wondered how much control did Lewton have over these films. Sometimes the directors changed but the films mostly looked the same. The films Lewton and Tourneur did together are "The Cat People" (1942), "I Walked With A Zombie" (1943) and "The Leopard Man" (1943). I have reviewed all three of them. And each one of them is worth watching. They rank among the best films Lewton ever produced.

However watching "Night of the Demon" one can distinguish a difference in the way Tourneur directed this film and the way he worked with Lewton. The films with Lewton placed a heavy emphasis on lighting. We are constantly in the shadows. The effective touch of these movies was the violence always happened off-screen. We never saw the evil creatures which lurked around in those movies. What we don't see was thought to be scarier than what we do see. Our imagination could scare us more than anything which could have been shown to us. Sadly Tourneur forgot this principle.

Tourneur makes two mistakes in "Night of the Demon". He shows us the Demon twice. At the beginning of the movie and at the end. The Demon simply looks ridiculous. It does not look realistic at all. It looks like something left over from one of the "Sinbad" movies (or a Godzilla clone). But even the creatures in those movies were done with more artistry than what we have here. I don't know if they simply didn't have the technology back then or if Tourneur just didn't have the budget. But the Demon doesn't do what it is suppose to do; strike fear in our hearts.

Throughout the film we see drawings of what the Demon looks like. Tourneur should have left it at that. That would have been chilling. To look at those drawings and think that is what is attacking people is frightening. To actually see the beast, the way it looks here, causes us to pause for a moment and lessens our suspense. It wouldn't be fair though if I didn't point out there are rumors that Tourneur did not want to show the Demon but instead the studio (Columbia Pictures) put pressure on him to do so for commercial appeal. If true, yet another example of why producers should leave the movie making to the creative people, the directors.

Dana Andrews stars as Dr. John Holden. He has come to England after hearing about the death of Professor Harrington (Maurice Denham). Prof. Harrington has studied the supernatural. He and Dr. Holden are both skeptics and put they faith in science and logic. Harrington was going to expose a cult headed by Dr. Karswell (Niall MacGinnis) as fraud. Dr. Karswell and his followers are devil worshippers.

Dr. Holden soon meets Joanna Harrington (Peggy Cummins) the niece of the professor. She believes her uncle died under suspicious circumstances. The official report is Prof. Harrington died in a freak car accident when a telephone pole fell and the wires electrocuted him. But the professors body was found ripped to shreds. Also, from the professors diary, Joanna has learned that her uncle believed a curse had been put on him by Dr. Karswell.

None of this though is going to convince Dr. Holden. There is no such thing as Demons, witches and curses. Everything in life has a rational explanation. Dr. Holden decides it is time to meet Dr. Karswell. And Karswell is aware of why Dr. Holden has arrived, to continue Prof. Harrington's work. In order to convince Holden to stop his actions and to make him believe in his powers Dr. Karswell puts a curse on Dr. Holden. In three days, at precisely 10pm, he will die.

Back in the 1940s Val Lewton made a film about devil worshippers, "The Seventh Victim" (1943, I have reviewed it). I thought that movie didn't really take full advantage of all the possibilities involving such a cult. "Night of the Demon" doesn't either, but I prefer this film. It is much more suspenseful.

The only problem with "Night of the Demon", besides showing us the Demon, is the movie doesn't do enough to create an eerie mood. More scenes should have taken place at night. There should have been more done with the lighting and casting characters in shadows. Unexplainable occurrences should be happening to Dr. Holden. Nothing major, just small subtle events. A weird noise here and there. A missing object. A feeling of being followed.

Younger movie fans may find this material similar to a more recent horror film by Sam Raimi, "Drag Me To Hell" (2009). This is why I always try to tell younger viewers it is good to see these older titles. Movies existed before they were born. Hollywood today is constantly turning to the films of the past for creative ideas. The more films you see from the past, the better you can judge the movies of today.

Still, for all the little things I feel the movie does wrong, it does many things right. Forgetting the beginning and ending, the rest of the film has us playing guess work. Will Dr. Holden die? How can he stop it from happening? The film does build some suspense but, again, I have to go back to the mistake of showing us the Demon. Imagine how much more effective it would have been if even the existence of the Demon was in question. But, I suppose we can't harp on that. What's done is done.

"Night of the Demon" is an effective well made horror film. It doesn't have some of the big scares viewers may find in films like "Halloween" (1978) or "The Exorcist" (1973) but the film worked for me nonetheless. After watching this film please watch the films Tourneur did with Lewton.

Film Review: Fall of the House of Usher

2010-10-28T20:16:00.008-05:00

"Fall of the House of Usher" *** (out of ****)

I'm going to make a literary confession. I've never really been much of an Edgar Allan Poe fan. Oh, I know how some of you may react to that. I'm worthless, uncultured, pathetic. Too ignorant to understand Poe's genius. Be that as it may, for some reason I've always thought of Poe moreso as a poet. And I've always had trouble with poetry. So, as one can imagine I've always had problems trying to interpret Poe's writings. Despite all of that, I must admit, I do love "Tell Tale Heart" (does that redeem me in any way?).

I mention all of this because, as some readers may known, "Fall of the House of Usher" (1960) is adapted from an Edgar Allan Poe story of the same name. This film in fact, which was directed by Roger Corman, began what is known as the "Poe series", a collection of films which Corman directed based on Poe stories.

It seems I only review Corman's work around Halloween. I have to stop doing that. Corman deserves the attention of filmbuffs, believe it or not. I'm a half-hearted admirer of his, not so much for his films per se, but rather I admire what he represents and his spirit.

Corman was a highly prolific independent filmmaker. His films, in my opinion, did not help establish cinema as an artform. His films have become cult classics though. They are known for being made on a modest budget (Corman has secured a reputation for knowing how to squeeze every cent out of a dollar), having a certain amount of camp, and usually starring Vincent Price. But this may all sound as if I'm insulting Corman. Not at all. I was happy last year when Corman was given an Honorary Oscar. I should have reviewed one of his films as a sort of tribute.

As I said, it seems I only review Corman's films around Halloween. I have written about two other films in his "Poe series"; "The Pit & the Pendulum" (1961) and "Masque of the Red Death" (1964). Both of which I gave a moderate recommendation to. Other Poe films include "The Raven" (1963) and "Tales of Terror" (1962) but those are much more campy comedies.

"Fall of the House of Usher", like most of Corman's films, actually has a nice look to it. Good production design, decent cinematography, somewhat effective musical score (sometimes it tries too hard to be creepy, as when we hear a soundtrack of voices crying out in pain) and ok acting. Surprisingly what the film lacks is a proper atmosphere. This is one of those "the house is alive" movies. The house becomes a character in the story. After having reviewed "The Changeling" (1980) it is hard to recommend this film. "The Changeling", "The Haunted" (1963) and "The Shining" (1980) all did such an effective job giving the house a personality. There was much more beyond the exterior of the house. Corman doesn't add such dimension to his haunted house.

Philip Winthrop (Mark Damon) has come to the house of Usher in hopes of finding his fiancee, Madeline (Myrna Fahey). The two had an affair in Boston and agreed to be married. However Madeline has return to her New England home occupied by her brother, Roderick (Price) and his butler, Bristol (Harry Ellerbe). Philip is not welcomed into the home, even when he announces who he is and his intentions. He is told it is for the best he leave. You see, the house of Usher is a place of death. Both Roderick and Madeline are very ill and sure they will die any die now. Philip is sure both the house and Roderick seem to have a strong influence over her. If only he could convince her to leave but Roderick won't hear of it.

There are some effective scenes. I like a sequence when Roderick tries to explain the family's history to Philip, showing him painting on the wall of various members and revealing their troubled backgrounds. The sequence also allows for Price to get in a truly delicious campy performance. Another sequence, perhaps a bit more creepy, is a dream sequence as Philip tries to rescue Madeline. It has a tendency to borderline on campy once again, but, if you are in the right mood the scene can achieve its desired goal.

Still part of me believes the film never really makes us believe the house is truly evil. We never sense danger lurking around every corner. There aren't enough "things that go thump in the night". A majority of the film lacks the proper atmosphere. It isn't until the end of the film, the last act, that Corman starts to make things interesting and turn up the heat.

The performances do what are required of them but are still kind of, sort of, disappointing. Corman and the script don't demand enough from the actors. They seem capable enough. I suspect they did what they were told but the viewer doesn't sense the house is starting to take control of these people. Damon in particular seems so one dimensional.

Vincent Price usually gives the most memorable performance in any film he is in. I love to watch Price act in a movie but for all the wrong reasons. In these horror films, which he is undoubtedly best known for, he sometimes goes completely over the top. He lays it all on the line and can be quite campy. And I find it entertaining to watch. It is not Oscar caliber acting by a long shot but serves its purpose. Strangely Price is much more restrained here. He has the one good scene which I described but by and large Price appears to have taken this role a bit more serious.

Now, I have to point out while some readers may only know Price for these horror films like "House on Haunted Hill" (1959), "The Fly" (1958) and "House of Wax" (1953) all of which are worth watching. Price didn't start out that way. He wanted to be a serious actor. And he appeared in some very good movies. Watch him in Otto Preminger's "Laura" (1944) or "The Song of Bernadette" (1943). For pete sake's the man was even in "The Ten Commandments" (1956). He honestly could act. Tell me he doesn't get a strong reaction out of you in "Bernadette".

The film was written by Richard Matheson who had worked with Corman before writing a few other Poe adaptations. But Matheson is quite the diverse writer. Besides these Corman films he also wrote "Somewhere in Time" (1980) and "What Dreams May Come" (1999)!

Of course there was nothing new about adapting Poe stories to the screen. The first Poe adaptation dates back to 1908 with the short film "Sherlock Holmes in the Great Murder Mystery". I'm not even going to pretend I've seen that movie, I haven't. The earliest Poe adaptation I've seen is D.W. Griffith's "The Avenging Conscience" (1914). I thought about pairing these two movies together, but, decided against it because I really don't like that particular Griffith film, even though it does serve some historical curiosity purpose.

"Fall of the House of Usher" is not going to scare anyone. None of Corman's Poe films are scary. You don't see these films really for scares. You watch them in the hopes of seeing Corman's craft on display and admiring the film's atmosphere. "Fall of the House of Usher" does a remotely adequate job of entertaining us. I prefer "The Pit & the Pendulum" though.

Film Review: The Changeling

2010-10-28T09:16:00.008-05:00

"The Changeling"
*** 1\2 (out of ****)

For the last few years during the month of October I would normally review classic horror films to celebrate Halloween. Unfortunately I haven't done that this year as I was busy attending the Chicago International Film Festival and because of the Charlie Chaplin retrospective going on in the city, I have been focused on not only Chaplin's films but silent comedy in general. So, I'm going to try and make up for some lost time and review some good horror films.

"The Changeling" (1980), which should not be confused with the Client Eastwood film made in 2008, has gained an impeccable reputation among horror film fans as one of the most scariest films made. Filmmaker Martin Scorsese listed it among his personal favorite horror films of all time.

Some of that praise may over sell the film. If I praise it too much, I may be setting you up for disappointment. The film won't be able to live up to such high expectations. Yet, I do have to be honest and say the movie is effective. It is a well made film which creates an eerie atmosphere. Hungarian director, Peter Medak, proves, given the right material, he can be quite the craftsmen. Unfortunately his career has not amounted to much since this film. He would go on to direct movies such as "Species II" (1998). Prior to this he directed Peter O' Toole in "The Ruling Class" (1972), for which O' Toole was nominated for an Oscar.

George C. Scott stars as John Russell, a man who witnessed the death of his wife and child, as they were killed in a tragic car accident. The film jumps to four months later. We learn John is a composer. He has moved to a small town where he will be teaching music at a university, while also working on a new piece.

John ends up going to the historical society in hopes of renting a house. Here he meets Claire (Trish Van Devere), who believes she has found the perfect house for him. A mansion with a large music room, furnished with its own piano. Although at first weary of the size of the home, John eventually agrees.

"The Changeling" at first moves at a very slow pace. Nothing much happens as the film is setting up characters and attempting to foreshadow later events. The movie is trying to give us a feel of the location and John's personality. But once the movie begins to settle into its storyline "The Changeling" takes us on a psychological roller-coaster.

John soon believes the house is trying to communicate with him. Unexplained noises are heard. Doors swing open unexpectedly. And objects switch locations in the house. In one of the most frightening scenes in the film, while recording himself composing, John hears the spirit's voice.

Bewildered by these events John contacts Claire in hopes of learning about the history of the home. Strangely enough, much information is now missing. The film now starts to resemble one of those police procedures with John and Claire rummaging in libraries looking for public records regarding the property and its former occupants.

This research leads them to Senator Carmichael (Melvyn Douglas). Back in 1909 his family lived in the house. John thinks the spirit may be related to the senator. But how can John find out what the senator knows about the house?

"The Changeling" plays with the usual horror techniques. The creepy music, the anticipation of objects jumping out in the corner of the frame and so on. But "The Changeling" is the kind of horror film I like. This is not a slasher film. There is no serial killer on the loose cutting people's throats. The film is not a blood-bath. I don't usually find those type of films scary, mostly I just find them disgusting. "The Changeling" is a stylish horror film.

The question I always ask myself when watching a horror film is, "what would I do if that happened to me?" The more realistic a horror film is, I find the scarier it is. There are a few things which happen in this movie that I doubt could happen in real life however, there are enough moments in the film which if they did happen to me in real life would simply scare me to death. The film has an unrelenting intensity to it. We just never know where the film is going to go. What is going to jump out from behind?

There have been those who claim George C. Scott doesn't do enough to flesh out the character. We never fear for his life. These comments I think are missing the point. The spirit in the house doesn't mean to cause harm to John. It seeks John's help. So, yes, it is true, I never felt John was in danger. But, I did fear for the people around him, who try to prevent him from investigating.

"The Changeling" is more effective than "The Haunting" (1963), the film directed by Robert Wise. Both movies involve a house trying to contact the living. Unfortunately "The Changeling" came out in the same year as Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining" (1980), also a film about a house which takes control of the living. "The Shining" may have overshadowed this film.

Still, "The Changeling" is well worth watching. Imagine watching this movie all alone in the dark. I'll admit, the film had me looking over my shoulder more than once.

One more interesting note, Melvyn Douglas appeared in another ghost story the following year in a film called "Ghost Story" (1981) which co-starred Fred Astaire and Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and John Housemen. That too is worth watching.

Film Review: The Kid

2010-10-26T08:37:00.011-05:00

"The Kid" **** (out of ****)

As the Charlie Chaplin retrospective here in Chicago continues at the Music Box theatre, I attended the screening of "The Kid" (1921) last night.

It had been years since I saw "The Kid" back on VHS. I had never seen it on the big screen. As the years have past, I had forgotten just how good this movie is. How effortlessly Chaplin switches from comedy and pathos, often within the same scene.

In "The Kid" a mother (Edna Purviance) has a child out of wedlock. Afraid and alone the woman decides she is unable to take care of the child herself. Walking down the street she passes the home of a wealthy family. Her plan is to leave the child in the family's car which is parked directly in front of the house. As she does this two thieves take the car, notice the baby and leave it in an alley. At this moment, our hero, a Tramp (Chaplin) spots the baby and decides to raise it.

I would imagine on some level "The Kid", which was Chaplin's debut feature length film, had autobiographical traits. The story must have hit Chaplin on some deep, personal level. Chaplin had come from a poor family. He too was separated from his mother at an early age. He, along with his brother, were put in an orphanage. This period in Chaplin's life, understandably, left a lasting impression on him. The fear of being alone, of being poor again, going hungry never completely left Chaplin. These are themes which find themselves not only in this particular film but are themes which can be found throughout all of Chaplin's films. It has been said that despite Chaplin's great wealth he had a tendency to be on the frugal side. His reasoning? He never wanted to go hungry again.

The film now jumps to five years later. The Kid (now played by Jackie Coogan) lives in the same impoverish life as the Tramp. But, oddly enough, they appear happy. The child simply doesn't know any other life. Together they go around the streets and hustle. The Kid breaks windows with a rock as the Tramp just so happens to be a window repair man unsuspectingly walking by.

Within this five year period we learn that the woman has become a major star, though not clearly stated as to what kind of star, one can assume she has become some sort of stage actresses. Remembering her humble beginnings the woman often visits the slums to give charity to the children and their families. One day, unknown to her, she meets her son.

That scene, along with a few others, hit such a high emotional level I honestly would not be surprised if it brought someone to tears.

In scenes such as the one described or the more famous chase scene, where care takers have come to separate the Kid and the Tramp, as the Kid cries, pleading for the Tramp to come and rescue him, the film is working on a level of melodrama which quite frankly can make some uncomfortable.

I remember back in college, when I was taking some film classes, we were shown the melodramas of Douglas Sirk and films such as "All That Heaven Allows" (1955) and "Written in the Wind" (1956). The students would often find the films campy and overly dramatic to the point they would actually laugh at scenes which were meant to be heartfelt. I thought about that as I watched "The Kid". I was afraid the audience would react the same way, especially since the theatre was mostly comprised of college aged students.

But I've always felt the genius of Chaplin was his ability to find humor in dark moments. He never gets too serious on his audience. Take for example a moment in "The Kid" when after the thieves leave the baby in the alley, initially the Tramp doesn't want the baby, he doesn't want the responsibility. So, the baby passes the hands of several people as each person tries to avoid taking care of it. In another movie this could have been a very emotional scene. Think of the image of a baby being left all alone in an alley. It can be quite sad. But no. Chaplin has managed to find a way to present this material to us and still find ways to make us laugh. Think of the scene in "The Gold Rush" (1925) when Chaplin eats a shoe. He is so hungry, so desperate that he has resorted to such an extreme act. Again, this is a scene which in another movie could have been played for heartening melodrama. But once again, we find ourselves laughing.

Much of the cast I felt understates their performances. This isn't really a broad slapstick comedy. Sure, Chaplin inserts a few moments of broad humor, but Edna Purviance for example, tries to make her character believable. She had worked with Chaplin on several shorts such as "The Immigrant" (1917), "Sunnyside" (1919) and the two-reeler which played on the same bill as "The Kid", "The Idle Class" (1921). Chaplin also gave her the leading role in his next feature film, the very serious "A Woman of Paris" (1923). Plus, Chaplin gives Jackie Coogan a lot to work with. Coogan goes through many emotions, playing sweet, funny and dramatic. I'm sure at the time of release Coogan's performance must have astonish audiences and I think it can still wow 'em today.

I was also surprised how relatively short the film is. Less than an hour. But it feels complete. There were only a few moments when I thought the editing was a bit choppy and left out a few things.

All things considered "The Kid" is a great film. A masterpiece. An amazing display of Chaplin's genius simply because of the way the film is able to work on so many levels. Chaplin's wonderful gift for combining comedy and pathos has rarely worked as effectively as it does here. This is one of Chaplin's very best films (though my favorite is still "Modern Times" (1936), which will also be shown at the retrospective). An emotional, funny, heartwarming film.

Film Review: Tramp, Tramp, Tramp

2010-10-23T05:16:00.012-05:00

"Tramp, Tramp, Tramp" ** (out of ****)

Having only reviewed Charlie Chaplin in "The Circus" (1928) yesterday, readers may know of my great appreciation for silent comedy and my interest in reviewing films and comedians which time has forgotten. That leads us to this Harry Langdon comedy "Tramp, Tramp, Tramp" (1926).

I've written about Harry Langdon on here before. I reviewed "The Strong Man" (1926) often considered Langdon's best feature film and "The Long Pants" (1927) both were directed by Frank Capra. Those two films, along with "Tramp, Tramp, Tramp" are generally believed to be the highlights of Langdon's film career. I'm a fan of "The Strong Man" and "The Long Pants" but this film leaves me cold.

"Tramp, Tramp, Tramp", which gets its title from the famous George F. Root song, written during the Civil War (I have no idea what the connection is between that song and this movie), has Langdon play Harry Logan, son of Amos Logan (Alec B. Francis) who runs a mom & pop (minus the mom) shoe repair store which has fallen on hard times thanks to a major shoe company, Burton Shoes, run by John Burton (Edwards Davis). Amos is behind on his rent, and when his landlord, the world champion walker, Nick Kargas (Tom Murray) comes to pick up the rent, Amos begs for more time. Nick gives him three months. Now it is up to Harry to find a way to collect money fast.

John Burton is producing a huge publicity stunt, a cross country walking race. All the contestants will be wearing Burton shoes. Nick Kargas is one of the competitors. Harry decides to join the race too.

Harry is in love with Burton's daughter, Betty (Joan Crawford), whose face is on Burton billboards. Harry would love to meet her one day. When they do meet it appears to be love at first sight.

So far all of this sounds pretty good. It is your typical story of the everyman fighting the odds to success. Save the family business and get the beautiful girl.

But it is the way the material is played out which just doesn't feel correct. The film has too many missed opportunities. It doesn't connect all the dots and take full advantage of all the storyline possibilities. There isn't enough comedy, romance or suspense.

It's easy to complain, right? So how would I have changed things. First of all, it would have been a better idea if Amos and John knew each and were fighting over the same customers. The two aren't even in the same state. Secondly, the Harry character needs a rival. Someone who wants to see him and the family business fail. This could have been the Nick Kargas character. It was also a bad idea to make him a landlord. He should have been sent by Burton to win the race. Third, Burton should have been trying to buy Amos' business for the land so he could expand Burton shoes. Fourth, both Nick and Harry should have fallen in love with Betty. Each man trying to win the race not only for the cash prize, $25,000 but also to win Betty's heart.

These changes would have supplied the film with more suspense, as now you can create more tension over who will win the race, even though we probably know the answer to that question at the start of the film. It would have given us more comedy, as now Harry must prove his manhood and that is always funny. Did you ever try to impress a girl and make a fool of yourself in the process? And romance because Betty would have to chose one of the men to win and they would use her as a source of inspiration.

Instead "Tramp, Tramp, Tramp", like most Langdon comedies, gets side tracked with comedy routines which don't belong in the picture. This time around Harry finds himself arrested, part of a prison gang which eventually leads to a prison break! What this has to do with the rest of the film is beyond me. It never should have found its way into this film. It takes time away from the race and character development which could have been created.

"Tramp, Tramp, Tramp" doesn't give us enough scenes dealing with the race and the effects it has on the men. We should see Harry emotionally beaten. Perhaps a scene where he dreams of winning the race and what it would be like to win Betty's hand. Or even a scene where he writes a postcard to her, letting her know which state he is in. And how about sending one to his father as well.

And, if Nick would have been portrayed as a rival, how about a scene with him creating complications for Harry. Stealing his clothes. Locking him in his room. Or trying to cause some physical harm to come his way.

As it stands now "Tramp, Tramp, Tramp" is nothing more than a vehicle for Langdon and it pretty much waste everyone else, especially Joan Crawford, who wasn't a major star just yet. She had only made her film debut a year earlier and would achieve greater success a year later in the Lon Chaney film "The Unknown" (1927) and really break out in the social melodrama "Our Dancing Daughters" (1928) which I have reviewed.

Still the film is not a complete dud. There are some humorous bits. Some of the gags seemed to have been inspired by other films. Take for example a scene where Harry climbs over a fence which reads "private. No trespassing" Only to find out nothing is on the other side. Harry is atop of a mountain and hangs onto the fence for fear of falling. It may remind some viewers of the famous scene in the Harold Lloyd comedy "Safety Last!" (1923) where Lloyd hangs onto the hands of a giant clock dangling from the side of a building.

Another bit has Harry sliding down the mountain when some rocks starts to tumble down after him. This recalls the Buster Keaton comedy "Seven Chances" (1925) where Keaton is running away from a mob of women, running down a hill as huge boulders chase after him.

And finally another sequence seems to have been inspired by Chaplin's "The Gold Rush" (1925) when Harry is inside of a shop which tilts left to right just like in the famous scene with Chaplin when stuck in the log cabin as a violent winds tilts it.

But in one comedic set-up "Tramp, Tramp, Tramp" appears to have been ahead of the curb. The film ends with a cyclone storm, which could have inspired the finale to the Keaton comedy "Steamboat Bill, Jr." (1928). At one moment in "Tramp, Tramp, Tramp" I thought the front frame of a house was going to fall forward on Harry.

When "Tramp, Tramp, Tramp" was made, it was Langdon's first feature film release. He had made his screen debut only two years prior in a Mack Sennett two reeler "Picking Peaches" (1924). I don't think this film does as good a job as the two reelers do in establishing all the elements of the Langdon "man-child" character. Though, one could argue, audiences may have been familiar with the character and knew what to expect.

At its time of release Langdon was a major star. Some have suggested his fame rivaled Chaplin's. There were those in the public and critics which dubbed him "the next Chaplin". The fame was short lived however. Within the next few years Langdon would be washed up. Unfairly in my opinion.

The film was directed by Harry Edwards, who normally didn't direct feature films. He did direct several of Langdon's two reelers including "Saturday Afternoon" (1926), considered to be Harry's best, "His Marriage Wow" (1925), "The Hansome Cabman" (1924) and "Luck O' the Foolish" (1924). The only other feature length film with Langdon he directed was "His First Flame" (1927), also a lesser effort.

Those looking to expand upon their silent comedy knowledge would be doing themselves a favor in watching Harry Langdon. He has earned the nickname "the forgotten clown". But it doesn't need to be so. While I don't think "Tramp, Tramp, Tramp" shows Harry at his best, others films do and some of the two reelers are enjoyable as well. It is time people give Harry another look.