Film

New films: Star Trek Into Darkness (2 opinions), Kon-Tiki, At Any Price

2013-05-17T20:08:27Z

Multiple bold explorers and a proxy for Monsanto

While the big buzz this week will be focused squarely on the latest entry in the decades-long Star Trek franchise, there are also a couple of smaller, counter-programming opportunities, one of which is oddly related to Star Trek. There’s also a second opinion included in today’s column on the Star Trek movie itself, but be warned in advance: Malcolm’s comments contain a character spoiler (although many viewers probably know this particular detail already).

Star Trek Into Darkness
Directed by J. J. Abrams

When the last “Star Trek” movie came out, I strongly praised its balancing act in terms of respecting the canon and the knowledge of the fans, while still offering a fresh take in what was both a reboot of the original series and a prequel to it. The new film continues and, if anything, actually manages to walk that same tightrope while narrowing the rope even further. And it’s still an impressive act.

That’s not to say you’ll necessarily love the outcome, as it’s more of a non-stop action film than we’ve seen before. Every crisis is a crisis related to fighting, war, explosions, etc. – with only the briefest of considerations of the “Prime Directive” and certainly no long and drawn out diplomatic disagreements. In short, it’s back and it’s big, and it’s very well put together, but it also has a different tone to it than many fans of the original series might prefer.That said, I liked it. For me it’

more about revisiting the cast of characters than worrying too much about what particular scrape they’re going to warp/transport/squeeze their way out this time around. And where the last film gave us back the original crew in almost loving detail, the new film throws in a bunch of other similarly preserved and respected references. J. J. Abrams may be happy to admit that he never enjoyed “Star Trek” while growing up, but it’s clear he’s come to love it since then – and we can only hope that attention to detail and respect for the source material translates into similar work as he helms the new “Star Wars” outing.

But J. J. Abrams also comes with his own drawbacks – most notably his great affinity for lens flare. Early on there’s enough to be a reminder - “Hey folks – don’t forget this is a J. J. Abrams film!” But later there are times when the screen goes bright and you just wish he was sitting in the row in front of you so you could slap him across the back of the head every time it happens – “Hey J. J. – we didn’t forget!”

The single best development of the new series here is the addition to the cast of the excellent Benedict Cumberbatch, who is a familiar face to many although new enough to some to produce some awkward moments. In a recent interview, David Letterman asked him if this was his first big film and Cumberbatch looked a little uncomfortable for a moment and perhaps avoided the urge to rattle off a list (“The Hobbit,” “War Horse,” Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy,” “Atonement,” etc.). Although much of his almost cult status with a core group of fans comes from his portrayal of Sherlock Holmes in the British TV series “Sherlock” – where he’s brilliant enough that when you’re not wishing you could slap J. J. Abrams, you might wish you could slap the American TV executive who felt the need to remake the series for the American market.

All in all it’s a neat movie. It also has fun with some neat reversals of fortune that will amuse and perhaps amaze the true Trekkies without causing too much confusion in the newbies. It’s like a wonderfully constructed inside joke that you don’t actually need to be an insider to get. And, as part of its ongoing balancing act, it manages to bring the series to where it needs to be for logical progression. That’s a pretty clever package.

A second opinion by Malcolm Maclachlan: POSSIBLE CHARACTER SPOILER AHEAD!

When it comes to mass-market American pop culture, “Star Trek” is the standard-bearer for nerds. With its high regard for intellect, uncanny ability to predict consumer electronics decades in the future, and elevation of Spock as it’s unquestioned most popular character (not to mention its endless conventions and spin-offs), it has become cultural shorthand for nerd ascendance.

But watching “Into Darkness,” I can’t help thinking the nerds lost and the jocks won. It’s entertaining alright. But there’s something kind of wrong about watching Spock fistfight with Khan across hover-barges. Taken as a whole, it’s loud, fast and not especially cerebral.

Of course, Spock and Khan (who came from the same era as Chaka Khan) are the two most fun characters by far. In a reboot that has most of the principles playing caricatures of themselves (especially Doc, Scotty and Chekov), Zachary Quinto’s Spock impression is uncanny. And yes, that recent commercial pairing him with Leonard Nimoy was brilliant (I think it was advertising a car or something).

Meanwhile, Benedict Cumberbatch’s Khan has nothing to do with Ricardo Mantalban’s vaguely ethnic space marauder, and that’s fine. Besides being perhaps the only actor ever to play Sherlock Holmes who has a more ridiculous name than Sherlock Holmes, Cumberbatch has a tendency to quietly steal movies. Here he does it loudly. My only objection comes to the way his character was written. The earlier Khan mainly conquered with his intellect. This one not only casually take out squads of Klingons and other assorted baddies with fists and phasers, he also makes too many mental lapses for someone with a supposedly stratospheric IQ. But he’s got to lose somehow.

Meanwhile, I don’t especially like how they’ve made Spock all weepy and emotional compared to the original series. He’s basically a stand-in for men who can’t express their feelings. I find the Spock-Uhuru romance kind of annoying and unbelievable (especially since Quinto recently came out as gay, to a collective cultural shrug and lucrative endorsements that would have happened anyway).

Of course, “Star Trek” was always more about respecting smartness than actually being smart. Its scientific lapses are legendary. Some of the ones here: I can roll with cold fusion, but why does such a device need to be hand-delivered? Why would you bother to chase a spaceship through a debris field when you could just hover above and take it out? Why bother making the Enterprise such an all-terrain vehicle? Why don’t other bodies reject the Khan super-cells (you’ll see on all scores).

Kon-Tiki
Directed by Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg

In one of those coincidences I dig so much, “Star Trek” opens in Sacramento in the same week as “Kon-Tiki.” And for all of the “Boldly going where no man has gone before” sentiment of “Star Trek,” sometimes it can be just as bold to go where you think someone has gone before.

In the late 1930’s, Norwegian Thor Heyerdahl and his wife Liv were living with and studying native Polynesians. At that time, the accepted wisdom was that Polynesia had first been populated from the West, from Asia. But Heyerdahl came to realize that the winds and currents came from the East, and even local legends referred to “Tiki” bringing the people from the East.

A decade later, after WWII, Heyerdahl was trying to publish his theory with no success when it became clear that the only way anybody would respect the idea was to prove that it would have been possible for ancient Incans/Peruvians to travel to Polynesia on the types of rafts they were capable of building at that time. And so, with very little support and even less in the way of backup plans or safety features, he and a small group of like-minded adventurers drifted away from the Peruvian coast, at the mercy of the winds and currents.
In that post-war period, Heyerdahl’s crazy enterprise was credited with rekindling an interest in exploration and some even said it helped with undertakings like space exploration – which of course rings us back to “Star Trek.” As school kids growing up in England in the 1970’s, we were still reading about the Kon-Tiki expedition and Heyerdahl’s other undertakings, as well as the various other groups that attempted the same trip.

He didn’t prove his theory, but he did prove the possibility of it – and researchers still debate the same origin question, albeit now through other means like DNA analysis, which suggests that people came from both directions at different times. Interestingly, for film lovers, as well as writing a book, Heyerdahl also directed a documentary about the trip (and the filming is a feature of the current narrative re-telling of the story), winning the Academy Award in 1951.

At Any Price
Directed by Ramin Bahrani

“At Any Price” is reminiscent of the recent “Promised Land,” in that it tries to tell a character-based story as a mask for teaching us about a politically charged practice. In “Promised Land” the topic was fracking and in “At Any Price” it’s the kind of GMO-based modern farming dominated by Monsanto. Here, Monsanto is replaced by “Liberty Seeds,” although it’s not hard to spot the real villain.

Dennis Quaid plays Henry Whipple, a third generation farmer who also sells for Liberty Seeds. His younger son Dean (Zac Efron) has little interest in the farm, hoping instead to become a racecar driver. And that’s the basic dynamic behind the father-son story that sits in front of the political message of the film.

In another interesting coincidence, I watched this film within a couple of days of reading a news story that focused on the same underlying issue depicted, namely that the folks at the fictional Liberty Seeds and the actual Monsanto prohibit farmers from engaging in the age-old practice of taking seeds from their own crop as the basis for next year’s planting. The companies have copyrighted the DNA in the seeds and, in order to maximize profits, require farmers to agree to always buy new seed stock. Henry explains this in the movie to Dean’s friend, who asks if it’s like the issue of “bootlegging DVD’s.” To which Henry replies “Except these guys didn’t just copyright movies, they copyrighted life.” Almost that same phrase was in the news story about millions of farmers suing Monsanto, with an official (from memory, I think it was an Indian Government official) referring to the ridiculousness of Monsanto “patenting life.”

Unfortunately, the movie is also similar to “promised Land” in that in trying to do two things at once, neither film is very good – although they certainly serve a purpose in terms of delivering a message that many will approve of (and other won’t) that some may not hear any other way.

The other interesting and useful aspect of the film is the way it shows, briefly, the nature of modern farming outside of the issue of GMO’s. Henry Whipple doesn’t farm the same way that his father did – although he reminisces about the days of hard work in the fields, and the simplicity of it as he realizes how complicated the business has become. But he’s a farmer who can sit back in his enclosed, air conditioned tractor cab, not touching the controls, as the tractor is driven by a computer that’s downloading information from a satellite feed that’s providing information about soil temperature, moisture, and other variables and adjusting the delivery of fertilizers, irrigations, etc. accordingly.

It would be a neat film to take kids to, to introduce to some of these topics except that the family story tacked on top both violent and sexual. All of which leaves the film without much of an audience.

New film : The Great Gatsby (x3)

2013-05-10T20:57:18Z

The Great Gatsby (x3)

1925 novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald
1974 film by Jack Clayton
2013 film by Baz Luhrmann

There have been four theatrical film adaptations of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby,” the earliest of which was made in 1926, only a year after the manuscript was completed (and which is now lost). Other than the latest version by Baz Luhrmann, the only version easily found for comparison purposes is Jack Clayton’s 1974 film, with a screenplay adapted by Francis Ford Coppola.

In anticipation of the press screening of Luhrmann’s film, I downloaded and re-read the novel in the break between last Sunday’s East Coast feed of “Game of Thrones” and the West Coast feed of “Mad Men.” That timing is significant, because Clayton’s film is 144 minutes long, Luhrmann’s is 143 minutes long, and the book can be read in the same amount of time – so watching a film version may make some lazy students of English happy, but it won’t save them much time. I also re-watched the 1974 film.

It’s a short novel to begin with, with only approximately 200 pages organized into 9 chapters, which would make for a fairly simple screenplay adaptation if length was the only issue. However, the story in the novel is being told to the reader by Nick Carraway, who is essentially Fitzgerald’s proxy, who describes in great detail the lives of material excess enjoyed by wealthy residents of Long Island, NY in 1922.

Carraway is a young man from the Midwest who has decided to try his luck as a bond trader in New York. He rents a small cottage in the up and coming “new money” town of West Egg (Fitzgerald’s substitute for Great Neck, NY) and he has a cousin, Daisy, who married into “old money” and who lives with her inattentive husband Tom Buchanan in tonier East Egg (Manhasset, NY) across the bay. As luck would have it, his cottage sits next to the vast mansion and estate of the mysterious Jay Gatsby, a man with a murky past and a strong interest in Daisy.

In a sense, it’s a somewhat delayed coming of age novel but it’s one that would result in a significant amount of voice-over narration (by Carraway) if it was filmed directly from the novel – and that becomes one of the primary difficulties in adapting it for the screen.

In the 1974 Coppola adaptation, this is addressed by taking many of the scenes that Carraway describes in the novel, some of which have previously been described to him by other characters, and simply lets the viewer watch them unfold directly. But it goes further than that by expanding on others, such as a series of romantic encounters shot with enough backlighting and four-point starburst effects for a dozen contemporary Harmony Hairspray commercials (“Is she, or isn’t she…?”). These aren’t just stylistic issues, as these are events and developments that Carraway, our witness and storyteller, couldn’t have seen.

In Lurhmann’s 2013 film, he and co-screenwriter Craig Pearce create a completely fabricated device that attempts to make the Carraway narration work without simply having it be disembodied voice-over. They do this by having Carraway write the story under the supervision of a doctor, during a later stay in an institution. The problem now being that, while it somehow justifies the idea of Carraway telling us the story after the fact, it also inherently changes that character and attributes health issues to him that aren’t in the novel.

The other most obvious difference between the two films is their general style and tone. Clayton’s film is slow and deliberate, with a soundtrack that occasionally borders on what one might expect in the horror genre, but it attempts to accurately capture the period in terms of popular music and wardrobe choices. Luhrmann’s film is an eye-candy montage of excess, with everything shown bigger and better and faster, and with a blend of music that’s packaged for independent sale and somewhat more suited to a rave than a party with a ‘Roaring 20’s’ theme. For example, in the new film, any scene that involves driving a car is like a live action version of “Speed Racer” – and it drops accurate depictions of details from the novel (types of cars and dogs, for example) whenever something cuter or glitzier is possible.

I’m not opposed to what Luhrmann was trying to accomplish here – it’s fun and loud and bold. But it’s also an over the top depiction of a time and place that was already over the top. Indeed, much of Fitzgerald’s descriptions are intended to convey the excesses he himself witnessed in that time and place. And while it’s calmer and more staid, the 1974 film gives a clear impression of wealth and the yawning gulf of socio-economic distances. From a narrative perspective, we’re told that the outrageous parties Gatsby throws are largely an attempt to lure Daisy – and Daisy seems more likely to find her way to one of the 1974 parties than one of the 2013 parties. Luhrmann’s film is like “Downton Abbey” as if shot to be a spring break special for MTV.

That said, there are also some remarkable similarities, with the new film at times feeling more like an adaptation of the earlier film than as an independent adaptation of the book. Chief amongst these similarities is the depiction of the area between the ritzy Long Island communities and Manhattan – the area around Wilson’s Garage, where the road and the train tracks come together in an almost post-apocalyptic environment, born by the consumption around it.

Despite being a short novel, as described earlier, the films both jettison material in pursuit of other goals. The romance in the 1974 film and the partying in the 2013 film both result in other storylines and characters being lost. The earlier film limits a separate romance between Carraway and Daisy’s professional golfer friend Jordan Baker and the newer film essentially ignores that story altogether, with both outcomes shifting the story away from Carraway (who spends much of that summer in the book away from the other characters) and more towards Gatsby. The 1974 film loses much of Gatsby’s backstory, including a mentor that shaped his future life and persona, and the 2013 film drops most of the last chapter of the book, including the appearance of Gatsby’s father, truncating much of the end of the story.

If I could wave a magic film wand, I’d probably attempt a mashup of some kind between the two projects – perhaps the period style and visual elements of the earlier film, with the cast and exuberance of the new film. There are some odd comparisons between the two films that are, at times, counter-intuitive. For example, the 1974 film has a more mature tone to it, and Robert Redford as Gatsby and Mia Farrow as Daisy seem older than the characters in the book – Coppola even moved the story forward slightly by saying that eight years had passed since earlier events in the story, rather than five. The new film has a much younger air to it, with Leonardo DiCaprio as Gatsby and Carey Mulligan as Daisy – but DiCaprio is actually older than Redford was in 1974, which is coincidentally the year that DiCaprio was born. Mulligan seems a closer fit, agewise, to Daisy than the slightly older Farrow and Sam Waterstone as 1974’s Nick Carraway has a fresher feel to him than an older Tobey Maguire in the same role in the 2013 film. Bruce Dern played an appropriately mean-spirited Tom Buchanan in 1974, but Joel Edgerton has more of the novel’s description of Tom’s physicality in the new film. And, in perhaps the oddest piece of cast trivia, Daisy’s (Mia Farrow) young daughter is played (briefly) by Patsy Kensit in the 1974 film, and Kensit later played Mia Farrow in a television movie about Farrow’s own ill-fated love life.

There’s a stability and pacing in the earlier film that borders on the ponderous (if you watch it, go and make a sandwich as the opening title sequence plays itself out ad nauseum) – compared to a frenetic energy and visual abundance in the new film that’s made even more profound by the availability of 3D screenings. The new film is like an uneven patchwork of heavy-handedness and deft accuracy. On the one hand, we’re given a short Tom Buchanan speech on white supremacy while he’s closely surrounded by black servants (the servants are white in the 1974 film), on the other we’re given a Gatsby mansion styled closely on photographs of the houses thought to have been visited by Fitzgerald that inspired the descriptions in the novel. The new film also appears to change the ethnicity of another key character, shows a pivotal scene in great detail despite it not being witnessed by Carraway, and has a secondary character seemingly mispronounce Kaiser Wilhelm’s name (despite it being DiCaprio’s own middle name). And, on the topic of pronunciation, DiCaprio’s delivers Gatsby signature phrase “old sport” to rhyme with “Colbert Report” in a manner that simply grows tedious over time.

All of which leads me to say that I’m glad I watched the new film, and I even enjoyed watching it on the level of eye candy and as a visual exercise, but I don’t especially like it as an adaptation. It transforms the Nick Carraway character and drops too much of the original story to be considered an accurate telling of the story. The 1974 film also drops some of the details, but to a lesser extent, but it’s also a flatter version of the story. Watching both films and re-reading the book, all within a week, primarily caused me to appreciate the book more – it’s a short story told in a manner that simply works better on the page, where narration works perfectly, than on the screen. Perhaps re-reading the book is a mistake if one simply wants to enjoy either film.

That’s not to say it can’t be adapted well, and there at least two adaptations that are either lost or hard to find and another television movie that I haven’t seen, but these two adaptations each lose something in the translation. It’s material I’d still like to see others have a go at – I could imagine, for example, Sofia Coppola creating a film that might exist somewhere in the middle of what we’ve seen so far, with perhaps a better balance of elements. I’d certainly enjoy watching her, or others, try.

New films: Iron Man 3 (two opinions) - Ginger & Rosa - other film news

2013-05-03T19:33:42Z

Iron Man 3
Directed by Shane Black

Malcolm Maclachlan: It’s often that I’ll think more of a flick the day after I see it than when I’m actually watching it. In this case, I like it less. “Iron Man 3” starts out with some compelling ideas and snappy dialogue, but ends up as a typical overstuffed…well, let’s just say towards the end when Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow argue about which one of them is more of a “hot mess,” my answer is “you’re both soaking in it.”

Tony Sheppard: I think we had opposite reactions, or at least opposite post-reaction reactions. I had gone into the film with some fairly specific concerns regarding the storyline and enjoyed the film more than I had expected to and, since watching it, have actually appreciated the overall effort and approach even more as I’ve given it more thought. I do agree that at some point, as with most of these films, the action, explosions, and overall grandiosity of it all reaches a level of overkill, but they’re also catering to folks who rate their films based on the residual level of ringing in their ears.

MM: So let’s start by focusing on the good. Ben Kingsley steals a few scenes as a terrorist leader known as The Mandarin.

TS: Agreed. And there’s far more to this performance than the previews might suggest, on multiple levels.

MM: Plus, the comic relief in the film is often actually funny. Downey is engaging and entertaining as amiable jerk Tony Stark. They also saddle him with anxiety attacks verging on PTSD, which is a lot more interesting and human than that catchphrase-infested coolness of too many action flicks.

TS: Again, agreed. There’s a very interesting method to the way Stark is depicted here – we’re reminded of what a brash <insert bad word here> he used to be and so we’re given more of a character arc than this single film would otherwise have by itself. And the anxiety he experiences seems very real, if not exactly in the way it occurs at least in its presence. We’re too often shown heroes and superheroes who aren’t just strong in one sense, they’re strong in every sense – physically strong, confident, emotionally stable, etc. “Iron Man 3” takes place post-“Avengers” and it’s not an overstatement to say that everything has changed – suddenly we’ve gone from planet saving to universe saving, with wormholes, aliens, ancient gods in the mix, etc. Even the Tony Starks of the world are suddenly brought down to size by all of that.

MM: There are also some interesting ideas around the interplay of terrorism, the media, and the motivations and personas of mass killers. Given that the Mandarin is a bomber who often strikes on U.S. soil, the release of this flick so soon after the Boston Marathon bombing is positively creepy. Toss in drones, oil, the current cultural obsession with bullying, an interaction between two powerful women that doesn’t dissolve into a petty catfight, and you’ve got a lot to work with.

Maybe too much. Some interesting ideas turns into a kitchen sink catch-all. Over time, the focus seems to turn back to Stark’s ennui and midlife crisis, the very same elements that turned “Iron Man 2” into a barely-watchable exercise in daytime television psychology. I’ve never been sold on the onscreen chemistry between Downey and Paltrow, and it feels particularly pallid here.

TS: It’s not just a relative lack of chemistry but I also find myself questioning, at times, why the two characters would even be drawn to each other – but that’s probably a whole different conversation.

As for timing, I thought the same thing last week with “The Company You Keep” and it’s domestic terrorism/protest storyline, as well as the way it told a story about the families of those who choose to take certain actions, for whatever set of reasons they may have.

MM: Meanwhile, while I loved “The Avengers,” going back to a universe of individual heroes feels a bit artificial. I get that Thor is off in Valhalla or someplace, and maybe Bruce Banner/The Hulk is back in hiding. But with a vaguely Middle Eastern terrorist (The Mandarin does seem rather culturally nonspecific, sort of like Ben Kingsley himself) blowing up bombs on U.S. soil and posing a credible threat to the President’s life, are we supposed to believe that Captain America, Black Widow and Hawkeye are just sitting this one out? Of course, it they’d all done cameos, it probably would have cut into Downey’s reported $50 million paycheck.

TS: Now you’re getting at my big concern going into the film. It’s like a story about a guy who makes several of the best friends in the world/universe and who then can’t find anybody to help him move. This is a series of explosions and claimed attacks that is plastered all over the news media – so the other folks would have to be in some kind of silent retreat, comatose, or buying Valhalla timeshares to be out of the picture – and I expected this to completely destroy the story and film for me. But they took an approach which actually made it work despite my misgivings – they made it more like a giant bar fight than a campaign. Stark basically calls this guy out and launches into action without any consultation or plan – it’s a chest-thumping charge (think about it) that doesn’t pause long enough to gather backup. But it’s still a problem they have to overcome every time they revisit one but not all of the gang.

The other part of the film that I particularly liked and which added an element of wide-eyed wonder that these films benefit from but often lose over multiple iterations, is Stark’s involvement with the kid. It has the tone of recent films like “Super 8” but also managed to remind me of “Iron Giant” (iron man falls from the sky, is found by a young boy, the son of a single mom who works in a diner, who helps fix up the iron man and protect him from the folks trying to capture him), which is a desirable association.

MM: “Iron Man 3” does have some fun with Stark creating multiple Iron Man suits. But it also begs the question why people are still driving normal cars and living with the same electrical grid in a world where that kind of power can be mastered. I know I’m probably overanalyzing it, but given the resources both sides have at their disposal, their ambitions seem rather limited.

Then again, superhero movies are about our own limitations and self-obsessions in the first place. I’d even argue that this is embodied, literally, in the hard bodies of Downey, Paltrow (she has a six pack!), Don Cheadle and Guy Pierce. There was a time when Pierce stood out in Hollywood for his near complete lack of body fat, his face always looking like he was headed into a hard wind. Now he’s just another gaunt face in the crossfit-sculpted crowd.

This is aspirational fiction just as much as “The Real Housewives of….” When Downey invokes the catchphrase “I am Iron Man,” it isn’t really about the suit.

TS: Letting your use of “begs the question” slide for the moment, while the multiple suits are fun it takes us deeply into the drone territory you mentioned earlier. We’ve gone from lone hero to clone wars in rapid fashion, except that the suits are generally being operated not by Stark but by his computer sidekick Jarvis (which also undercuts the role, now and in the future, of Cheadle’s character if he could stay home and Jarvis could take care of business).

But despite our disagreement in terms of overall opinion, I think we probably agree about the general direction the film takes – and perhaps I simply like that direction more. Stark/Iron Man is more Wayne/Batman than Kent/Superman – he’s a smart guy with cool stuff and deep pockets. And while we expect to see and enjoy the gadgetry, at some point it has to come back to the decisions he makes and the way he lives with those decisions – he can’t simply fall back on invulnerability. (Interestingly, that’s also the direction the rebooting of the James Bond franchise has taken – more man than machines.) I like my heroes flawed, limited, and vulnerable – not only does it make them aspirational, as you point out, but it helps us to pretend for a moment that they might actually be in jeopardy occasionally.

Ginger & Rosa
Directed by Sally Potter

In about as much of a contrast with this week’s major opening of “Iron Man 3” as possible, “Ginger & Rosa” open in an exclusive engagement at the Tower Theatre. It’s a powerful character study of a girl growing up in the early 60’s in England at a time when world news is dominated by the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Although the title includes both Ginger and Rosa, this a film seen mostly from Ginger’s perspective as their lifelong friendship and inter-dependence begins to be challenged. Ginger is surrounded by instability - in her primary friendship, in her parents on again/off again marriage, and in the perceived threat to the safety of the entire world. The only calm opinions she’s exposed to inadvertently fuel her concerns and she finds it harder and harder to cope.

“Ginger & Rosa” has an interesting and talented cast but this is really Elle Fanning’s film. She takes on the role of Ginger and makes it believable, including in her accent (which isn’t true of all the cast). It’s an emotional role and the heartbreak and struggle she embodies are palpable. This is worth watching for her performance alone in much the same way that “The Iron Lady” was worth watching for Meryl Streep’s Thatcher – and that she can accomplish this as a young teenager is remarkable.

Other film news

As I pointed out earlier in the week, there are some neat films coming to the Crest Theatre, including Shawn Carruth’s “Upstream Color” in a three-day engagement this weekend, a special screening of “Infinity and Chashu Ramen,” a one-night only screening of a tour movie based on the Co-Exist Comedy group (Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, and Atheist comedians sharing a stage), and a screening of the Wild and Scenic Film festival – all in the next week. So if any of that sounds appealing, check their website at thecrest.com.

4 New films: The Big Wedding - The Company You Keep - Pain & Gain - Mud

2013-04-26T20:26:57Z

A mixed bag of four new films

It’s a busy week at the movies and a mixed bag of outcomes, including veteran stars who elevate their material and films that both benefit and suffer by being associated with true stories.

The Big Wedding
Written and Directed by Justin Zackham

This is the first of two movies this week that become more than they might otherwise be by virtue of their casts. In this case, what would otherwise probably be a C+ grade comedy romp is pulled up a notch or two by stars Robert De Niro, Susan Sarandon (see below also), Diane Keaton, and a refreshingly understated performance from Robin Williams.

It’s a surprisingly raunchy-at-times (and appropriately R-rated) take on a dysfunctional family wedding with a modern twist, in that bridegroom Alejandro (Ben Barnes) finds himself trying to juggle three mothers (or mother figures): His staunchly catholic and Columbian biological mother, his now-divorced adoptive mother, and his adoptive father’s long-time girlfriend who has been a quasi step-mother.

Some of the familial relationships feel quite genuine at times, including sibling rivalry raised to the level of sport, and the film has enough funny moments to cause subsequent lines of dialog to be obscured by audience laughter. But it’s also rather unbalanced and inconsistent, with somewhat abrupt editing, and the fact that it works even as well as it does is because of the talent and gravitas of the actors delivering the lines. If the thought of A-list actors in a C-grade sex comedy is appealing to you, this could be your movie.

Sidenote: I see a lot of movies, including horror films and thrillers, and few things have shocked me as much recently as watching a character in “The Big Wedding” casually throw a martini glass into a swimming pool. Which just goes to demonstrate how much I’m affected by real life scenarios as I leaned over to my companion and said “They’re going to have to drain that entire pool!”

The Company You Keep
Directed by Robert Redford

“The Company You keep” has an even more impressive cast than “The Big Wedding” including, again, Susan Sarandon, along with Robert Redford, Julie Christie, Stanley Tucci, Brendan Gleeson, Sam Elliott, Richard Jenkins, Chris Cooper, Nick Nolte, Terrence Howard, and relative youngsters (who look like teenagers by comparison) Brit Marling, Anna Kendrick, and Shia LeBeouf. Frankly, it’s a dream cast and I’d probably enjoy watching them all play dead for two hours – so I go into a film like this with an inherent bias.

Sarandon plays a suburban housewife who, for three decades, has hidden her identity as a former member of The Weather Underground – a Vietnam War era domestic protest group that elevated their activities to a level that we would now label terrorism. She took part in a bank robbery that left a guard dead and she’s arrested on her way to turn herself in. LeBeouf plays a young local newspaper reporter who’s drawn in by the story and begins to realize there are more folks around whose pasts cover similar ground.

The legitimacy of the backstory, with the actual Weathermen having roots around some of the movie locations, adds credence to the story and it’s a topic that is remarkably fresh despite those roots being 30 or more years old. As characters discuss their original motivations, their complaints and concerns sound as though they could be current and new, and that’s an obviously intentional aspect of the screenplay. That it also comes to screens so close to the Boston Marathon bombings makes it seem even more topical and, truthfully, it’s a subject matter that could play in almost any decade, with only the exact motivations of those involved changing.

Redford’s last film “Lions for Lambs,” was similarly political in its content and messages although “The Company You keep” is, perhaps, a little less heavy-handed in that regard. However, while Redford is a very capable director and storyteller, he doesn’t waste time on too much subtlety when he has a message to convey. And here we get multiple corollary messages, such as the death-struggle of print journalism and the work that can sometimes only come from a doggedly determined local investigative journalist, and the relative complacency of younger generations for whom the gross injustices of an earlier time have become the status quo.

This is a solid film, reminiscent of the drama “Running on Empty,” which tackled similar themes of long-term fugitive status and its effects on family and relationships. It’s also an excellent reminder to those of us who are out of shape that 76 year old Robert Redford can still run through the woods carrying a backpack in a manner that leaves me winded just thinking about it.

Pain & Gain
Directed by Michael Bay

“Pain & Gain” is my most conflicted movie of the week and is the second that’s affected by being based on truth – in this case a true crime story from Miami. But it’s that truth that forms the basis of my conflict.

This is the story of a bungling group of thieves who attempted to get rich through a couple of kidnappings and the associated theft and extortion that followed. The ring-leader is played by Mark Wahlberg, with Anthony Mackie and Dwayne Johnson in tow as his accomplices. They’re supported by an effective secondary cast, including Tony Shalhoub as one of the victims and Ed Harris as the ex-cop turned private detective who investigates the events.

It’s actually a well made and well acted film that manages to deliver some genuine laughs along the way, in much the same way that we enjoy stories of crooks who try to pull ATM”s out of walls by tying chains to their cars only to end up leaving an axle or transmission behind. The problem is that the film tries to deliver those laughs consistently across its content – something which would normally be a good thing. The difference here being that while it’s fine to laugh at the villains (who are closer to being the heroes of the film) and their incompetency, we’re also asked to laugh at the scenes of torture and murder and, for example, the difficulties encountered while trying to return a chain saw to a home improvement store with human hair stuck in the mechanism.

This may be a very personal and subjective reaction, and others may differ in this regard, but I couldn’t separate myself from the fact that this is a real story about actual torture and murders. A couple of weeks before seeing the film, I had read a newspaper article about the relatives of the original victims who were irate at their loved ones’ deaths being the subject of a comedy re-telling of the facts of the story. And the film even pauses as it gets to a point of seeming ridiculousness to remind us it’s all true.

For me, this one was too close to the bone to enjoy, especially being played so obviously for laughs. A darker, less farcical telling of the same facts and the same events might have worked for me, but this just seemed crass.

Mud
Written and Directed by Jeff Nichols

Which brings me to my favorite new film of the week – “Mud” – written and directed by Jeff Nichols, who last wrote and directed 2011’s “Take Shelter.”

Matthew McConaughey plays the title character, who is discovered by two young boys in rural Arkansas, hiding from law enforcement on an undeveloped island in the river that dominates their lives. One of the boys, Ellis (Tye Sheridan), lives with his parents on a condemned houseboat, working with his father to sell fish and other meat out of coolers from the back of a pickup truck. His best friend Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) lives with an uncle who uses home-made diving gear to harvest shellfish. Together, the two boys enjoy the kind of largely unfettered and undefined childhoods that have remained relatively unscathed in rural areas, exploring their world in a manner that Huckleberry Finn would probably appreciate.

It’s a world that’s foreign to many of us, although still far more recognizable than the extreme independence and poverty depicted in last year’s “Beasts of the Southern Wild.” And it’s brought to life through solid acting, especially and most noteworthy from the two child actors – Sheridan who first appeared in Terrence Malick’s “The Tree of Life” and who already has another film in the can, and Lofland in his debut performance. This is a film that couldn’t work at all without these two parts being played this well – it’s more their story than Mud’s.

In essence that story is one of love, in multiple forms. It represents my favorite film genre, the multi-layered coming of age drama in which characters of multiple ages come to realize new things about the world around them. The film centers primarily on Ellis and his burgeoning understanding of human relationships, not just of the girl he likes but also the changing nature of his parents’ failing marriage, and the ill-fated love he sees between Mud and Juniper (Reese Witherspoon), the woman Mud has loved since he was younger than Ellis. But we’re also seeing those, and other relationships, through the other characters’ eyes as well as Ellis’ as they each discover more about themselves.

It’s a beautifully simple and effective film, with only the most minor of missteps, and my pick of the week.

New film: Oblivion - two opinions

2013-04-19T21:49:37Z

Oblivion
Co-Written and Directed by Joseph Kosinski

This week’s column contains a blast from the past, in the context of blasts in the future, as my former writing colleague Malcolm Maclachlan joins me in reviewing “Oblivion.”

Malcolm Maclachlan: When you put “The Matrix,” “Total Recall,” “Star Trek,” “Blade Runner,” “Star Wars,” “Wall-E,” “Architectural Digest,” “Planet Earth,” “The Twilight Zone,” and Tom Cruise in a blender, sometimes the results turn out okay.

Tony Sheppard: Yes, I agree, albeit for somewhat different reasons. As I watched the movie, I wasn’t so much reminded of other movies as of the books I read as a kid. I was an avid reader of science fiction and at one point I bought up almost the entire smoke-damaged sci-fi collection from a small, local library that had a fire. For whatever reason, “Oblivion” felt closer to me to the content of those books, and the recurring themes, than to other more recent movie experiences.

MM: I’ll admit Oblivion may have benefitted from my low expectations. Tom Cruise has become a bit of a parody of himself in recent years, especially when—as here—he’s matched up with actresses two decades younger. The whole set-up of a ruined earth populated by a few poor and downtrodden, while the rich live it in space, has completed is transition to cliché. Another four-syllable, multi-zillion dollar version of this idea arrives this summer in the form of “Elysium” starring Matt Damon.

TS: It’s an age old theme – and whether or not one wants to go back as far as the writings of Plato, we’ve seen workers toiling away ‘below’ in support of others ‘above’ in films at least as far back as 1927’s “Metropolis.”

As for Cruise, I think he’s mostly damaged his own reputation through various bizarre talk-show appearances and interviews. It’s interesting to see him rehabilitate that image recently with a newer round of talk-show appearances. For example, he seems willing to do just about anything Jimmy Fallon asks him to do, routinely getting soaked as part of some silly game – if nothing else, the ego is firmly in check. He’s also pretty well-preserved for 50.

MM: But somehow “Oblivion” works. There’s plenty of sci-fi blockbuster silliness along the way, along with too much bombastic music played at a volume that would make Wagner’s ears bleed. I’m also dying to see Morgan Freeman play an ax murderer, because if I see him doing his wise grandfather thing one more time I’m going to…well, at least we don’t have to see too much of that here (and in “Elysium,” none. I’ve already checked).

TS: Freeman is at least a little grittier here than he is sometimes – he’s not God in a white suit and he’s not narrating a penguin migration. The music seems to be a dividing issue – I’ve both read and heard quite mixed reactions to it, including the very positive.

MM: Oblivion opens with Jack Harper (Cruise) and his companion Victoria living in a glass house hundreds of feet above the clouds on a metal spire. It’s the kind of place you’d expect to see under the headline announcing “Beyonce’s fabulous vacation pad,” a minimalist setting for what turns out to be a twisted domestic drama. They’re a happy couple and a team. He’s the technician who goes out and services the drones and fights the few remaining aliens on earth’s surface. She’s his full-time project manager, content to never leave their architectural marvel for two years, in exchange for a free trip the human paradise being built on Saturn’s moon Titan. They chose this, with the price of having their memories wiped clean. Except his…hasn’t quite.

TS: It’s that idea of a human colony on Titan that, I think, might have kicked off the nostalgia for the books of my childhood. We see so many shows and movies, such as the “Star Trek” and “Star Wars” franchises you mentioned earlier, where humans and others flit about the universe with little concern about distances. Here we get a more classic idea of a forced migration within our own solar system, and Titan was a frequently recurring destination, at least in more books than films.

It’s funny that you describe the house and that you made the earlier reference to “Architectural Digest.” I was actually distracted in similar ways and was thinking about “Dwell” magazine. And it doesn’t really make much sense. Cruise’s Jack Harper describes their role as the “mop up crew” – left behind to take care of the last few tasks before transitioning to Titan. Yet they have a luxurious home with a high-altitude, glass bottomed swimming pool that is certainly stunning on screen (especially on an IMAX screen), but which seems extremely vulnerable to damage or attack. They worry constantly about “scavengers” on the surface but they live at the top of a pole that seems like it could easily be detonated. However, more than any other single factor, I was bothered by one particular large vase in the corner of the living space that appears to have no utilitarian function and seems entirely out of place in a working environment. As a team, Jack and Victoria have been taught or indoctrinated to expect little and manage with less and some kind of minimalistic pod or bunker would seem to make more sense in that context.

MM: What follows the basic premise of a lone work crew is a compounding set of plot twists I can’t reveal without spoiling things. Some are predictable in retrospect, but mostly I didn’t see them coming. There’s action here, mainly in the forms of CGI dogfights between Cruise and pursuers. But “Oblivion” morphs into a film about identity, human nature and the lies we tell ourselves and others. The whole sci-fi convention of plot and character being mere filler between the action sequences gets flipped. I found myself waiting for a chase to end so we could get back to the plot.

TS: I actually liked a lot of the action sequence here – aside from the visual imagery described previously, there’s no obvious tendency in “Oblivion” to amp up the gadgets and gizmos. We see one kind of drone with fairly limited capability and also inherent vulnerability – we don’t see what looks like somebody being let loose in the effects and prop departments as we do in many futuristic films. For example, Harper has a motorcycle for ground-based maintenance work and it looks like a mild advancement in current technology and style rather than something that floats or dematerializes. IN that way, the film seems surprisingly grounded and, relatively speaking, even somewhat realistic.

MM: It’s good that so much did work in this movie, because otherwise I would have been more distracted by all of the bad science. And I don’t just mean that a ruined Manhattan has once again been magically moved to the Rocky Mountains. I’m a big fan of the “Bad Astronomy” blog by (yes, a real) astronomer Phil Plait, who loves to write about bad science in movies. One of his favorites drives the plot here—the idea that aliens came here to steal our water. This is, in a word, silly. Water is one of the most abundant substances in the universe, relatively easy to get without dealing with earth’s gravity.

TS: One certainly finds oneself wondering just how large Harper’s maintenance territory is – but I was bothered by some of the other images. We’re shown the top of recognizable buildings as though either the ground has risen up around them by several hundred feet or the top has fallen down and remained largely intact. Similarly, in a glimpse of a damaged Pentagon, the remains of the building itself is there but somehow nothing else is nearby. It’s a cherry-picking of well-known landmarks intended to give scale to the apocalypse that has occurred regardless of the logic involved.

MM: There’s also a plot point about how the aliens have shattered the moon, which is now slowly breaking apart into a ring around the earth. This is part of their invasion plan—destroying the moon caused "earthquakes and tsunamis," which devastated humanity, and most died outright or starved afterwards. Such disasters, if they happened at all, would come from changes in the moon’s gravitational effect—and given that most of the mass of the moon is still held together by its gravity, this wouldn’t change that much. The far bigger problem of moon rocks raining down on the earth for thousands of years isn’t mentioned. But it does give the sky a cool pulp sci-fi, side-of-a-van-in-the-1970s look.

TS: It does look cool. I’m less sure about the math/physics behind the tidal effect because the spread of the moon’s mass is quite significant and so even if the mass remained constant, the directionality of at least some of the gravitational attraction would be significantly altered – and the moon exerts enough of a pull to change the shape of the planet and not just its bodies of water. So I’ll give them a pass on that one.

What I won’t do is give them a pass on alien technology and achievement of such magnitude and complexity without hands, clamps, appendages, or opposable thumbs anywhere in sight.

MM: Once again, super-advanced invaders have some glaring holes in their technology and strategy…oh, never mind.

TS: Agreed – none of it bothered me enough to detract from the fact that I was simply enjoying the film. It’s an interesting story well told. And it’s an encouraging piece of work from Kosinski, a filmmaker who was plucked from relative obscurity to make the recent “Tron” sequel – which gives him a very short but technically impressive resume, with stories that manage to dig deeper than just blasters and cool bikes, delving into the issues of identity and human nature you mentioned earlier. It makes me look forward to seeing what else he has in him.

New film (Interview): The Place Beyond the PInes (PART 2)

2013-04-12T11:57:13Z

This continues from Part 1 (link) - uploaded separately due to length.

INTERVIEW - PART 2

Tony Sheppard: So, without trying to give too much away, you’ve got this film here with big names on the marquee and yet the characters come and go. By my clock, Bradley Cooper doesn’t even show up until about 55 minutes into the film.

Derek Cianfrance: Yeah.

TS: Does that make it a hard film to sell to a general audience? I mean you have a poster….

DC: Yeah.

TS: …with three characters on it that never appear together on screen.

DC: Yeah. Well they…yeah. I always remember “Heat” was like that too – Michael Mann, when De Niro and Pacino are on screen together, they’re never in a two-shot together, they’re always like flip sides of a coin. I always thought that was amazing. But look, how do you market a film like this? You know what I mean – that’s so unlike other movies. How do you fit this into the pre-approved…how do you cut out a movie poster or cut a trailer that tells you this story.

TS: Yes – so many trailers these days just seem poorly made.

DC: Yeah – At the same time, I hope what’s great about Ryan, Bradley, Eva, and Ray and all these people being in this movie is that I have great actors that.... You know, this is what I think – I think of myself as an audience member and what I want to see. It’s as simple as that. I like to be challenged, I like to be surprised in a movie, I like to be respected as an audience member – to have my own thoughts about things. You know, I don’t like to be hammered – things like messages. And I like to be able to watch and experience – like when a movie enters my life. And I don’t think I’m that unlike a lot of people. I think there will definitely be a bit of… you know, the people that don’t like “The Place Beyond the Pines” – they end up pitting the pieces against each other. They say “2 was better than 1, or 3” or “1 is better than 2” They make it start to eat itself – do you know what I mean? But to me it’s just one thing.

TS: Did it always seem like one thing to you even while shooting – or were there moments when it felt like you were shooting three different films? Because you were working primarily with three different groups of people in different contexts.

DC: No, it was all one. It definitely felt as one the whole time. It felt like a city. Ben Coccio, my co-writer, and I, we love “The Wire” and how it went into different tribes within a city. And I think this movie just lives within two different tribes, you know, and it felt like they’re still in the same…. You know, that’s why we shot it Schenectady - and Schenectady means “The Place Beyond the Pines” in the Iroquois language.

TS: Right.

DC: It’s about what happens in this city when these tribes clash – it’s like war between two tribes. That’s why, with the grammar of the storytelling, we tried to make it consistent throughout – it didn’t change when Avery took over. We didn’t switch to digital format or something with the kids – it’s the same language.

TS: Having been to Schenectady, you’d think it meant something more like “Unremarkable.”

DC: (laughs) I don’t know – I love that place.

(laughs again) Well Schenectady – the thing is, on their patch on their police uniforms it’s Indians chasing the Dutch out of burning buildings. And there was a lot of massacres in Schenectady. And again, you think about history, you think about the blood on the hands you can never wash off. The “Macbeth” of it all. It’s there – it’s there in that city. It’s still there today – it’s haunted….

TS: To some extent, in your mind, Avery is like a single personification of the history of the region.

DC: Yeah.

TS: He’s got blood on his hands that he can’t wash off – and you feel like that place is steeped in that sort of lore and legend.

DC: Yeah. And the thing about Avery too is that he’s a good man. He grows up with this powerful father who’s steeped in that tradition – and he’s expected to assume that mantle that his father has. But he wants to be his own man.

TS: He’s certainly trying to be a good man.

DC: Yes.

TS: Whether or not he’s always hitting the mark.

DC: Yes, exactly. But that’s why I was interested. He becomes a cop, why? Because he’s his own man. Is he ever meant to be a cop? No – he’s meant to follow in his father’s footsteps but he has this hubris. And as a cop he makes this mistake, and once he makes that mistake he suffers this toxic shame. And he can’t deal with it – he’s a good man but instead of dealing with the corruption inside himself, he tries to clean up everything around him. But that corruption inside of himself doesn’t go away – it comes back, the chickens come home to roost as they say.

TS: There’s another Hollywood angle to this that you may not care about at all, and I wouldn’t blame you for not caring, but we’re in an awards season, we’ve just had the Oscars – at least at the time of this interview, not when the film will open. And Hollywood likes to define people based on whether they’re the lead role or the supporting role – and this seems like a film that, when you look at in that perspective, this seem like a very difficult cast to categorize.

DC: Yeah.

TS: Eva is obviously there through the whole story – but it’s hard to pinpoint who the lead character here is in terms of the way that the Academy or the Globes or somebody would look at the film. It feels like people are going to be looking at the film in those contexts but it’s hard to see how they’ll perceive it.

DC: Yeah, I have no idea. I mean you can’t make a film for awards shows….

TS: Although people apparently do.

DC: I’m only making this film because it feels like it’s very personal – it’s a lot of my fears, it’s a lot of my hopes and my dreams up on the screen. And fortunately I had so many great people – so many great actors and crew members along for that ride with me.

TS: Let me ask you a casting question. And I don’t mean to negate anybody else’s contribution to the project.

DC: Sure.

TS: You’ve worked with Ryan Gosling before on “Blue Valentine” and a couple of your producers have also worked with previously him on “Half Nelson.” There was an article, or a couple of articles, a couple of years ago that were talking about how the leading men in Hollywood were becoming more baby-faced and cute – pretty rather than handsome – the Leonardo DiCaprio, Zac Efron, Logan Lerman mould. Ryan Gosling is obviously good looking and he has a child actor past in him – but he’s a little more chiseled and angular and classic in his handsomeness. He’s clearly a talented guy – but what is he bringing to this that makes him, for you, the go to “I want to work with this guy again” actor?

DC: Magic. He’s magic. He’s a magic human being. We’ve all seen him break up fights in New York in those youtube videos and I have to say, when he’s on a movie set he’s the same way. He just… he makes the world a better place. And to have a collaborator like him is a gift. He’s so creative, his instincts are so good, he’s so talented. He’s just… you know… if I could make every movie with him I would love to.

TS: Are you at all concerned that, and again I don’t know if this is the right question to ask, but are you at all concerned that there are likely to be parallels drawn between this movie and “Drive”?

DC: You know, I think if they are they are only very, very surface elements. I started writing this film in 2007 and I remember…. I’ll say this, when I was writing “Blue Valentine” in 1998, one day I walked by a marquee in Santa Monica and I saw a poster for “The Story of Us” starring Bruce Willis and Michelle Pfeiffer, directed by Rob Reiner – a story of marriage on the rocks. And I thought “Oh my god, shit! – they did it, they made “Blue Valentine”!”

TS: It strikes me that with “Drive” if you think they’re the same, you actually don’t understand either character.

DC: No. Refn’s a great filmmaker but we couldn’t be more different as filmmakers – we’re interested in different things. And this movie is… yeah, I don’t see the similarities.

TS: Let me ask you one last question. I’ve been co-directing a small, modest film festival in Sacramento for about 10 years, and whenever anybody talks about film festivals they think Cannes, Sundance, Toronto – and we’ve been showcasing a lot of student films. We’ve seen great student films from all over - we’ve seen films from the University of Central Florida and Chapman, and films from Colorado, and Columbia in Illinois. And when people talk about film schools they mention USC, NYU, UCLA and many people’s lists don’t go much further. Do you get frustrated with the closed-mindedness –that those are the good film schools? You’ve obviously come out of a good film school with a solid grounding and you’re making fantastic films – does that aspect of the closed-mindedness of Hollywood and the industry frustrate you?

DC: Well, I grew up, when I was 17 years old, I was programmed that way – I had to go to USC, UCLA, NYU – but I couldn’t afford to. I was so disappointed. I ended up going to the University of Colorado, disappointed. And I have to say that after going there, I feel like I’m so thankful for having gone there because I feel like my education was very unique – I studied with true artists, with [Stan] Brakhage and with Phil Solomon – and they taught me how to be an artist and I’m so thankful. I’ve later sat in on some classes at NYU and I’m just so thankful that I went to school at University of Colorado. And yes there’s so many places with great film professors that those aren’t the only games in town – just like you don’t have to live in Hollywood to be a filmmaker. There’s plenty of… you don’t have to play by the rules.

And I’m always fighting that when I’m on set too – there’s this certain way that you’re supposed to make movies – well I have my own process. I don’t like saying “Action” or “Cut” – I don’t have a director’s chair. There’s no video village when I’m making a movie. I hate the machine behind the scenes. I have to say that by Day 7, usually my crew wants to throw a mutiny, but by Day 47 everyone is on the same page. I just think that people need to be themselves and come up with their own process and make their own paths. Just because Scorcese went to NYU doesn’t mean that if you like Scorsese films that’s the only place to go.

TS: He’s a great filmmaker because he’s Scorsese not because he went to NYU.

DC: Yeah. Yeah. But when I was a kid, he was right above my bed – I used to sleep with his picture above my bed. I really wanted to go to NYU. (laughs)

TS: Well, thank you very much – I really hope that it works out and that audiences find it and appreciate it as much as I did.

DC: Yes thank you for your time – let people know about it. Tell your students about it and hopefully they’ll like it, I think they will.

New film (Interview): The Place Beyond the Pines (PART 1)

2013-04-12T11:49:29Z

The Place Beyond the Pines
Directed by Derek Cianfrance

In “The Place Beyond the Pines,” Ryan Gosling is a motorcycle stunt rider (Luke) in a traveling carnival, who meets up with an old flame (Eva Mendes) as he passes back through Schenectady, New York, only to find reason to consider settling down. But his desire to make money and his riding ability translate into an unlikely series of bank robberies that bring the attention of local police, including Avery Cross, played by Bradley Cooper. Aside from a neat story and strong characters, what really sets this movie apart from most others is a very distinctive narrative structure that spans many years and multiple character arcs.

In February, I had the opportunity to sit and chat with director Derek Cianfrance about the film, the genesis of the idea, about things it reminds us of (including an unlikely conversation about “Star Wars”), influences, Hollywood, Ryan Gosling, filmmaking, and film schools. It was a fairly freewheeling conversation that, other than the more general remarks, will likely make more sense after seeing the movie, and it may contain a few mild spoilers.

INTERVIEW - PART1:

Tony Sheppard: I’m a college professor and I only do one or two film interviews a year, so something really has to grab my attention and your film certainly did.

Derek Cianfrance: Nice!

TS: I loved it, by the way.

DC: Thank you – and I appreciate you taking the time.

TS: Hollywood is pretty much entrenched in the three act screenplay mindset. If you take a class in screenwriting, or a workshop, or even in film school, you’re basically taking classes in three act screenplay writing. Your film clearly isn’t that – it’s more like a trilogy of three act screenplays, or a nine act screenplay. You’ve said previously that the three screen presentation of “Napoleon” and the protagonist transition in “Psycho” really influenced you wanting to do something that was structurally different.

DC: Yeah – that was the basis of “The Place Beyond the Pines” 20 years ago when I saw those films. I always dreamed of doing a triptych movie I just didn’t know what the story was. I didn’t have a song to sing – you know I had a melody but no song to sing. It wasn’t until my wife was pregnant with our second son that I realized I had a story and it was all about becoming a father again, it was all about legacy. I was thinking about what I was going to pass on to my child and what I was born with. I was thinking about my ancestors and how brutally they must have lived in order to survive – and now I’m eating with a knife and a fork and I’m civilized but there was incredible bloodshed in my past. Just thinking about the animal in us - it seemed like a ripe idea. It seemed like something very personal and very vulnerable for me to go into and I had this structure – like the father, the son, and the holy ghost. I had this skeleton and all of a sudden there was meat on it, there was blood pumping , and there was life in it.

In film school, my film professor Phil Solomon, when he saw my first student feature “Brother Tied,” he said “It’s too much ‘Look Ma, no hands!’” – he said “Derek, just ride the bike!” you know?

He said “Form must illuminate content.” I went to a very formalist film school, so I knew all about aesthetics and structure – what I really had to be ,mindful of from that point forward was story. What was the story?

TS: I don’t know if anybody else has said this and I hope you take it the right way, and I mean this in kind of a fun way, there are aspects of it that reminded me of “Star Wars.” Lucas went into that with a trilogy in mind, it’s a father-son story, you’ve got your own Han Solo/Greedo “Who shot first?” moment

DC: Yes, we do! (laughs) And then of course it changes in the new “Star Wars” and Han moves and Greedo shoots first. But in the original “Star Wars” Han shot first and I thought that made such a better character.

TS: Right! But you’ve got the debate of whether or not shooting first makes you a better character or makes you a bad person and I think it’s an odd analogy, and I don’t know if anybody else has stated it in these terms, but you’ve got the Han Solo/Greedo debate in the middle of “The Place Beyond the Pines.”

DC: The Han Solo/Greedo debate – 1977 version of “Star Wars.”

TS: Yes.

DC: Not the re-release. And that what was so interesting to me about Avery, Bradley Cooper in this movie, is that he’s that character who does, who preserves himself, who has the ability to keep himself alive. Survival of the fittest – that ruthlessness. And the guilt, psychologically, and your heart - how that corrupts your soul.

TS: To follow the same analogy, Han Solo does it casually and he’s cool with it. That’s who he is. Avery is not casual about it.

DC: No.

TS: It’s not something that’s easy for him to live with.

DC: No.

TS: The other aspect of the unconventionality of the screenplay structure that I thought was interesting, and I think you touched on it when you talked about your ancestors, is this is a film that from a Hollywood perspective is quite unconventional. But in terms of life it’s quite conventional – the decisions that you make 10 years ago, 20 years ago, or the decisions your parents made, affect what you do now. So I found it interesting to think that if this is unconventional in Hollywood terms but conventional in real life terms, does your movie essentially demonstrate how deficient in a sense, or broken, Hollywood’s fixation on these very linear three act stories is, rather than perhaps telling more meaningful life stories?

DC: Yeah. That’s interesting. Look, I relate to that because when I was 25 years old, living in Boulder, Colorado, I had a choice where I was going to go – New York or L.A. I figured if I go to L.A., everybody’s going to be out there making movies. My movies were going to be inspired by other movies. If I moved to New York, not everyone’s making movies out there, I’d be around people and maybe my movie would reflect the human experience and not other movies. And so I put myself in the place where I could try to make films about life. And as an audience member who’s loved films his whole life, as much as anyone I’ve ever met, I feel a great disconnect often times from the perfection I see up on the screen – and the Hollywood structure. My life doesn’t work in those three act structures. My life… I don’t have an exciting incident in my life all the time and I don’t always know what I want, and I don’t always have these clear character arcs….

TS: It certainly doesn’t resolve itself – like a 22 minute sitcom does.

DC: Yeah.

TS: I was sitting there thinking “Wow, I like this, I like the story you’re telling me, I like the structure you’re using to tell me the story you’re telling me.” But I was kicking myself at the end because, despite the fact that even early on I was thinking “This is unconventional” and I was enjoying it, I still found myself looking for a conventional ending. There’s a point there where you could have that wrapped up, neat Hollywood ending, where maybe Avery disowns A.J. [his son] and Jason [the son of Ryan Gosling’s character] ends up in law school with Avery picking up the tab.

DC: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

TS: Because he might feel more inclined to help the other guy’s son than his own son.

DC: Yeah.

TS: And it’s interesting to watch something unconventional and still try and think of it in conventional terms.

The interview continues in Part 2 - uploaded as a separate article due to length.

New film: The Host

2013-03-29T21:12:20Z

The Host

One of this week’s new movies is “The Host” based on the novel of the same name by Stephenie Meyer, known to most people as the author of the “Twilight” series of books. Meyer’s association with “The Host” is probably both the film’s best and worst marketing angle, given that the “Twilight” films have legions of both supporters and detractors. So what of the new film?

In “The Host,” Meyer again crafts a story centered on a female (or apparently female) character, with relationships seen from her perspective. I say “apparently” because the initial main character Melanie is taken over by an alien parasitic being called Wanderer and the alien species is never defined in terms of gender – so where Melanie is a female it’s not really clear what Wanderer is, other than an alien in a human female’s body.

This alien species has arrived on Earth some time previously, after colonizing multiple other planets, and all alien individuals require a human body to occupy. It’s not a new concept in fiction or film, but it’s handled quite well here with some interesting complications. Chief amongst those is, naturally, that humans aren’t thrilled at the idea of being occupied and small pockets of humans have gone into hiding – and so some of the aliens take on the role of ‘seeker’ to track down those pockets of resistance. Also, in some instances, the human host is not completely suppressed by the alien occupier, leading to a sort of captor/captive personality duality existing within the same body.

Melanie and Wanderer experience this duality and much of the story’s dramatic conflict is played out in arguments and conversations between the two of them. This is both interesting conceptually and also the film’s biggest problem. Having not read the book, I’m not sure how it plays out on the page, but it’s some blend of creepy and annoying on film. Both characters are played/voiced by Saoirse Ronan but the disembodied voice of Melanie, which we hear speaking to Wanderer internally, just sounds off. For starters, although angry at times, presumably for reasons of ratings consideration Melanie doesn’t employ the kind of colorful vocabulary one might expect to be employed by somebody yelling at an alien who has just taken over that person’s body. And the dialog in general just seems very childlike and simple – which sounds odd in discussions about having sex, for example (“We could be taken tomorrow, this might be our only night together!” [paraphrased])

This voiceover work, as well as the clunky dialog, is awkward enough to solicit giggles from the audience. It’s hard to decide if it might work better with less angsty delivery and it’s also hard to decide how else it might have been accomplished – but it’s still annoying to the point of distraction. Again, having not read the book, I’m also unsure of how much of that dialog is true to Meyer’s original text and how much is from screenwriter and director Andrew Niccol – but it’s not something you’re likely to look forward to hearing more of.

I sat watching “The Host” reminded of scenes between Anakin and Padme in the “Star Wars” prequels, scenes that were roundly panned for their stilted nature. But at least those had the somewhat mitigating circumstance of being between a universe wandering acolyte to a semi-hermitic warrior monk and the young Queen graduate of a juvenile diplomatic corps more versed in trade agreements than romance – it’s actually hard to imagine that conversation ever going smoothly. At times, one can give “The Host” a pass for similar reasons, given that one doesn’t expect a human/alien conversation to be without problems, but the human/human conversations are even worse. It’s adult topics written for tweens.

And some of those topics are very mature and intriguing. Not just the sex and killing aspects of the story, but the parts that dwell on what it means to be human. The idea that the aliens consider us to be worthy of their contempt as a species that readily kills each other and destroys our planet. But at the same time find us to be species that has the will to fight back against occupation, both internal and external, and as a species capable of love and sacrifice. Again, these aren’t original concepts but they still have merit even when borrowed.

Which leads me to what might be an observation that will annoy some people: That Stephenie Meyer reminds me of George Lucas – as somebody who can adapt existing themes and/or create new ideas that take the form of interesting and appealing story arcs but who, at the same time, manages to be pretty lousy at filling in the smaller details and dialog. To some extent, the same might be said of M. Night Shyamalan, as another person who has some neat ideas but who might be better served writing a treatment and then handing that outline to somebody else to execute.

Meyer’s “Twilight” series and “The Host” are stories written to appeal to girls and young women. The central characters are strong females, found to be attractive by multiple boys/men (with female characters on the cusp of adulthood, to keep one foot in both worlds). The same is true of the “Hunger Games” series of stories – and it’s a popular and very successful genre that you should expect to see more of. As I’ve said before, the simple idea of a love triangle between a high school girl, a vampire, and a werewolf is a neat starting point for a story in this genre, but the “Twilight” stories suffer in the details. Similarly, alien occupation and the internal conflict between characters is interesting, especially given the possibility that the host human and the occupying alien might fall in love with different people, giving rise to the possibility of love rectangles rather than mere triangles. But “The Host” also needs better detail work.

There are also other interesting ideas that the film fails to convey or explore. Meyer has said that she was interested in the topic of body image and aliens who would simply be grateful to have a body to occupy, perhaps regardless of its appearance. Yet “The Host,” on film, is populated by fit, attractive people – we’re not given happy aliens in obese bodies. And, as I mentioned earlier, we’re not really given an indication of gender as it applies to the alien “souls” and the film could have been a great opportunity to explore what it might mean to fall in love with a soul and then tackle the question of gender as depicted by the host body’s external sexual characteristics.

Instead, what we’re given is another interesting concept fundamentally flawed by stilted dialog, with mature topics reduced to fleeting exchanges and steamy kisses. So another likely success story to love or hate.

New films: Olympus Has Fallen, Admission, The Croods, Stoker, Spring Breakers

2013-03-22T20:22:11Z

A Directors Week

This is an interesting week with a slew of new releases, all of which are from directors with track records that include better or more interesting work than we’re getting now. Given the number of films this week, I’ll keep the reviews and commentary relatively short.

Olympus Has Fallen
Directed by Antoine Fuqua

Antione Fuqua is building a steady record of crime and action films, probably still most notably “Training Day” with Denzel Washington and Ethan Hawke. In “Olympus Has Fallen,” he gives us what is essentially “Die Hard: The White House” only with Bruce Willis being played by Gerard Butler. That said, it’s a far more enjoyable film and also closer to the original “Die Hard” model than the latest entry in that series and Willis could do a lot worse than go to Fuqua if he wants to keep going as John McClane (although Fuqua’s dance card seems pretty full for the next couple of years – with four films in production or pre-production according to imdb.com).

In serendipitous timing for the producers, given recent headlines and developments coming out of the Korean peninsula, the action in “Olympus Has Fallen” is based on the idea of the White House and President being taken by a team of North Koreans intent on forcing a U.S. pullout from that area of the world. The action sequences are well put together and, at times, realistically low tech – in the sense that a lot can be accomplished with radicals who are simply willing to die and with converted, everyday and unremarkable vehicles like sanitation trucks. But the film still relies on one of those key plot points that always seems a bit silly (a computer process with no override capability) and plays upon the idea that government officials are always vulnerable if they have loved ones who can be captured. You’re likely to walk away from a film like this thinking that politicians should have their families locked away in a military installation at all times or that the qualifying characteristics for President of the United States should read like a vintage Pony Express recruiting poster – no family or attachments, “orphans preferred.” As with almost any film of this kind, it’s far better as a low-thought action film than as a civics lesson.

Admission
Directed by Paul Weitz

Paul Weitz has a record that includes the original “American Pie,” the excellent “About a Boy” (that launched the film career of current it guy Nicholas Hoult), and the visually interesting “Cirque du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant” – any of which carry more appeal than “Admission.” Which isn’t to say that “Admission” is especially bad, just that it’s rather flat. I think the fact that I enjoyed it even as much as I did probably stems more from it being about college admissions and me being a college professor than from the quality of the production. It stars Tina Fey as a Princeton admissions officer and Paul Rudd as a teacher at a small, alternative school, trying to champion the cause of one of his students. Fey just seems underused here, delivering lines that would probably have been funnier if she had written them herself. Rudd, by comparison, seems quite appealing and comes across better than he often does (and I’m not implying that I don’t like him as an actor) in a role that appears more tightly scripted than some of his performances. Lily Tomlin plays Fey’s eccentric mother, and is fun to watch but it’s a role that is remarkably similar to Jane Fonda as Catherine Keener’s eccentric mother in 2011’s “Peace, Love and Misunderstanding” – they have been reduced to cranky, senior comic relief. The only relatively fresh parts of all of this are those that are focused on admissions decisions, and there are only enough of those to sustain a short film rather than an almost two hour feature.

The Croods
Written & Directed by Chris Sanders & Kirk De Micco

Kirk De Micco’s only prior directing credit is 2008’s “Space Chimps” but Chris Sanders is half of the directing team that brought us 2002’s much loved “Lilo and Stitch” and 2010’s excellent “How to Train Your Dragon.” The most surprising part of “The Croods” is that it was only written and directed by two people, because it feels like the work of a committee and is one of the most formulaic and bland (albeit pretty) animated features of the last few years. As with so many films these days, the preview packs in many of the highpoints and even that is formulaic and bland – which doesn’t leave much to look forward to. It’s like some kind of cross between the original “One Million Years B.C.” and the latest in the tired “Ice Age” franchise, with humans from two distinct stages of evolution desperately trying to escape the effects of continental drift. As with many of these types of film, the most appealing character is a cute anthropomorphized critter rather than one of the main cast, reinforcing the notion that animated films don’t need A-list voiceover talent (and would be much cheaper without it).

Stoker
Directed by Chan-wook Park

Chan-wook Park has a following of his own, probably being best known for 2003’s “Oldboy,” and is highly regarded for the visual elements in his films. And in that sense, “Stoker” is phenomenal – I sat wishing I could capture stills from what often seems more like a photography exhibit than a movie. Unfortunately, the storytelling doesn’t live up to the imagery. It’s well acted by Nicole Kidman, Mia Wasikowska, and Matthew Goode, and the basic story idea behind the film is intriguing – it simply isn’t well realized as a whole.

Wasikowska plays India Stoker, a high school loner whose closest companion has been her father, and who meets her mysterious uncle (Goode) for the first time at her father’s funeral. India is somewhat unusual herself, with extremely acute hearing for example, and Uncle Charles seems equally odd and out of place. As Charles insinuates himself into India and her (Kidman) mother’s lives, it becomes increasingly clear that all is not well in the Stoker family. But the film fails to fill in some of the causal links between characters and traits and provides moments that don’t fit what we’ve already been shown – like India dropping a letter onto a hard staircase and not hearing it, despite the impression given throughout the film that she most likely would have heard it dropped somewhere else in the house. This is a beautiful film that is likely to make you wish that some of the time spent caring about the appearance had been directed more towards the content.

Spring Breakers
Written & Directed by Harmony Korine

Harmony Korine came into the film scene in the 90’s as the writer of Larry Clark’s controversial “Kids” and “Ken Park,” and as writer and director of his own equally polarizing “Gummo.” His material tends to live at the edge of what many people would think of as either socially acceptable or, perhaps, a dividing line between art and porn. His first writing in “Kids” explored the harsh world of drugs and sex amongst a group of teenagers, especially the way some boys exploit girls for sex. It was harsh and raw and I remember a conversation with a colleague years ago in which he asked me “If you had daughters, would you let them watch it?” And I answered, “If I had daughters, I’d require them to watch it every time they wanted to leave the house!” It’s a film that would seem far more extreme if we didn’t live in a world that brought us the current Steubenville rape trial.

“Spring Breakers” lives in that same world, focusing on the underbelly of a bad spring break week for four female college students. Much of the imagery here looks like it came from the outtakes bin at “Girls Gone Wild,” and there’s certainly no shortage of bare breasts and other bikini-oriented closeups. But the narrative focus, is more on violence and exploitation, as the girls find themselves caught in the web of a local drug dealer (James Franco). To some extent, it’s still reminiscent of “Kids” as he pulls them into his world, for his purposes, although with respect to at least a couple of the students, it’s not clear who is exploiting whom (and they have a violent past of their own). Franco hams it up as the white rapping drug dealer, as does Vanessa Hudgens as one of the girls, alongside Korine’s own wife Rachel. The best performance comes from Selena Gomez as the one of the four who is most clearly out of her depth and willing to admit it.

But this is not a film for teen fans of any of those actors to flock to unaware of Korine’s style and approach to filmmaking. This is not a film that would get played at a meeting of the Selena Gomez fanclub – except perhaps the mature adult male branch of the Selena Gomez fanclub. Korine also repeatedly uses much of the same video and audio for a slightly disorienting effect in a 94 minutes film that might only have about 70-75 minutes of material. It’s harsh, raw, and crude in both its content and its appearance and isn’t remotely kid friendly.

New films: The Incredible Burt Wonderstone and The Call

2013-03-15T19:32:58Z

Beginnings and endings.

Yet another coincidence this week as I found myself watching a couple of otherwise enjoyable new films that had endings that didn’t really seem to match their beginnings - or their characters for that matter.

The Incredible Burt Wonderstone
Directed by Don Scardino

“…and the Amazing Anton Marvelton.”

Aside from the problems associated with very long titles, the fact that the sidekick’s name is missing from the title of the movie is indicative of the character of Burt Wonderstone (Steve Carrell) and his level of blowhard self-importance. He’s the bullied and ignored kid who rose to fame and fortune and lost all sense of reality and scale in his life. Although there’s another “Siegfried and Roy” reference in the film, he’s Siegfried crossed with somebody like Wayne Newton – a Vegas performer who makes no sense in almost any other context.

Having received a magic kit as a kid (on a birthday when his Mom left him a cake in the form of cake mix still in the box), he becomes enamored with the thrill and spectacle of magic and finds a new friend/sidekick in another equally awkward kid at school (Steve Buscemi as the adult Anton). Years later, they’re one of the biggest acts on the Vegas Strip – but all is not well behind the scenes. They’re the Simon & Garfunkel of magic – putting on a great show but bickering constantly off stage.

Meanwhile, traditional magic acts have lost their appeal in the face of stunts and street performers – and Jim Carrey plays street magician Steve Gray as a cross between David Blaine and a raving lunatic. His act is essentially gross-out magic porn and Wonderstone and Marvelton’s old school act can’t compete.

What follows is a classic fall and rise story of loss and redemption and the entire thing is really pretty funny to watch. It’s especially fun to watch Buscemi enjoying himself as something other than a creep or a psychopath, and Carrey (a little of whom goes a long way) in a supporting role. And Carrell nails Wonderstone early on, particularly in a scene where he attempts to perform the two man act by himself.

And while I have misgivings about a couple of aspects of the film, it’s worth noting that on balance I still enjoyed it overall – it’s simply fun and funny – although I wouldn’t want impressionable kids watching much of Carrey’s antics.

But I’ll point out what I think are storytelling flaws in a movie that really isn’t really intended to be dissected quite this much. Wonderstone comes a little too easily to his moment of epiphany in re-evaluating his life. You either have to believe that his prior cluelessness was all an act or that he snapped out of it virtually overnight. And, while the movie requires a grand finale, that ending doesn’t seem to fit well with either the characters or the arc that they’ve been on. Burt has met his original inspiration (Alan Arkin as the aging magician Rance Holloway) and seems to be back on track with the original wonder he felt as a kid – whereas the ending seems more Steve Gray than Wonderstone/Marvelton.

Stick around for the credits – again what you see seems out of character but it’s still funny. And try to spot the writers of the screenplay in the movie – both make brief appearances and one is a recognizable young actor (John Francis Daly) who’s onscreen for a couple of seconds as an EMT.

The Call
Directed by Brad Anderson

“The Call” is another movie that had me on board for all but the last couple of minutes of its running time. I think I’d have enjoyed it far more if something had caused me to leave the theater prior to the final scene. It makes me miss the days when real film would burn or break and cause a screening to grind to a sudden halt.

And, again, it’s a shame as it’s quite an enjoyable film up to that point and one of the more genuinely suspenseful films I’ve seen in some time. Even if I ignore the row of women sitting behind us who didn’t seem to have ‘inside voices’ – the audience as a whole seemed to be on a roller coaster of oohs and ahs through much of the film.

Halle Berry plays a 911 operator who, between random and routine disturbances, endures the heartbreak of receiving a call from the victim of an abduction, while it’s happening. There’s very little she can do and she inadvertently makes things worse, causing her to second, third and fourth guess herself and she no longer feels comfortable in that role. Months later, she unexpectedly finds herself in another situation with an abducted girl and is determined to make a difference.

It’s quite an interesting screenplay and sheds some light on a job that most of us know little about and have very little contact with other than, perhaps, an occasional frantic call. But the operators are repeatedly being inserted into stressful situations that they have little to no control over, often then abruptly disconnected without any immediate feedback (or perhaps any feedback whatsoever) as to what ultimately transpired. It’s not a level of stress most of us would feel comfortable with.

Abigail Breslin is solid in what’s quite a different role for her, as the second victim and in general the acting is about par for a modest action thriller, with one of the strongest “characters” being the call center itself and the associated computer capability (and I’m not going to jump to any conclusions, one way or another, regarding the accuracy of most of what we’re shown).

But despite a good build up and even a generally satisfying dénouement, I still can’t reconcile myself with the very end of the film. I’m not convinced it’s possible and I don’t buy it as what the characters involved would do. But that may just be me – and it was a fairly decent ride up until then.

New films: Dead Man Down and Oz the Great and Powerful - and other film news

2013-03-08T19:44:17Z

Courage, brains, and a heart … and a movie about Oz

Dead Man Down
Directed by Niels Arden Oplev

Oz the Great and Powerful
Directed by Sam Raimi

In an odd coincidence this week, after a screening of “Dead Man Down,” I was pondering its release alongside “Oz the Great and Powerful” and also recalling the “The Wizard of Oz” and its three characters in search of courage, brains, and a heart. Much to my surprise, “Dead man Down” which had looked like a fairly run of the mill action film in previews, actually has all three.

Having said that, it’s not a fantastic film, and it has some problems, but it’s far more interesting than I was expecting. It’s directed by Niels Arden Oplev who directed the original Swedish adaptation of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” and here he reteams with Noomi Rapace, who stars alongside Colin Farrell. The screenplay is by J.H. Wyman, whose last produced feature screenplay was for 2001’s “The Mexican” with Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts – having worked since then in TV, primarily producing and writing on “Fringe.”

Farrell stars as a man working with, but apparently not entirely beholden to, a rather undefined (or perhaps poorly defined) criminal organization. He lives in a high rise apartment, with windows facing the apartment of Rapace’s character and they have an awkward relationship which initially consists of tentatively waving to each other.

In the early parts of the film, each of their motivations remain largely unclear – she has suffered facial disfiguration from a car accident and he seems to be a bit of a fish out of water working as a gun-toting thug. On a couple of occasions, I found myself expecting something else to happen, not because the film is attempting to throw twists and turns at the audience, so much as that the pacing early on always seems very slightly off. Or the pacing is perfect in the sense that it does keep you second guessing yourself and that may be the intent. But it’s unusual and somewhat interesting, for example, to see a character go from a bloodbath shootout to eating a noodle bowl and vacuuming his apartment – and yet even criminals have a home life and, presumably, spend several hours a day not being criminals.

I also found myself questioning the pacing in “Oz the Great and Powerful.” It starts with James Franco’s Oz as a small time traveling carnival magician whose shenanigans catch up with him just in time for him to attempt escape in a balloon as a tornado approaches – whereupon the storm whisks him away to the magical Kingdom of Oz. The balloon ride itself seems largely an excuse to toss around objects, and Franco, in a way that will exploit the 3D imagery being employed, and Oz is like a compendium of the earlier film’s visuals mixed with every movie about a lost valley or a land lost in time.

All of the elements one expects are there: Good witches, wicked witches, flying monkeys, munchkins, etc. – with the notable exception of music. Here we have a film that isn’t a musical telling us a similar story to the narrative of the familiar stage musical “Wicked” and fulfilling the onscreen role of prequel to one of the great musicals of all time. Which isn’t to say that it should have been or needed to be a musical – but it happens to feel like a musical that’s had its songs pulled out. And, at 130 minutes long, it’s 29 minutes longer than “The Wizard of Oz” (although credit rolls have become far longer) without that movie’s recurring injection of upbeat happiness every time somebody burst into song. So, for me at least, it just felt longer than the relatively low energy could sustain. It’s cute and occasionally quite funny – but it just seems to keep plodding along without any great high points to lift itself out of a relatively mundane storytelling exercise about a non-wizard, set against a backdrop of actual visual wizardry (although I’d be quite happy to never see another film in which characters run over natural stone archways that crumble under their feet).

Which brings me back to courage, brains and heart – three things I wasn’t expecting to find more of in “Dead Man Down.” It’s a story that kept me engaged and it has far more nuance than any of the recent actions films from the Schwarzenegger/Stallone/Willis crowd (not that they are known for nuance). Farrell and Rapace both play damaged characters whose actions are grounded in deep loss and anger and there’s enough intricacy to the plot to keep it interesting despite flaws, such as the almost complete lack of a police presence through most of the movie despite groups of armed men strolling around.

“Oz the Great and Powerful” is clearly a more child-oriented film than “Dead Man Down” but I can generally get myself into a child’s frame of mind and enjoy a kids’ movie on the level it was intended to be enjoyed. Yet I find myself wondering if tinier butts than mine will shift around in their seats as much as I did through what seemed like an excessive running time – or whether 3D flying fanged baboons are a little too scary for a PG movie. That said, when I was a similar age, we sat through 144 minutes of “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” with one of the creepiest villains ever in the form of the child catcher. But that was another film that kept injecting oodles of energy in the form of songs I still remember 40+ years later – and attention spans weren’t quite such an endangered species.

My sense is that I’m probably going against the critical crowd here in recommending “Dead Man Down” for those who enjoy an action film that has more going on than just an excuse to rack up a spectacular body count. But I found myself genuinely enjoying the story I was being told and the character development employed in that telling. In comparison, the very differently targeted “Oz the Great and Powerful” is a visual treat for children, and adults who like shiny things, but I suspect that the pacing and running length will result in many chaperoned trips to the bathroom for tiny viewers and a desire amongst some older viewers to watch (and sing along to) “The Wizard of Oz” instead.

Other Film News

The Crest Theatre is transitioning its film program from regular run movies to programmed events and special screenings in its historic main auditorium. So, when possible, I'll include a list of upcoming film-related events and screenings.

Sacramento Jewish Film Festival - started last night and continues on Saturday and Sunday.

Girl Rising - a single screening at 5:45pm on Sunday, March 10th.

Citizen Hearst - a single screening on Thursday, March 14th.

For more details, descriptions, and schedules, visit www.thecrest.com.

New films: Jack the Giant Slayer, 21 and Over, plus Jewish Film Festival and other news

2013-03-01T21:04:45Z

A more upbeat week at the movies

After a relatively disappointing month of new releases, and no great expectation of that changing anytime soon, I was pleasantly surprised by two of this week’s new movies. Not that they’re especially wonderful, but they’re both quite a bit better than their previews might suggest.

Jack the Giant Slayer
Directed by Bryan Singer

Bryan Singer (“The Usual Suspects,” “X-Men,” “Superman Returns”) brings his B-game to this mashup of the traditional English fairy tales of “Jack and the Beanstalk” and “Jack the Giant Killer.” And for anyone who is offended that the movie takes generous liberties in blending and adapting these two stories into a new form, realize that the two “original” stories themselves liberally blended and adapted earlier folk tales from multiple source cultures.

In simple terms, in the traditional “Jack and the Beanstalk,” a character named Jack plants magic beans which produce a beanstalk that reaches up to a land where a rich giant lives. Jack ultimately robs and kills the Giant – and different versions of the story have suggested that the Giant previously killed Jack’s father, in order to make Jack seem more justified in his actions. By comparison, in “Jack the Giant Killer,” a character named Jack roams the countryside killing problem giants, helped by assorted magical weapons – in a story a little more like the serial witch hunting in the recent and awful film adaptation of the “Hansel and Gretel” story.

Throwing these elements together, in “Jack the Giant Slayer,” we get the magic beans and beanstalk elements – but instead of there being one giant at the top of the stalk, there’s a whole giant society with a history of killing humans on prior visits. It’s actually a blending of story elements that’s works surprisingly well as the basis for a tween adventure story.

The giants are, not surprisingly, all rendered in CGI and, while the level of sophistication is not as high as we’ve come to expect from characters like Gollum, they work well enough and seem to look better in the final version than in the previews. Also working better in the full film than in the previews is the dialog – this isn’t really a film of snappy one-liners and it doesn’t translate well when it’s cut down in that manner.

I think what made it work for me was that it’s really quite simple and, despite the modern filmmaking techniques, also quite old school in its storytelling. There’s no great attempt at trick endings or multi-level double and triple crossing – and even with its shared story origins, it remains very traditional in its delivery.

Here Jack (Nicholas Hoult – who also starred in what is still my favorite 2013 release “Warm Bodies”) is a simple farm boy who encounters the Princess (Eleanor Tomlinson), who’s quantum leaps out of his social league. He’s surrounded by a very traditional cast of supporting characters in the King (Ian McShane), the Captain of the Guard (Ewan McGregor), the evil courtier who covets power (Stanley Tucci), and the leader of the giants (Bill Nighy). And the depth of quality in that supporting cast is another aspect of the film’s modest success – although they aren’t given a great deal to do, they simply execute their respective parts very ably.

The screenplay is simple as well and it creates these well defined and uncomplicated characters that we expect in stories for younger children. And it isn’t weighed down by any awkward attempt to infuse adult humor into every other scene, to pander to the parents and older siblings in the audience. This is children’s story telling pure and simple, with the only complication being that it carries a PG-13 rating, presumably because the film is violent enough to produce a significant body count – albeit mostly death from a distance rather than up close and personal. In that respect, it reminded me of the second of the recent Narnia adaptations “The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian” which also produced an alarmingly high body count for a children’s movie in a similar siege situation.

“Jack the Giant Slayer” isn’t a great film, but it’s solid children’s storytelling and probably quite safe for kids who see more explicit violence in even mild video games or in their school cafeteria.

21 and Over
Written and Directed by Jon Lucas and Scott Moore

This is another film with a preview that undersells it as nothing more than a crass romp through vomit-inducing binge-drinking on a college campus. Which is a touchy subject in and of itself, especially with respect to 21st birthday celebrations. And the previews also suggest a more mean-spirited tone than it actually has.

What makes it work in practice, again at a modest level, is that it has a surprising amount of heart. It’s primarily a story about friendship and how friendships change over time, as high school and childhood friends move apart and go their separate ways. And for all of the crass dialog and ethnic/racial-based humor, it’s the kind you tend to find engaged in for fun within groups of tight-knit friends, rather than the kind that gets thrown at others with the intent of hurting or diminishing them. Which is the kind of distinction that’s hard to capture in a preview that lacks context.

To some extent it’s a film of odd contrasts. Jeff Chang’s two old friends, Miller and Casey, surprise him on his 21st birthday with plans for a night of drinking, but he has a medical school interview the next morning. Undeterred, they drag him out and although they put him into a ridiculous series of compromising positions, they also refuse to ever abandon him. It’s peer pressure meets loyalty.

It’s also a film that has unexpectedly deeper messages in its consideration of not just friendship, but also bullying – and not just the big man on campus style of bullying, but also the kind perpetrated by parents who exert extreme pressure in a manner than can be just as damaging. And it does it all wrapped in a steady barrage of dialog that is often so funny that entire lines are missed as the audience is still recovering from the fits of laughter resulting from the previous line.

As with “jack the Giant Slayer,” it’s not a great film – but it’s a film that might surprise you by managing to convey a message, while still being crude in an amusing way, and by avoiding the mean spiritedness of so many similar attempts at comedy.

Sacramento Jewish Film Festival and other film news

One of the region’s oldest film festivals, the Sacramento Jewish Film Festival, turns 16 this year and will screen four feature films and three shorts over three days next week at the Crest Theatre. The Festival opens on Thursday, March 7th and continues on Saturday, March 9th and Sunday, March, 10th. The full schedule and ticket information can be found at www.thecrest.com.

Also playing next week in the Crest Theatre, in its expanding lineup of special, limited engagement film events, is “The Bitter Buddha” about standup comedian Eddie Pepitone. Covering life on and off stage, and complete with interviews from other funny folks, this portrait of a comedian’s comedian screens on Tuesday, March 5th and Wednesday, March 6th only. More details and ticket information at www.thecrest.com.

New films: Snitch and Bless Me, Ultima - plus other film news

2013-02-22T10:16:53Z

Snitch
Co-Written and Directed by Ric Roman Waugh

There are some aspects of “Snitch” that I admire and that aren’t immediately apparent in the lowest common denominator style of previews that tend to get made to promote films. On its face, it’s a story about a father who goes undercover to assist in the capture of drug dealers in return for a reduced sentence for his son. That’s the kind of action film one might expect from Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and would probably be enough to draw a respectable action-oriented audience.

But there’s more to “Snitch” than that and the action story is essentially a cover for an indictment of mandatory sentencing laws as they apply to drug offenses. In this case, the son has taken reluctant delivery of a package of pills for a friend and, despite no other convictions, is facing anywhere from 10-30 years in prison for his stupidity. There’s a slide that pops up on screen at the end of the film (which doesn’t spoil the plot) that states that the average sentence for first-time, non-violent drug offenders is now longer than that for rapists, child molesters, and those who commit manslaughter.

This is a little like an attempt at low-rent Soderbergh, in the sense that Steven Soderbergh often makes films in which the surface story exists as cover for some deeper social commentary, as I discussed in this column two weeks ago in relation to his latest film “Side Effects.” And it’s not surprising to see an actress like Susan Sarandon, who is a champion of social justice, getting involved in a project like this and playing the self-interested and generally unsympathetic U.S. Attorney.

But, sadly, none of that motivation and admirable set of goals actually makes the film especially good. The major problem is that the underlying social commentary isn’t actually underlying at all. It’s in your face all the time – it’s like being blatantly bashed over the head with stick labeled “subtle head-bashing stick.” It does get its message across and will probably outrage anybody who isn’t just there to watch gun battles and fast big rigs – but in that sense it’s an odd mismatch for the target audience who aren’t being attracted to the film with promises of a civics lesson. And for those who might find the lesson interesting, the final slide tells us almost as much as the 100+ minutes that precede it and a documentary would have told us and (most likely) outraged us far more.

It’s also at least a little odd in its casting. Johnson is a huge guy and we’re used to seeing him as an unstoppable fighter of some kind. In “Snitch” he plays the owner of a construction company but it’s a role that could be played by an actor of far slighter build. I’m all for him trying new things and not giving in to stereotypical roles but the fact remains that he’s huge and he’s the kind of guy that commands attention when he walks into a room, or who is at least likely to elicit some kind of remark or raised eyebrows based on his physique. And his character is going into some pretty tough situations, and even taking a beating along the way, with no more attention being paid to his appearance than to a man half his width. Kudos to him for choosing (and co-producing) a film with a message, but it’s a little like those films in which a stunningly beautiful actress plays a character who’s supposed to be very plain and overlooked – they’re like orchids playing wallflowers.

Perhaps I’m wrong and this is the way to stealthily impart a political message to an unsuspecting audience, many of whom will be in the same demographics as those who tend to fall victim to the kind of injustice being depicted. But it’s as heavy-handed as the kinds of characters Johnson more typically plays.

Bless Me, Ultima
Written (screenplay) and Directed by Carl Franklin

“Bless Me, Ultima” is the screen adaptation of one of the most influential and best selling Chicano novels – a book that has managed to be both widely adopted by schools and colleges and also controversial for its violent and sexual content, as well as its religious commentary.

Set in New Mexico during WWII, the story is told through the eyes of young Antonio who is seven at the start of the film, when his parents allow Ultima, an elderly ‘Curandero’ or healer to move in with them. He has two older sisters living in the house and three older brothers who are away fighting in the war. But he’s drawn to Ultima who is revered by some and feared by more, with her knowledge and curative abilities earning her the label of ‘bruja’ or witch from some in the community.

Antonio’s mother, along with most of their friends and neighbors, is staunchly Catholic and dreams of Antonio becoming a priest one day. She’s the calm, stable parent where his father comes from a family of wanderers and dreams of moving to California when the older sons return. Antonio’s is also a very unsheltered childhood in that he witnesses violent deaths, threats and feuds, and is exposed to such open secrets as the town brothel which, as with many such businesses, is looked down upon but apparently not short of clientele.

His days are divided between the cultural influences of his public school, where he excels, his Catholic catechism classes, and time spent with Ultima as she shares her views of good and evil in a less formalized context. But for every nugget of information she shares, there are other influences such as his school peers who discuss the nature of sin and declare that heaven isn’t just not for atheists but also not for protestants. And his generally ostracized friend Florence who explains his own lack of faith very matter of factly by saying that his mother died young, his father drank himself to death, and his sister is a prostitute – and so he doesn’t find much reason to love a God that could allow those things to happen. It’s an exchange one normally sees between far older characters. So Antonio is caught in the middle of conflicting worldviews, perspectives, and cultures and largely left to himself to synthesize and, perhaps, blend them all.

It’s a hard film to assess objectively because it has both great strengths and also weaknesses. On the one hand it’s reminiscent of other films from assorted genres: When the film is being narrated by the older Antonio, it feels a little like a blend of Sunday School and “Stand by Me” and the idea of a child being influenced by multiple older personalities and trying to determine whom he might become reminded me of the central core of Terrence Malick’s “The Tree of Life.” Similarly, the idea of a young boy being exposed to multiple religious and cultural influences, and needing to make sense of them all to his own satisfaction, brought to mind the recent “Life of Pi.”

But it’s also a low budget production without many bells or whistles. Some viewers may be put off that it doesn’t feel as theatrical as much of what they’ve become used to at the multiplex. For me it felt more like films I see in a Festival context with some of the same flaws. For example, there’s an extended sequence set in a room that’s supposedly lit by a few candles and an oil lamp – and yet the lighting on the characters in all corners of the room is bright and vivid. One of the problems with good lighting is that it’s not always about getting enough light it’s often about not getting too much.

Additionally, it's a film that’s dependent on the performances of children, with at least some variation in those outcomes and with little visible aging over an onscreen period of a couple of years. And while some of the characters may seem a little crudely drawn, it’s worth remembering that they’re being channeled through a child’s memory.

However, the story is what’s most important here. In that sense it also reminds me of a film like Clint Eastwood’s “Gran Torino” which employed many non-actors and is occasionally a little shaky in its delivery. For some that was an insurmountable detriment yet (at least for me) it couldn’t mask the powerful story, character study, and parallel coming of age themes that the movie provided.

“Bless Me, Ultima” is not always quite polished and the performances are a mixed bag but it’s another film that’s primarily about the central character’s story and arc. And in that sense it’s a powerful depiction of cultures, personalities, and heritage that often conflict with and sometimes reinforce each other, as seen through the eyes of an innocent participant-observer who’s left to make sense of it all.

Sacramento French Film Festival Winter Shorts
The Sacramento French Film Festival (described recently by the Sacramento Bee as the “region’s premier film event”) is heading into its 12th season with its main event in June but, because Junes are so far apart, the Festival has a few fun events to fill in the slow months. The next of these is Saturday’s (February 23rd) 6th Winter French Short Film Screening at the Verge Center for the Arts, 625 S Street, Sacramento. Doors open at 6:30pm for free music and pizza (by Luigi’s Slice), with films and discussion to start at 7:30pm. The $7 admission benefits both the Festival and Verge and includes a recap of the César Awards (the “French Oscars” which will have been awarded the night before) and over two hours of short films, including seven Sacramento premieres. The full lineup of films can be found on the Festival’s website at www.sacramentofrenchfilmfestival.org.

Oscar Shorts
In a pleasant surprise, the Crest Theatre has managed to squeeze the Oscar Nominated Documentary Shorts back into its schedule for an extra weekend – so you can still see all of the Oscar nominated short films (live action narratives, animated narratives, and documentaries) on the big screen. You can even watch them all in a row if you have the stamina. Check the Crest’s website at www.thecrest.com for scheduling and ticket information.

New films: A Good Day to Die Hard, Beautiful Creatures, Safe Haven

2013-02-15T20:40:43Z

New films

For the third week in a row, I find myself recommending the zombie love story “Warm Bodies” over any of the other new 2013 releases – or any of the Oscar best picture nominees that are still playing around town.

A Good Day to Die Hard
Directed by John Moore

I wrote recently about the new Schwarzenegger and Stallone movies and here’s the third leg of the trifecta of aging action stars – although Bruce Willis is the youngest of the three by 8-9 years and, although less massive than the others, actually looks to be in better shape in terms of generally mobility. Sadly, none of the three movies is very good, with this one probably matching “The Last Stand” for some fun moments, ahead of “Bullet to the Head’s” darker onslaught.

One aspect of the “Die Hard” franchise that’s appealing is that John McClane is a character that tends to stumble into trouble, rather than seeking it out – and to some extent it serves the series well as he ages, as we don’t rush to roll our eyes quite so often as with Stallone’s characters eagerly rushing into situations as though he’s still half his age. It’s also neat to see McClane as the father of an action hero of his own – and this could have been an excellent opportunity to pass the torch and transition to the new generation, but there seems to have been an eagerness to throw Willis back to the foreground even in scenes where it was unnecessary or, worse, distracting.

This happens repeatedly early in the movie in what is, admittedly, a fun to watch car chase scene, including sequences with McClane driving a Mercedes SUV* along the top of lines of other vehicles. The action here speaks for itself, or at least it should have been allowed to, and yet almost every time the shot cuts back to Willis, we get a ridiculous one liner shouted at the audience for no better apparent reason than to remind us it’s really Willis’ movie, even though the more central action is taking place further down the road. (*Note that where “The Last Stand” featured multiple GM vehicles in what at times felt like a feature length commercial, “A Good day to Die Hard” has Willis jumping between Daimler AG products, from the Unimog truck, to the Mercedes SUV, to a Maybach sedan – and I can only assume that the folks at Daimler enjoyed watching the production team explode three BMW’s.)

From that moment on, it’s a constant rush of action that doesn’t make much sense but is occasionally fun to look at – such as a scene in which a series of glass ceilings come crashing to the ground. But it’s also a movie that could easily justify wearing earplugs as it reaches its concluding moments.

The “Die Hard” franchise has thrived when at its most simple. Now that we’ve been introduced to the equally tough son, it would be neat to get back to the quasi-claustrophobic single venue, like a locked down building, rather than chasing nuclear secrets across Russia. Bring the action to McClane, rather than having McClane chasing the action – that feels too much like a different franchise.

Beautiful Creatures
Written (screenplay) & Directed by Richard LaGravenese

While this is likely to be the best reviewed of this week’s movies, although still not positively so, I disliked it pretty much from the start. I’ll be honest and admit that I’m easily bothered by actors faking accents they don’t seem entirely comfortable with and this is an accent-faking Smörgåsbord from start to finish, across most of the significant cast. And when you’re dealing with characters who live a magical existence, one wonders why they would have to fake accents at all – just have them speak in their natural voices and have a throwaway line about choosing the way they sound. Otherwise you end up with fine actors like Jeremy Irons and Emma Thompson having to worry more about their pronunciation than their material.

Not that the material is that great to begin with – at least not at this moment in time. And, to be fair, the sequencing of movie openings has an effect here – as “Beautiful Creatures” has a tendency to make you think of multiple other franchises as you watch it, never feeling quite original at any moment in the story. But it’s not just the story and how derivative it might feel that’s the problem, it’s the telling of that story and the extent to which it’s permitted to make sense.

It centers around a high school student in a small, insular Southern town who’s drawn to the new girl in school, who just happen to be a member of the local family with all the deep, dark secrets that scare the local good Christian folks. What Ethan soon discovers is that Lena is a “caster” (as in spell caster – which is apparently less offensive than “witch”) – a fact that neither seems to surprise or alarm him as much as one might expect. Naturally, there’s much infighting in the caster family tree, rivalries, a birthday deadline, and more for everybody to deal with.

But within this context, there are scenes that seem either out of order or poorly conceived. For example, Ethan is partially taken care of by Amma, (Viola Davis) who delivers meals for him and his father, who has stayed hidden away since the death of his wife. Amma is, to Ethan, just the local librarian and friend of the family who helps them out. But when Ethan and Lena get wrapped up in some witchy/castery happenings, Amma comments on them in a clearly knowledgeable way without Ethan reacting to her knowledge. It would make sense later in the film, after such a confrontation has occurred, but not at a moment when Amma, from Ethan’s perspective, ought to be out of that loop.

The end result is a film that’s likely to remind audiences of others like the “Twilight” and “Harry Potter” series (it’s hard not the think “muggle” when you hear the casters say “mortal”) but which, at best, might rival the weakest of the “Twilight” films (which itself isn’t a high bar to begin with). But when it comes to “normal guy falls in love with a witch” stories, it doesn’t bring much more to the table (even a furiously spinning dining room table at a supremely dysfunctional caster family dinner) than a “Bewitched” marathon on TV.

Safe Haven
Directed by Lasse Hallström

It’s worth noting at the start here that I have nothing against movies of this kind – and I’ve enjoyed prior adaptations of Nicholas Sparks’ novels. But this one bothered me throughout much of its running length. For starters, it wants to keep you guessing a little about the main character and what she appears to be running from, yet the character development has very little subtlety and therefore there’s no real mystery involved.

The central romance between Julianne Hough and Josh Duhamel is solid, backed up by credible performances by the child actors, but the film deviates from the typical romantic tale by venturing into a different realm. It’s too much of a spoiler to the plot to even hint at what happens – however the outcome is another example of a little too much prior telegraphing. At the point that the movie wants to surprise viewers, the reaction is as likely to be “I had a feeling that was going to happen” as “Wow!” And given that I had already had one of those “Oh please don’t have THAT happen…” moments where I anticipated the ending, I was generally underwhelmed.

My own disappointment comes from having loved much of director Lasse Hallström’s prior work, including “My Life as a Dog,” “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape,” and last year’s wonderful “Salmon Fishing in the Yemen” – although his most successful films are probably “Chocolat” and “The Cider House Rules.” He’s one of the best directors working and that’s what makes this so surprising – although he isn’t really known for the slow reveal of a hidden mystery, so that may be a part of the problem. I’m guessing that it probably worked a little better on the page than on the screen.

Oscar documentary shorts at the Crest: Special combo ticket

2013-02-15T08:24:58Z

This Weekend Only: Oscar Documentary Shorts Nominees

Two weeks ago, in my regular column, I described the process through which the Oscar-nominated short films are selected. At that time, I reviewed the five animated narrative shorts and the five live action narrative shorts. Those two programs continue in regular release at Sacramento’s historic Crest Theatre.

Additionally, this weekend, for two days only, the Crest will screen the five documentary shorts nominees. Shorts, in Academy terms, are shorter than feature films but can still reach 40 minutes in length. This year’s nominees are collectively long enough that the Crest will screen them in two programs this weekend, on Saturday and Sunday afternoon only.

The following film information is provided by the distribution company:

Documentary Program A
• King's Point (Directed by Sari Gilman and Jedd Wider, Country of Origin: USA, Language: English, Running Time: 40 minutes) Over the course of a decade, five senior citizens living in the Kings Point retirement community face loss, illness and an increasing sense of isolation in their lives.
• Mondays at Racine (Directed by Cynthia Wade and Robin Honan, Country of Origin: USA, Language: English, Running Time: 39 minutes) On the third Monday of every month, sisters Cynthia and Rachel open their Long Island beauty salon to women undergoing chemotherapy.
• Inocente (Directed by Sean Fine and Andrea Nix Fine, Country of Origin: USA, Language: English, Running Time: 40 minutes) Fifteen-year-old Inocente, a homeless, undocumented immigrant, clings to her determination to become an artist in the face of a bleak future.

Documentary Program B
• Redemption (Directed by John Alpert and Matthew O’Neill, Country of Origin: USA, Language: English, Running Time: 35 minutes) In New York City, individuals known as canners survive by collecting cans and bottles from trash and recycling bins and redeeming them for money.
• Open Heart (Directed by Keif Davidson and Cori Shepherd Stern, Country of Origin USA, Language: English, Running Time: 39 minutes) Eight Rwandan children with serious heart disease travel to the Salam Centre in Sudan for treatment.

On both days, Program A will screen at 1 p.m. and Program B will screen at 3:40 p.m. The $12.50 ticket ($10 seniors/students) is good for both programs – and you can chose to see them both on one day or split your viewing across two days (e.g., you can watch Program B on Saturday and Program A on Sunday).

Editor’s note: Every Thursday we deliver a local event guide straight to your inbox, right on time to make your weekend plans. Sign me up.

New films: Identity Thief and Side Effects

2013-02-08T21:15:56Z

A disappointing week

Maybe it’s just me but I’ve had a disappointing week at the movies – probably not helped by wishful thinking if not actually especially high expectations. And the near future isn’t looking any better, but more on that next week. This week’s major releases include a comedy starring people whose work I’ve generally liked, until now, and a thriller against a backdrop of prescription drug use from a director I normally appreciate far more than this.

Identity Thief
Directed by Seth Gordon

The idea of a comedy starring Jason Bateman and Melissa McCarthy appeals to me – before you could even tell me a subject matter or a premise, that idea would pique my interest. And there are moments in “Identity Thief” where their two styles and personalities play off each other to great effect, with laugh out loud results. The problem is that if you gathered them together, those moments don’t manage to fill a feature running length and the parts in between just aren’t as appealing.

Partly it’s a matter of inconsistent tone, as I often find myself lamenting in this column. This is a crime, revenge, road trip, comedy, occasionally slapstick, burgeoning buddy movie – and if that sounds unfocused, it’s because it is. It’s also a movie that manages to worry you about the ease with which a thief can steal enough of your identity to max out all your lines of credit, while hoping that you’ll find the idea of just that happening to a nice guy to be a source of great humor.

Jason Bateman is that nice guy, a married corporate accountant with two kids and another on the way. He happens to have a gender neutral name, Sandy, and discovers to his dismay that a woman in another state is using his name and his credit. Melissa McCarthy is the woman who apparently impulse buys everything she ever glances at, drifting from one person’s credit profile to another with ease and indifference. The police are depicted as being relatively disinterested, especially given the distances involved, and he hatches a plan to find the woman and bring her back to admit her guilt and clear his good name.

This plot, apart from being ridiculous in and of itself, adds to the problems because we’re supposed to like this guy and feel sympathetic towards him, but his behavior very quickly devolves into that of an abusive kidnapper. Of course he’s being provoked the whole time and has plenty to be unhappy about, but it’s a movie that wants us to be touched by emotions in one scene while finding it inherently funny to see a woman smashed in the face with a guitar in another. It’s also a movie that might appear to be cutesy on some level, or somewhat tween friendly, but it earns its R rating with some quite suggestive sex remarks and behavior, as well as through recurring gun violence (at some point in time, she’s annoyed people much more dangerous than movie critics).

If you want to laugh this weekend, you’re better off with last week’s “Warm Bodies.”

Side Effects
Directed by Steven Soderbergh

I admire Steven Soderbergh and much of his work and, like my initial reaction to hearing who was in “Identity Thief,” seeing his name associated with a film is likely to get my hopes up. Throw in a decent cast, especially Jude Law, and there’s almost zero chance that I won’t see the film. And I’ll be honest here, upfront, and note that the film seems to be getting decent reviews from other critics – but it didn’t do much for me.

Soderbergh has an impressive resume by any standard. His “Erin Brockovich” and “Traffic” both came out in a single year (2000), he’s had fun with the “Ocean’s…” series (“…Eleven,” “…Twelve,” “…Thirteen”), and in the last couple of years he’s been all over the genre map with “Contagion,” “Haywire,” and “Magic Mike,” albeit with mixed results. To some extent, “Side Effects” feels more like some of the earlier films, with a dramatic story set against a backdrop of a societal ill or problem, with both the story and the problem sharing screen time. Here, instead of corporate pollution or drug trafficking, we get a murder story within the context of the prevalence of prescription drug use, specifically anti-depressants and the various other drugs they’re sometimes prescribed with.

The first half of the movie is a depiction of descent into a personal hell for a young woman (Mara Rooney) whose insider-trader husband’s (Channing Tatum) release from a fairly low security prison seems to coincide with a return to her own problems with depression. She ends up being treated by Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law) who happens to be on duty at the local hospital when she’s brought in after what appears to be a failed suicide attempt.

The cast is actually very good and the acting from these three is solid. It’s also interesting see Tatum, who worked with Soderbergh on his own project “Magic Mike” in a very simple role that could have been played by almost any working actor. And I mean that in a good way, in that he’s been cast purely to act a modest but critical part, rather than being cast in order to take off his shirt, or shorts.
As the story progresses, and bad things happen, the focus turns to Dr. Banks and the course of treatment he chose, and he’s given reason to review the events and second guess himself, while also discovering assorted details that cause his whole take on the situation to shift. But that’s where the mystery kicks in and I’ll leave that for you to enjoy, or not, on your own.

In the background, while all this is happening, there’s a running theme about drug use and prescriptions. One character comments on how convenient it is to have a doctor who can write prescriptions as she takes something to calm herself before a job interview. As Rooney’s character talks about depression, seemingly everybody she encounters (at least every woman) has their own experience with treatment and drug use. At times it’s like “Silver Linings Playbook” without the silver linings as they casually swap stories about specific brand names.

There are also moments where we see drugs being advertised in the manner that has become a source for comedy skits, as the listed side effects take up more air time than the claimed benefits. And Dr. Banks makes an interesting comment about the difference in attitudes towards related treatment in the UK and the US (a sign of being sick versus a sign of getting better).

That said, it’s not a film that takes a position against the use of such drugs, but it is a film that points out just how powerful they can be, and how varied the outcomes are for different people with treatment often being a process of trial and error, with the errors occasionally being tragic. And it’s a film that demonstrates the inherent conflicts of interest as doctors participate in clinical trials, being paid by drug companies, and patients are lured into trying untested drugs by virtue of the trials providing free medication.

All of which I tend to like in a film – good acting, a central story, and a backdrop of social commentary. But my problem was with the story itself – it twists and turns as any good drama or mystery is prone to do and it seems reliant on its ability to keep you thinking and/or guessing. The problem being that it seemed too predictable throughout – not that it was entirely obvious how the movie would progress from the very start, but it always seemed fairly obvious where the movie was going several scenes in advance. And this isn’t helped by having one of those revealing openings and then jumping backwards in time to see how we got there – there’s a moment in the film that would have been better served without that advance notice, like it pulled its biggest punch. It also feels obliged to go back and visually explain things that have already happened. It’s well produced and well acted, but I like my mysteries more mysterious.

If you want a good drama this week, you’re better off working down the list of Academy Award best picture nominees.

New films: Oscar Shorts, Warm Bodies, and Bullet to the Head

2013-02-01T21:11:15Z

Oscar Shorts

Even for most dedicated film goers, the shorts categories at the Academy Awards are often some of the most obscure, with short films that have primarily been seen in various Academy sanctioned film festivals (with one or two exceptions, typically among big name animated films that sometimes play in support of a mainstream feature film). However, despite their relative obscurity, the shorts are subject to some of the fairest final voting in the entire competition.

(And I make that distinction between final voting and nominations, because there are always wonderful short films out there that weren’t seen in regular theaters and which might have won in festival competitions, but not necessarily the festivals that the Academy monitors.)

One of the recurring complaints about the awards process is that there’s rarely any indication or any way of ensuring that voters have actually watched the films they’re voting for. Or that they’ve watched the other films in the same category. As I mentioned previously in this column, nominations in most Academy categories are made by Academy members who work within the same category as the award being considered (i.e., editors nominate films for editing awards, directors for directing awards, makeup artists for makeup awards, etc.). But final voting in most categories is open to all members of the Academy.

The exceptions to this are the short film categories, precisely because of the obscurity of the films. The Academy holds special screenings of each set of short films, and only those who view all films in a category can vote within that category. In other words, the final voters have actually watched the films.

This year, the Crest Theatre is continuing its tradition of giving local film lovers the same opportunity to watch all of the short films in special screenings, with the live action and animated narrative shorts both opening today in a regular release schedule, and the documentary shorts playing over two days, two weeks from now (with reviews coming prior to their opening).

Live Action Shorts
This year’s live action narrative shorts are a darker set than in some recent years, with all of them being dramatic in content rather than, for example, comedic. They cover a range of life situations and lessons, from childhood, through old age, to death, with coincidental themes of hope and loss. (There’s no significance to the sequence of the following list and running times are approximate.)

Death of a Shadow (Directed by Tom Van Avermaet and Ellen De Waele, Country of Origin: France and Belgium, Language: Dutch, Running Time: 20 minutes) A tragedy in which a young soldier is sub-contracted by Death to reap souls in the form of shadows cast in the last moment of life, in return for an opportunity to live again. It’s an interesting counterpoint to “Curfew” in looking at the desire to live versus the desire to die.

Henry (Directed by Yan England, Country of Origin: Canada, Language: English, Running Time: 21 minutes) An interesting take on the subject of senility and dementia, taken from the perspective of the person suffering rather than from the perspective of family members, as is more often the case. “Henry” tackles the sense of confusion and fear accompanying a condition like Alzheimer’s.

Curfew (Directed by Shawn Christensen, Country of Origin: USA, Language: English, Running Time: 19 minutes) “Curfew” opens with a young man sitting in a bathtub of his own diluted blood, having cut himself, when the phone rings and he’s invited back into a family world that he had previously been excluded from. See the above note regarding “Death of a Shadow.”

Buzkashi Boys (Directed by Sam French and Ariel Nasr, Country of Origin: Afghanistan, Language: Persian, Running Time: 28 minutes) Set in a vision of everyday life in Afghanistan, which we rarely see, “Buzkashi Boys” features the lives of Rafi, the son of a third-generation blacksmith, and his friend Ahmad, a street beggar and occasional thief. Ahmad has nothing and nobody in his life and dares to dream big, whereas Rafi has just enough to be stable and fears losing that.

Asad (Directed by Bryan Buckley and Mino Jarjoura, Country of Origin: South Africa, Language: Somali, Running Time: 18 minutes) Asad is a young Somali boy who wants to join the local pirate crew, rather than being a fisherman, a profession he has little aptitude for. But he also has a family to feed.

Among this group, “Curfew” felt like the most fully realized story and would be my personal pick, although Academy voters are sometimes drawn to bleaker tales of strife and the conflicts in Somalia and Afghanistan certainly add those themes to “Asad” and “Buzkashi Boys.” “Henry” is well done, with a sense of thriller or mystery for the patient and of great loss for somebody close to him, but it probably focuses on the most well visited topic here, especially within the scope of short films I’ve seen in recent years. “Death of a Shadow” is almost claustrophobic in its limited locations but also has perhaps the best art direction of the five. Conceptually, “ Buzkashi Boys” and “Asad” are attempting to tackle the biggest open-ended questions, with the former looking at ambition and risk in making life choices, while the latter is trying to give us a sense of a place where morality and is so confused and choices are so limited that a young boy can in one moment sense the wrong in lying while also desiring the notoriety and opportunity in piracy (where piracy is more of a business model than a crime).

Animated Shorts
Two of the five animated shorts are essentially “ringers” in this company, with a Fox produced short featuring Maggie Simpson, which played in theaters with “Ice Age: Continental Drift” (and which was better than the feature), and a Disney produced short “Paperman” that played in theaters with “Wreck-it-Ralph.” As with prior animated shorts programs, the running times here are generally brief and the program contains additional films, although these were not available for review. (There’s no significance to the sequence of the following list and running times are approximate.)

Maggie Simpson in ‘The Longest Daycare’ (Directed by David Silverman, Country of Origin: USA, Language: English, Running Time: 5 minutes) Marge Simpson drops Maggie off at the “Ayn Rand School for Tots” (a joke that would have been funnier if it hadn’t been repeated), where she’s assessed as being average and is left to fend for herself, denied the benefits afforded to the “gifted” children.

Adam & Dog (Directed by Minkyu Lee, Country of Origin: USA, Language: No dialog, Running Time: 16 minutes) Set in the Garden of Eden, “Adam & Dog” provides simple insight into the relationship between man and ‘man’s best friend.’

Fresh Guacamole (Directed by PES, Country of Origin: USA, Language: English, Running Time: 2 minutes) The briefest and perhaps the most innovative, “Fresh Guacamole” might have been called “Diced Vegetables” as it mixes claymation, stop action human hands, and clever use of other objects, most notably dice.

Head Over Heels (Directed by Timothy Reckart and Fodhla Cronin O’Reilly, Country of Origin: UK, Language: English, Running Time: 11 minutes) There are multiple metaphors in life about couples growing apart, no longer seeing eye to eye, and regarding relationships requiring effort to maintain and keep alive. “Head over Heels” tackles those themes through an elderly couple whose existences have become about as separate as possible while still remaining in the same house.

Paperman (Directed by John Kahrs, Country of Origin: USA, Language: English, Running Time: 7 minutes) A young man is immediately attracted to a young woman, who he then sees again from his office window. But his attempts to attract her attention are unsuccessful until they are taken out of his hands.

There’s no denying the polish and production values in “The Longest Daycare” and “Paperman,” with “Paperman” being the fresher of the two. But my pick of this group is “Head Over Heels” which takes a look at the way relationships change over time, with a wonderful running visual metaphor and a sense that the world it creates has been a long time in the making. “Fresh Guacamole” is quick and cute, but feels more like an exercise or an animated visual pun, and “Adam & Dog” feels lightweight and overly long in this company.

Bonus Moviebriefs

Warm Bodies
This is probably my favorite genuine 2013 release so far (excluding the late 2012 award season movies that are still trickling out). It’s also one of the freshest feature length takes on the zombie genre for a few years. “Warm Bodies” is not only a zombie love story, but it’s a zombie love story told from the perspective of the zombie. I’ve seen this before in a neat festival-circuit short film called, simply, “Zombie Love” – but that was also a musical, where “Warm Bodies” is a clever, funny consideration of what it means to be trapped in the body of a zombie, yearning for brains but also for so much more. It stars Nicholas Hoult, who’s been acting since he was three and is perhaps best known as the boy in “About a Boy,” the younger man in “A Single Man,” and the big man on campus in the first two seasons of the UK version of “Skins.” He’s excellent here as “R” (which is as much of his former name as he can remember) and is well supported by Rob Corddry as a fellow zombie and John Malkovich as the leader of the uninfected humans.

Bullet to the Head
Coming so soon after Arnold Schwarzenegger’s poor performing “The Last Stand,” it’s hard not to draw comparisons with Sylvester Stallone’s new “Bullet to the Head.” But, aside from being action films from aging action stars and friends, they’re quite different in tone. Where “The Last Stand” acknowledged and had fun with Arnold’s age and somewhat diminished physical condition, “Bullet to the Head” wants us to keep thinking of Sly as an indestructible, fighting machine, virtually regardless of circumstance or opponent. It’s also far more brutal and casual in its depictions of violence, with less apology, albeit that the actual body count is probably lower. In fairness, the attempts at witty one liners in “Bullet to the Head” feel more true to the character and less tacked on, but it doesn’t have the weight to be truly suspenseful and fails to provide the lighter entertainment of “The Last Stand,” which wasn’t a great movie but was more fun than this.

New films: Sister, Parker, and Hansel & Gretel

2013-01-25T19:27:08Z

More January-esque Film Openings

The January pattern of film openings I was discussing last week continues this week with an award season drama, a straightforward action film that feels at home at this time of year, and a flashier popcorn actioner that feels like a refugee from the summer. There’s also the opening of “Movie 43” which wasn’t made available for press review – and you can draw your own conclusions on that.

“Sister” and “Parker”

Interestingly, while very different, two of the new films share a Robin Hood-like sentiment towards stealing.

In “Sister,” Switzerland’s official entry in the foreign language category for the Academy Awards, a young boy lives in the town at the base of a mountain that’s home to a high-priced ski resort. He’s often left alone and there’s not much other help in terms of income, and so he puts food on the table by stealing and selling ski equipment from the tourists. Each day he dresses up as though he’s a skier himself and rides the crowded gondola to the top of the mountain, where he grabs assorted flashy items and then rides back down in an empty gondola with his haul. There’s a definite sentiment expressed that it’s OK, or at least relatively OK, to steal from rich people who won’t notice the loss – and it’s not just young Simon who seems to feel this way, given that the things he steals are sometimes based on “pre-orders” from the neighborhood kids.

He’s an enterprising kid and, despite what one might think regarding the morality of his chosen profession, he also exhibits a serious work ethic and survival instinct for one so young, having also learned by observation how to service and repair damaged skis prior to re-sale.

In “Parker,” the latest film in which Jason Statham plays a Jason Statham character, we’re given a crook whose immorality is somehow supposed to be moral because he follows his own set of rules – and he has little time or patience for those who don’t. First up is that he never steals from somebody who can’t afford it, followed by never hurting somebody who doesn’t deserve it (that judgment obviously being subjective). He will do everything he says he will do and expects the same from those around him. The end result being, for example, that we’re supposed to be on his side at all times because he’s the kind of guy who will shoot somebody in the leg when they go for their gun and justify it based on having said something along the lines of “I’ll shoot you in the leg if you go for your gun.”

Of course, neither are quite like Robin Hood as, for the most part, there’s no great redistribution of wealth going on here – both are in it for their own gain, albeit that Simon probably has fewer alternative options than Parker. But just as Simon is surrounded by others who seem comfortable with what he’s doing, Parker also seems to find others who are equally comfortable with his actions, and not just those who are invested in the criminal code.

There’s not a great deal to be learned from “Parker” other than little nuggets like a handgun clip also being useful as a neck-stabbing device without the blood affecting operations when put back into service in the gun. And there’s much to be annoyed by – like a story that would only really make sense if Palm Beach, Florida had only one real estate agency with perfect, intimate knowledge of every transaction that occurs. But it does deliver on its premise of Jason Statham doing Jason Stathamy things in Jason Stathamy ways, albeit it light on Jason Stathamy fast driving.

In comparison, “Sister” actually contains a considerable amount of social commentary and could, for example, make a solid starting point for a discussion in a tourism class. There’s a clear have/have not divide in Simon’s town between the “townies” and the tourists or, as the tourism literature sometime describes, the hosts and guests. The children’s choices and desire for the best and most expensive ski equipment is a manifestation of a “demonstration effect” associated with the constant exposure to the wealth and possessions of the rich folks who pass by them on a daily basis.

The film also exhibits a similar socio-economic divide between the tourists and seasonal workers who staff the resort, toiling behind the scenes in sweaty kitchens and living in cramped dormitories. On the last day of the season, while the rich empty their chalets to return to designer lofts and mansions and plans for their next exotic excursions, the multi-national workforce pack their meager belongings and move on to wherever the next few months of work can be found. Both are migratory and many will end up in the same locations, but only one group is moving by choice.

There’s more than this to “Sister,” with much of the film focused on Simon’s home life as the title of the film might suggest, but that’s a tough area to delve into while reviewing the film without undermining the story. But it’s worth remembering the old adage about not choosing family members.

There’s not much to say in evaluating “Parker” other than to say that it’s exactly what it sounds like – a story about in-fighting and revenge among crooks, with the protagonist being the least antagonistic of the bunch. “Sister” is a neat, smaller film about family dynamics and youthful opportunism that could easily form the basis of dinner conversation or classroom discussions (see note at the bottom of the column).

“Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters”

The third film is the one that feels like a failed attempt at something flashier and more successful. “Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters” is to witches what a Van Helsing or Buffy tale is to vampires. The basic idea is that the two young children of candy-house story fame escape their captor by killing her and grow up to become celebrated, witch-killing mercenaries. And it’s a spellbinding mess.

There are so many problems that it’s hard to know where to start but, perhaps, one of the most structural issues is that there’s a whole backstory as to why the two of them seem invulnerable when it comes to witchcraft and they’ve somehow managed to reach adulthood, through dozens of prior hunts, without this ever becoming a major topic of conversation or inquiry. This despite being zapped and pulverized on a routine basis, without being slowed by little inconveniences, like death.

The whole enterprise is very tongue in cheek, with steampunk weaponry and gadgets, and fighting scenes that are excuses for a plethora of exploding heads and flying limbs. All of which ought to keep that question of invulnerability at the forefront because they never seem to have an especially clear advantage and yet their own heads and limbs are remarkably intact.

The opening credits show a long sequence of encounters and killings perpetrated by Hansel and Gretel as children and then teenagers, and there’s a character in the film who’s essentially the internal geeky fanboy, who has kept a scrapbook of their prior successes which is clearly quite thick and exhaustive. This is problematic because it’s easy to imagine that those earlier stories might actually have been more appealing to watch. For every example of running and slugging it out between adult witches and adult witch hunters, one can’t help but feel that the level of inventiveness would have had to have been greater when they had a much greater size disadvantage and less strength. And all that elaborate weaponry had to have been developed over time, which would make for a more interesting story than one in which they all appear, as if by magic (!), from some propmaster’s workshop.

The violence is cartoonlike and, at times, laugh out loud funny – but the laughter here is more at the movie than with it. Although there is one enjoyable scene in which a recurring troll character steals the movie in much the same way that Hulk steals “Avengers” when tossing Loki around like a ragdoll. But the rest of the film is the kind of mess that will haunt the leads in future career retrospective montages and potentially serve as a useful low point in discussing other movies this year. January strikes again.

Note: The 7:30pm screening of “Sister” at the Crest Theatre on opening night (Friday, January 25) will be hosted by the Sacramento French Film Festival and there will be a Q&A after the film, led by Professor Kevin Elstob of the SFFF and the Foreign Languages Dept. at Sacramento State.

Editor’s note: Join The Sacramento Press on Tuesday, Feb. 12 at Chops Steakhouse to honor Journalism Open winners. Get tickets!

New films: Broken City and The Last Stand

2013-01-18T17:02:40Z

New film releases – the good-bad and the ugly

January can be an odd time at the movies, with some of the most varied releases showing up. On the one hand you have the serious award contenders slowly rolling out across the country, having had Christmas releases in Los Angeles and New York City in order to qualify for various competition deadlines. While on the other hand you tend to see the flotsam and jetsam of projects with low expectations and those that haven’t lived up to studio hopes for release at busier times of the year. Looking at two of this week’s new releases shows us more about the latter categories than the former.

Broken City
Directed by Allen Hughes

On paper, a film about corruption in a New York mayoral race, with a cast that includes Mark Wahlberg, Russell Crowe, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Jeffrey Wright, and Barry Pepper probably had a lot of people pretty excited. Somehow it managed to incorporate a list of producers that’s longer than some cast lists, with 21 people cited and 10 listed as Executive Producers (typically the folks writing the checks). It has a script that’s full of corruption, scandal, real estate deals, conflicts of interest, and good old fashioned private investigation work. It also has up to the moment touches like a Mayor’s wife (Zeta-Jones) attending a celebration of legal gay marriage in the state.

However, on screen, the entire enterprise is a mess. Oddly, it feels like a poorly adapted novel but appears to have been written for the screen by first time writer Brian Tucker. That feeling comes from there being a little too much going on, with too many significant characters and too many sub-plots. It’s not that it’s difficult to follow, it just trips over itself with inconsistencies in elements of the story that don’t even need to be there.

For example, there’s a point in the movie when Wahlberg’s ex-cop turned private eye Billy Taggert breaks up with his girlfriend. It’s a public yelling match full of recriminations and lines like (paraphrased) “We’ve been broken for a long time!” Which is problematic given that, up until that point, we’ve only seen them being supportive of each other and mutually understanding. She’s an actress and he doesn’t approve of her new film, or what he suspects regarding her relationship with her co-star. But neither the girlfriend, the indie film she’s made, nor the others involved in the film have any relevance to the main plot of “Broken City” – you could put a line through all of this and not affect the story at all. It may have been that at one point there was a connection in the script but in the final version she seems to be there just to give Taggert a home life, with no upside and multiple downsides.

The main plot involves Taggert being hired by the Mayor (Crowe) to investigate his wife’s alleged infidelity. But this blossoms into a convoluted set of circumstances involving the other candidate in the upcoming election (which is just days away), his campaign manager, the police commissioner, and a real estate developer and his son. Everybody has dirt on everybody else, in some way, and yet very little of that dirt seems to be acted upon.

This is a story in which multiple people make reference to a single incriminating document, in a manner that implies that they must know what it contains, and yet they tell Taggert to find it without giving him much of a clue as to what it might be. Meanwhile, the document contains the kind of revelation that’s specific enough that one could simply whisper it to a member of the press and it would likely get uncovered from public records without the original document ever needing to be found.

Individual performances aren’t bad, especially if one looks at stand-alone scenes and ignores certain inconsistencies between them. (It’s also one of those films where somebody who is staggeringly drunk can sober up in an instant following one important phone call or one cold water dunking.) Wahlberg carries his part relatively well but most of the rest of the cast isn’t really given much to do and it makes one wonder what some of the other major talent saw in the project to begin with, except to reinforce the idea that it all looked far better on paper.

The Last Stand
Directed by Jee-woon Kim

By comparison, on paper “The Last Stand” couldn’t be much simpler. Arnold Schwarzenegger, in his first starring role since playing the lead in California politics, is Ray Owens, sheriff of a small town on the Arizona/Mexico border. He’s on his day off (for no other reason than that it makes for a few good one-liners) when an escaped drug cartel boss makes a Taco Bellesque run for the border. It’s an almost impossible to spoil plot as that’s essentially it, and even that probably overstates the underlying concept and appeal of the movie, which is essentially just Schwarzennegger-star/action-comeback.

There’s more going on of course, but it’s just action context and stereotypical casting: There’s the earnest FBI agent (Forest Whitaker) who lost the prisoner (in a prison transfer described as under the radar, but which involved a large convoy of vehicles), a band of hired guns aiding the cartel leader’s escape (led by Peter Stormare in scenery chewing mode), and comic relief in the form of Luiz Guzmán as one of Owens’ deputies and Johnny Knoxville in the village idiot/court jester role as the local crazy gun collector.

But this is all about Schwarzenegger as action star and whether or not he can still pull that off. The pleasant surprise is that he can – albeit at a somewhat toned down level and pace. Schwarzenegger has a better sense of what he can and can’t deliver as an actor than as a politician.

He’s 65 and this is a good role for him – Owens isn’t an action hero wannabe sheriff, he’s a big city career cop in virtual semi-retirement in a one stoplight town where a bad day likely involves underage drinking and cow tipping. And he’s still a bulky guy – so the kinds of stunts he does (and he did many of his own) are less to do with speed and more to do with mass: He busts through doors and delivers a heavy punch, and if he outruns anybody, it’s in a car and not on foot.

Owens isn’t the killing machine we’ve seen from Arnold before, here he’s the veteran who’s seen a lot of bad things go down in worse places, who simply doesn’t have in him the quitting gene. As such he’s one of cinema’s most appealing archetypes – the reluctant hero with a past that imbues him with the necessary skillset to take on whatever’s thrown at him. It’s the same basic formula that has worked so well recently for (60 year old) Liam Neeson, and a downsized set of expectations that (66 year old) Sylvester Stallone could gain from.

There are no surprises here – except perhaps how solid some of the action scenes are, aside from the fighting and shooting. This is Jee-woon Kim’s first English language film and, through a pair of translators and a lot of body language, he’s crafted a decent action film filled with authentic stunts and real cars being driven by real people. It’s still a film in which a fast car and a driver in a hurry always seems to have enough spare power that a quick gear shift will press them into their seat yet again – but at least we’re not being subjected to constant CGI and wires.

Which isn’t to say that this is a great film – far from it. But it works and it does so by managing one’s expectations and delivering exactly on its promise. If the basic idea of Schwarzenegger as a small town sheriff in a pitched battle with a runaway drug lord appeals to you on almost any level, then you’ll probably enjoy the film at some level also. This is the upside to the downside of January.

New film: Zero Dark Thirty

2013-01-11T08:53:02Z

Zero Dark Thirty
Directed by Kathryn Bigelow

As with “The Hobbit” a few weeks ago, this is a movie that people are going to watch (or not even bother to watch) and evaluate for completely different reasons, with the quality of the movie not necessarily being foremost in a lot of people’s minds. For that reason, the column is broken into thematic sections.

Torture

For starters, the film depicts torture – or “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.” This has been cited as controversial but there’s nothing especially controversial about what’s shown – at least not in terms of whether or not what we see is what happened. The most extreme, sustained technique depicted, that’s subsequently used as a threat, is waterboarding. This may upset people who don’t like the idea of waterboarding or the idea that the CIA might have done this – but it’s something the CIA has admitted occurred in their interrogation sites. And it’s not a stretch to refer to it as torture, given that virtually every authority/statute in the world uses that label for that action, with the notable exception of the George W. Bush Administration during a specific time period.

By implication, what might be worse, is the “Extraordinary Rendition” program that spirited people away to unknown locations, including those locations that might have had a looser attitude towards what constituted torture. These are actions that have since resulted in CIA officers being indicted in various countries - but it isn’t really addressed in the film.

Aside from that, there are scenes of physical abuse (but nothing in the way of electrodes or surgical instruments), humiliation, food deprivation, light and noise manipulation, and confinement.

Torture as an Information Source

The other aspect of the film that is drawing criticism, related to torture, is the allegation that the film implies that these techniques were successful in producing valuable intelligence from those subjected to such treatment. But that’s also an odd allegation as the film doesn’t really give much of that impression at all.

The torture scenes at the start of the move have more of an effect of hardening the central character, CIA agent Maya (played by Jessica Chastain), to this extreme new world she’s entered at the start of her overseas career. They set the tone for us as an audience, and they explain the range of interrogation techniques employed. But they don’t show us much in the way of spilled facts and locations.

Without going into too much specific detail, most of the information gathered comes in snippets and in repetitive factoids from literally hundreds of sources and interrogations, most of which seem relatively ordinary by comparison. They also come from trickery and lies, and from information that simply got overlooked in files about various key figures. But there’s little if anything of any urgency depicted that comes from actual scenes of torture.

All of which leads one to believe that much of the negative feedback on this point is probably coming from people who either haven’t seen the film or who didn’t follow it very well – as the manner in which the information is triangulated and analyzed is long and drawn out, and somewhat complex. I stood outside the screening I attended as one member of the audience, who sounded generally clued in about other things, explained to the studio’s screening representative that he simply couldn’t follow where all of the intel was coming from – and I have seen other similar comments elsewhere. So perhaps that’s at least part of the problem.

Politics and the Election

The film was originally scheduled to be released before the November election, but Republican groups expressed concern (more like outrage) that it was a ploy to remind voters that President Obama had had oversight of the raid that resulted in the death of Osama bin laden, in an attempt to influence the election. The film was rescheduled to open in Los Angeles and New York in December, early enough to qualify for Academy Awards, with a wider release this week.

What’s odd about this concern is that the film barely brings Obama into the mix. At one point he’s described as a thinker, which is only offensive if one thinks that Bush wasn’t – but it isn’t delivered in that tone or context. And he’s depicted as being a hurdle to the established practices of the interrogators (i.e., by banning torture) at least as much as it is suggested that he allowed things to progress successfully. Again, I’m left doubting that many (if any) of the critics at that time had even seen the film.

The other still-brewing issue is the extent to which classified information might or might not have been made available to the filmmakers. Everybody involved has said this didn’t happen, but it’s not an accusation or question that seems likely to go away any time soon, or to produce any verifiably convincing answers, and it’s the kind of issue that will probably always be thrown around when it serves somebody’s purpose to do so.

The Plot and Pace of the Film

This is a long film, clocking in at 2 hours and 37 minutes – although that’s still shorter than other recent releases, including “The Hobbit” and “Django Unchained.” But it’s time well spent in terms of giving a solid impression of the nature of what was an extremely long and slow moving investigation. It’s hard to imagine the film having the gravitas it does if it had been compressed into a more bladder-friendly running time.

To some extent it reminds me of “Lincoln,” in the sense that many people are likely to be expecting something else from the film – especially if they’ve seen the previews that focus on the raid on the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The majority of this film is spent examining the process that unfolded to get to that point, not in glorifying that raid – and it’s not for audiences who just want to see guns, shooting, and extreme action.

At its core, it’s the story of Maya, who is brought into a CIA investigative team who are already engaged in the hunt for post 9/11 information and the search for Osama bin Laden. She a smart individual with knowledge of the language and culture, who begins to see things in ways some of the others around her don’t.

For those who have followed the intelligence discussions in recent years, there’s been a recurring theme that the major agencies and their systems were designed during, and better suited to, the Cold War. More intelligence analysts had knowledge of Eastern Block countries and languages, and we started out with relatively few solid assets on the ground in the Middle East and in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. Although the film doesn’t make much of this, it’s hinted at in some of the earliest conversations between Maya and her teammates.

But the process is a long slog – which is why it’s odd that people might think that torture somehow suddenly produced all the answers in some convenient fashion. This is a film that gives what seems to be a detailed and authentic look at the way such investigations work and how mind numbing and soul destroying they can be, especially as years pass, administrations change, and priorities shift.

Having said all that, it’s incredibly good and powerful in that depiction. It’s probably my favorite movie with military or conflict-themed subject matter since “Blackhawk Down,” a film which, in turn, I think is one of the very best war movies ever made, perhaps even the best. There’s nothing here that ever feels fake or lacking in credibility, which speaks to the extraordinary level of attention to detail in the entire production.

The acting is all solid, especially from Chastain, with strong supporting performances that are too numerous to catalog. It looks authentic, feels authentic, and never lets up in its gradual and steady build to the ending that we already know is coming.

[On a side note, Bigelow and her writing partner Mark Boal, had originally intended to tell the story of the failed and much earlier attack on Tora Bora. However, as they were progressing with that script, the ultimate raid occurred and the Tora Bora attack no longer seemed relevant – or at least immediately less relevant and compelling. And so they started again, building on some of the same groundwork but heading in the new direction.]

The Direction and the Academy Awards

All of which should give you the impression that the direction is impressive. This is Kathryn Bigelow’s follow up theatrical project to “The Hurt Locker” which won her an Academy Award for directing three years ago.

Since yesterday, there has been even more buzz about the film, largely concentrated around the fact that Bigelow wasn’t nominated for an Academy Award for “Zero Dark Thirty,” despite being an early favorite for a nomination. Some are suggesting a backlash to the political aspects of the film but that doesn’t really fit very well and it implies a far greater level of organization among Oscar voters than probably exists. Besides, if one wanted to distance oneself from the content of the film and its story, it would make more sense to avoid a Best Picture nomination and a Best Screenplay nomination than a nomination for the person who made it all look so good.

The other nugget that gets missed is that nominations are generally made within the branch of the Academy that addresses that particular award. So the directing nominations are made by members of the Directors Branch of the Academy and not by the general membership of the Academy (everybody gets to vote later, but not during the nomination stage). There’s an overlap there with the membership of the separate Directors Guild of America, but they are different groups with different awards programs and different nominations. And many of these same people saw fit to nominate Bigelow for the Directors Guild Award.

Summary

This is a film that held my attention, without ever letting up, from start to finish. The pacing is slow but justifiably so, in a manner that lends credence to the story that’s unfolding before us. The torture scenes are more about setting the tone and establishing the beginning of the lead character arc than to either criticize or glorify what happened and, as Bigelow herself has said, to have skipped them would have seemed like a white-washing of that part of the history of what happened. It’s superbly detailed and has a sense of authenticity that’s rarely matched in these kinds of subjects. It’s powerful, well acted, and, simply, quite brilliant.

New film: Promised Land

2013-01-04T08:50:51Z

Promised Land
Directed by Gus Van Sant

*CONTAINS VAGUE PLOT SPOILERS*

In “Promised Land,” Matt Damon plays an up and coming employee of a natural gas company that’s in the process of entering into contracts with land owners to allow the company to drill for and extract gas from under their property. Their modus operandi is to arrive in a new location and quickly and quietly secure enough contracts to make the process viable before there’s any groundswell of opposition or any involvement from environmental groups who might not be so fond of the “fracking” gas extraction process.

I say “up and coming” as he seems primed for advancement, but he’s not a junior employee - the film starts with him being interviewed for an executive position. He’s popular within the company because he has a record of securing more contracts and promising less money in return than any other field worker.

The backstory we’re given is that he grew up in a small rural town himself, one that fell apart economically when the primary employer closed down. So he feels that he understands and connects with the small town folks that the company tends to target, those that are living on a hope and a prayer of good fortune to come, with few other options on the horizon.

When he and his partner, played by the excellent as ever Frances McDormand, arrive on site at their latest assigned community, expectations are high for a quick in and out operation. But they didn’t count on an elderly science teacher who is well read on the topic of fracking. The teacher is played by Hal Holbrook, who brings a quiet dignity and authority to what might have been a lighter weight role in the hands of a less accomplished or younger actor.

As the process slows, an environmental activist shows up, vague hints at romance are kindled for both protagonists, and things become far more complicated they had hoped for. But that’s the plot of the movie and I’ll try not to ruin it in its entirety – although this is a hard movie to critique without unveiling some of what happens later, even in somewhat veiled terms.

There’s a lot to like about this film, with a simple modesty to its scale and production, despite the A-list cast. It’s well acted by those mentioned, as well as John Krasinski and Rosemarie DeWitt in supporting roles, and others including Titus Welliver and Scoot McNairy (who’s had a busy year with “Argo” and “Killing them Softly”) in smaller but important performances. It looks good and the direction is as good as one might expect from Gus Van Sant (“Milk,” “Good Will Hunting,” “Drugstore Cowboy”).

All of which leads to my disappointment with how badly the film seems to fail. My problem is with the screenplay itself, co-written by Damon and Krasinski, or possibly Dave Eggers' story (it being hard to know where each idea came from).

There’s clearly more to the story than what I’ve described so far, which is basically just the setup, and various facts and assertions are uncovered about the company and its practices. For McDormand’s Sue, this is just a job – she’s not out to police anybody’s morals or intentions, she’s trying to support a son back home and she’s very good at what she does. Damon’s Steve, however, is a sharp and well-meaning guy – at least that’s how he’s played by Damon, who co-wrote the part, so presumably he had some clue as to what the character should be. Steve’s not immune from making an occasional bad decision, but he’s clearly not an idiot and he thinks he’s helping people.

But the screenplay seems to need him to be an idiot, or to have been completely out of touch with the world for the premise of the film to work. Perhaps he’s been signing up folks to contracts who live under a rock somewhere. It’s an idea that might have made sense if it had been set a few decades earlier, when workers on the road in rural communities might have been out of reach of major new sources, but not in an age of instant communication and in a film where Sue spends her evening skyping with her son. The problem being, of course, that fracking is an issue of today’s world.

Steve reacts to news of his company’s deceits as though his world is rocked, as though nothing like this has ever occurred to him or been brought to his attention before. It would work better if he was operating in a vacuum, or under that rock, or if he was portrayed as a well-meaning and efficient simpleton. But this is a character who has been leaning on multiple people earlier in the film, manipulating facts, and threatening them with statements like (from memory) “We’re a nine billion dollar company, do you know what we’re capable of?” He’s worldly when the plot needs him to be worldly and he’s naïve when the plot needs him to be naïve. And that destroyed the story for me – it simply doesn’t ring true or remain consistent within itself.

There’s quite a bit more to the story, which actually has a nice structure to it in some other respects, but that problem defeats it.

The purpose of the film seems to be to warn people of the tactics of companies like the one depicted. It doesn’t delve too far into fracking as a process, other than to provide vague implications of the dangers involved. In that sense, for a film about drilling and mining, it doesn’t get very far below the surface – but then it’s primarily a character study, albeit a flawed one.

For most of its running length it’s pleasant enough to watch, until the logic of the main character arc seems to fall apart, at which point it simply annoyed me. It’s possible that the goal was to tell a story of how many bad actions are undertaken by well-meaning individuals, hoodwinked by their own organizations but, as I’ve described, Steve seems too sharp and too clued in when necessary to make his character plausible when he seems to have been taken for a ride. It’s too fundamental of a flaw to make the film work as anything other than an example of quality acting by the rest of the cast – and I can’t recommend it despite having actors, a director, and even a topic I’d normally expect to appreciate.

"Promised Land" expands in wide release in the Sacramento region today.

Holiday film openings: Django Unchained and Les Misérables

2012-12-25T03:52:19Z

Django Unchained
Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino

I already listed “Django Unchained” as one of my recommendations for holiday gift tickets – so it’s no surprise to find that I enjoyed it, a lot. That said, it’s not a very holidayish movie and many will find the subject matter and the violent content objectionable. But for folks who don’t mind exploding blood packs and a fairly brutal story, this one’s a winner – in fact it’s already received an American Film Institute Movie of the Year Award and has been nominated for five Golden Globes.

The story revolves around an ex-dentist turned bounty hunter, played by Christoph Waltz, who is initially searching for three wanted men. However, somewhat inconveniently, he doesn’t know what they look like. So he seeks out, rather unconventionally, a slave who was previously on the same plantation and who could identify them. That slave is Django (“The D is silent”) and is played by Jamie Foxx. The story then expands as the twosome work well together in the bounty business, with Django also trying to find his wife, from whom he became separated when they were intentionally sold to different slave owners.

I’ve described this film before as 2 hours and 45 minutes of spaghetti grindhouse awesomeness. It has that spaghetti western look about it as well as the genre stylings and gratuitously over the top violence of grindhouse films, all of which is entirely intentional on Tarantino’s part. It’s also a tight film, despite its length, feeling at times as though material has been excised rather than padded. This is interesting as it’s Tarantino’s first film in many years without his long time editor, Sally Menke, who died in 2010. Here he’s working with Fred Raskin, who amongst other credits was an assistant editor on the “Kill Bill” films and editor on three films in the “Fast and Furious” franchise. For my money, the new pairing worked very well, better than “Inglourious Basterds” which seemed indulgent in some scenes that could have been trimmed.

Tarantino has a habit of showing up in several of his own films, often in a very small, incidental role. Here he gives himself a somewhat more substantial part, albeit still brief, and while it’s fun for fans and presumably for him, it’s probably the weak spot in almost three hours of acting. The rest of the cast is very strong, playing roles that are somewhat larger than life at times, as per the style of the film. These include Waltz and Foxx, as well as Leonardo DiCaprio and Don Johnson. I wasn’t such a big fan of Samuel L. Jackson’s performance, although again I think much of the exaggerated style and delivery is intentional.

I didn’t go into “Django Unchained” expecting to like it as much as I did. My fear was that it would have the pacing and apparent indulgence of “Basterds” – and so I was pleasantly surprised by what felt to me like a better structured and edited film. As stated, it’s not for everybody but it’s my favorite of the big holiday releases.

Les Misérables
Directed by Tom Hooper

Coincidentally, “Les Misérables” has also won an American Film Institute Movie of the Year Award and almost as many (four) Golden Globe nominations (along with many other recognitions, primarily for ensemble cast). But it wasn’t anything like as satisfying to watch – at least not for me.

At press screenings, we’re generally asked to write a quick comment for the studios and mine was “It’s hard to imagine this being done better” – at risk of having that misinterpreted. I didn’t love the film but a project like this, perhaps more so than some, is a mixture of compromises. In order to be made on this scale, as with many ‘big’ films, you need some pretty big name actors attached – but for a musical like this you also need them to be singers, of some noteworthy level of talent. And that requirement suddenly shortens the list. Additionally, Tom Hooper (“The King’s Speech”) chose to have the actors’ voices recorded on set rather than after the fact in a perfectly controlled studio environment – which ups the ante still further on the singing.

The end result of which is that we get Russell Crowe, who has a love of music and a side band project, in a role for which he doesn’t seem especially well suited. He might be a good pick for a biopic about a rockstar or a country singer, but he doesn’t ever seem either comfortable or suitable for a semi –operatic belting of the kind of expository dialog in musical form that makes up much of “Les Misérables.” Which leads me to a side note, in the interests of full disclosure: I’m more of a fan of catchy-song-based musicals, interspersed with spoken dialog – I’m not such a fan of musicals in which almost every word is sung, including explanatory speeches and dialog which seem less songlike. And Crowe, in delivering much of this content, seemed almost as uncomfortable as I was listening to it, ending up rather flat and monotone in his performance.

In contrast, Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway are anything but monotone, but they each seems to go to the other extreme, with so much emoting that the singing seems to take on the form of some kind of grueling torture of facial contortion and heartbreak. Granted, that’s the nature of what they’re singing about, but at times they both seem firmly stuck in the more is more camp.

I actually enjoyed the movie more when we were watching the less starry, secondary characters – especially Eddie Redmayne as Marius and young Daniel Huttlestone as Gavroche. Redmayne, in particular, seemed pitch perfect and operating at the right balance of singing and acting performances (to my admittedly untrained eyes and ears).

Taking a show like this from stage to screen is tough in terms of that balance – the stage generally requires much ‘bigger’ performances, as actors project their emotions to people sitting far away in the balcony. Whereas, on screen, we’re all close enough to watch eyebrows twitch and nostrils flare – it’s like we’re all sitting closer than a theatrical front row. Much of this felt like ‘too big’ performances that might have been better suited to a live stage, including the pantomimesque comic relief from Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter.

I admire the size and ambition of this project, but that in and of itself gives rise to some of the problems I’ve described. And the end result is somewhat like other stage to film musical adaptations, such as “Mamma Mia,” where you end up hoping certain people will sing more and preferring to drown the voices of others with the sound of rustling candy wrappers or, better still, a flushing toilet as you strategically time a bathroom break based on whose solo is featured.

In conclusion, I didn’t love it but also didn’t hate it – and, to be fair, at least some of my own issues are with the source material rather than the adaptation. But the adaptation also causes problems and the performances are sufficiently uneven to mar the experience of watching what is otherwise an admirably ambitious attempt. But I still think it’s a fundamentally difficult project to pull off, even this well, and it’s not on my holiday ticket recommendations list.

New films: Hyde Park on Hudson and Jack Reacher

2012-12-22T01:43:22Z

Hyde Park on Hudson
Directed by Roger Michell

This is the latest film in a recent run of releases that focus on larger than life figures, with vast careers and records, by concentrating on brief but defining and/or representative periods in their lives. In “Lincoln” the attention was on the passage of legislation that became the Thirteenth Amendment. In “Hitchcock” it was on the making of “Psycho.” And in “Hyde Park on Hudson,” it’s a weekend meeting between Franklin D. Roosevelt and King George VI.

As with the other subjects, one could make epic movies about Roosevelt – he was a four term President who took the country from the depression era through the Second World War, dying in office in 1945. But the goal here, again, is to give an impression of the kind of man he was – and the story of the weekend in question is told through the eyes of a distant cousin and mistress of Roosevelt’s, based on diaries of hers that were discovered after her death.

As of 1939, no British monarch had ever visited this country, but George VI knew that another war with Germany was imminent and that American support would be a critical factor in the outcome. Meanwhile, sentiments in America were mixed, with strong cultural ties not just to Britain but also to Germany and Italy – and so the respective heads of state agreed to meet in June of that year.

As depicted in the film, the King was nervous about the meeting, which was smaller in scale and grandeur than many royal events, and it was arranged to occur at the Roosevelt’s rural home, hence the title of the film. This is the same King recently made famous again in “The King’s Speech,” a man who never expected to play that role and who was additionally concerned about the impression he made as a result of his pronounced stutter. However, Roosevelt had fallen victim to polio as an adult and was well aware of the impacts and impressions caused by disability and impediment, as well as the fact that people with disabilities of various kinds are people first, and disabled a distant second.

This is an intimate film, not least because of the perspective of the writer of the source material, but in the nature of the brief but seemingly genuine relationship forged between these two men of power and stature. Roosevelt comes across as a genial man, complicated by a host of personal relationship issues, who knows how to make the younger King feel at ease. As with the other two films, if this is an accurate account, it’s easy to see how he could influence those around him with an easy understanding of humans and human nature.

One of the pivotal moments during the weekend was a picnic at which hotdogs were served. This wasn’t exactly the kind of food typically served to royalty, but Roosevelt knew that pictures of the King eating a hotdog would connect more with the American people than distant pictures from carriages or balconies, or in ceremonial robes – he was, in essence, making the King into a man of the people.

I’m often a contrarian in terms of disliking a film more than many might, but here I seem to be going against the tide of opinion in liking this one more than most. Bill Murray, an actor I much prefer in dramatic roles to comedic roles, is wonderful as Roosevelt, with Laura Linney as his cousin and confidante, and Samuel West as George VI. It’s also a film that depicts the extraordinary relationship Roosevelt had with the press corps, something that’s hard to imagine occurring now with either politicians or celebrities. Here was a man who was largely paralyzed from the waist down but who was almost always pictured sitting or standing up straight, regardless of the fact that he was generally wheeled or carried from one place to another. It’s an intimate portrait of a man that doesn’t flinch from controversy, but manages to give a glimpse at how greatness is often best achieved through small and insightful moments.

Jack Reacher
Directed by Christopher McQuarrie

“Jack Reacher” is getting better reviews than “Hyde Park on Hudson” but I think I’m an outlier again, actually liking this one even better than most. Jack Reacher is a character made popular by author Lee Child (a pseudonym) – an ex-miltary policeman who lives his life under the radar, the kind of man who finds you, rather than you finding him. He’s described in the books as a man of great abilities, in reasoning, in weaponry, in physical endurance, etc. He’s also described as being 6’5” tall and well over 200 pounds. Which makes Tom Cruise an unusual choice to play him.

That said, except for the extreme physicality, this adaptation works well and to some extent might even benefit by having the lead character as a less immediately imposing figure – he’s a man who is routinely under-estimated rather than automatically feared, and that’s probably a more interesting dynamic. It’s also a film that feels very old school – it’s a murder mystery involving an ex-military sniper who has every reason to both fear and respect Reacher’s investigative prowess – and it relies on very simple components of deduction, fighting, and real driving of real fast cars. This isn’t a film that relies on telling its story or impressing us through the use of CGI or anything overtly flashy.

I’m not much of a fan of Tom Cruise the person, but I do enjoy watching him in films like this – and, as his own producer, he chose the project well, especially given that he went so strongly against the physical type of the character, at risk of infuriating fans of the books. It’s another example of the kind of hero you see in Liam Neeson’s successful “Taken” films – he’s a strong, capable character with a law enforcement past, but who now operates outside of a strict code of conduct – he’s a good man without the constraint of rules. It’s a dynamic I enjoy on film and I expect I’ll enjoy it again if we get more of Cruise as Jack Reacher.

"Hyde Park on Hudson" opens today at the Tower Theatre and "Jack Reacher" opens in wide release.

Editor’s note: Every Thursday we deliver a local event guide straight to your inbox, right on time to make your weekend plans. Sign me up.

Holy Motors at the Crest Theatre: The Heart of Sacramento!

2012-12-15T09:07:52Z

The Sacramento Press, and other local news sources, have a habit of focusing on Downtown’s stretch of K Street – or is it “The Kay” now? And most of that focus goes towards what club, bar, or restaurant has most recently opened, closed, been remodeled, or gone on the market. But one of the few long-term survival stories in the annals of K Street business is the Crest Theatre.

A theater in some form or other has been in that location for 100 years and the Crest, operating under that name but different management entities, has been there for more than 60. Which, in this author’s opinion at least, is more noteworthy on that street than whether or not cars can drive past a mermaid this year.

It’s an under-appreciated asset to the community – but not one that goes unnoticed elsewhere. On Wednesday of this week, a group of ten people arrived to see “Somewhere Between” (reviewed here last week). Groups of 10 are somewhat unusual to begin with, but this group had apparently chartered a plane from Santa Rosa and then a limousine from Sacramento Executive Airport, purely to see that film at the Crest. And a quick glance at the film’s own website helps us understand why – the Crest is the only theatre listed as screening the film west of (approximately)the Mississippi. And that’s what the Crest does best – it brings us things that we wouldn’t otherwise get to see.

But certainly some in the community notice and appreciate the Crest, including a loyal fanbase and subscribers to the Crest’s mailing list, eager to know what film and events, most of which can’t be found anywhere else, are coming next. And the Crest plays host to multiple recurring film festivals and was honored this year by the Sacramento Arts & Business Council for its partnership with those many varied cultural events.

Which brings me to the film in the title of this column: “Holy Motors.” It wowed audiences at Cannes this year and it’s being presented by the Crest in association with the Sacramento French Film Festival, one part of that multi-faceted set of partnerships that goes back over a decade. The French Film Festival has a long standing practice of co-presenting unique and hard to find films at the Crest and then providing insightful question and answer sessions for audiences – and this is the latest in that series.

The film itself is enigmatic and features a lead character “Mr. Oscar” who switches between roles throughout the course of a day. It has been variously described as a story about a man drifting between parallel lives and as a story about an actor taking on separate parts - but the title might also suggest something more spiritual in nature and there are song lyrics in evidence that suggest the reliving of past moments. It’s an unusual film to watch, given that we’re so used to strict narrative forms, most typically in a clear three act structure, and “Holy Motors” feels more experimental in nature. What it certainly presents is a stunning example of multi-role acting from lead Denis Lavant, a long-time collaborator with writer/director Leos Carax. (If this was remade in English by a Hollywood director, the film would almost certainly become far more conventional and less intriguing, and would most likely star Andy Serkis.)

But if you’d like to know more you can see the film, as it just opened. And if you’d like to know a lot more, you can attend the screening that will be followed by a question and answer session, hosted by the French Film Festival, on Saturday, December 15th at 7:45pm.

And if you go to this screening or another film or event, my advice is to fill out one of the forms in the lobby and join the Crest’s email list – or “like” them on facebook at “Crest Sacramento” – or you’re likely to miss something special.

Disclosure: As well as being a weekly columnist for the Sacramento Press, the author is also co-director of the Sacramento Film & Music Festival, another one of the Crest Theatre's film festival partners - although not associated with this film presentation.

The Hobbit - Frame rates, 3D/2D, and second thoughts.

2012-12-14T09:23:45Z

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Directed by Peter Jackson

The first part of "The Hobbit" opens today in wide release and any review of this most recent tale of Middle Earth is hampered by considerations of the technology, as well as the normal consideration of the adaptation and performances – so I’m going to split this column into parts.

The Technology

This is a high definition movie screened in both 2d and 3D versions – both of which we have become accustomed to, regardless of where our preferences lie. The difference is that Peter Jackson shot the film (and in some theaters it’s being screened at) 48 frames per second (fps). Traditionally, almost all film has been shot in 24fps – in other words, for every second of film that you see, 24 separate images pass before your eyes. There are some exceptions to this, like a lot of animation that often only has 12 separate frames per second, because it’s easier and cheaper to draw half as many still images.

The outcome of this long held traditional frame rate is that we have, over time, associated the cinematic experience with 24fps – that’s the look that we think of when we think of film. So much so that for many years, as digital video cameras have become more and more popular and advanced, it has become the norm to have them equipped to record video in the same frame rate, despite the fact that it isn’t the most logical speed for a digital medium.

Meanwhile, most television production in the US has, traditionally, been shot at what is known as 60i – or 60 partial frames per second, with every frame capturing only half of the lines of information. So frame 1 might have all the odd numbered lines of data while frame 2 has the even numbered lines, etc. That’s why it was often difficult in years past to capture a good quality still image from a TV, because a full image consisted of alternating lines that were shot a fraction of a second apart. More recently, a lot of scripted television shows have switched to 24fps, but faster frame rates are still common in reality shows, daytime soaps, news programming, sports, and content such as documentaries on several cable channels.

Here’s where it gets odd. With television shows being screened for many years in 60i and much early video production being shot at 30fps (which is somewhat similar to 60i, only with a full image every 1/30 of a second rather than a partial image every 1/60th second), that appearance has become associated with television just as much as 24fps has become associated with film. And we tend to think of film as being higher quality than television, in terms of image, when a 60i or 30fps video stream actually carries more images than a 24fps film image. Which is entirely counter-intuitive as the end result is that when you speed up the frame rate, we tend to think an image no longer looks like film and, instead, looks more like lower quality television – despite carrying more data and including more images flashing before our eyes.

By shooting in 48fps, Jackson accomplished a couple of things: He produced an extremely high quality image, and he did so in a way that makes it very easy to convert back to 24fps (simply by skipping every other frame). By comparison, James Cameron (“Titanic,” “Avatar”) is experimenting with 60fps (60 full frame images, not 60i) for his future projects.

But the effect will be disconcerting to some viewers – not only does it look less like film, it’s also sharper and brighter than anything you might normally see on your TV. At times it doesn’t even feel like you’re watching a projected image – it’s more like the screen has been replaced by a giant window and enormous actors are performing live in front of you – but in the most well lit and dust free room ever constructed. And it’s an unforgiving image quality – every detail is right there, in stunning clarity –every wrinkle and hair, including on actors who were also in “The Lord of The Rings” trilogy and who are now older, despite playing younger characters (as “The Hobbit” takes place before “The Lord of the Rings”).

Another odd outcome was that for all of the stunning clarity of some shots, others seemed moderately blurry – as if a little out of focus. For example, Gandalf (Ian Mckellen) looks craggy and older than before, while Saruman (Christopher Lee) looks a little soft and ethereal. It reminded me of the original “Dallas” when every shot of Miss Ellie (Barbara Bel Geddes) looked like it had been shot through a pair of nylons. Even her headshot at imdb.com (the Internet Movie Database) looks a little that way.

I didn’t hate the high frame rate effect as much as some seem to, nor did I have any problems with nausea as some viewers have reported, but it takes a lot of getting used to and was, for me at least, quite distracting. It simply didn’t look like any other film I’ve seen. But that’s also something that will likely diminish over time if we see more films like this and if we adjust our expectations accordingly. It also raises the stakes for makeup artists, costumers, and set builders, whose every piece of work can now be examined in enormous detail.

Another, somewhat related technological change is that Gollum (Andy Serkis via motion capture) is now rendered in greater detail. Time and computer advances now allow for far greater depiction of facial muscle movements and Gollum is more facially animated and less like a botox patient than before. But it’s also a more detailed Gollum being seen at that higher level of clarity, as described above, and at times the outcome seems more expressive but also more artificial.

The Adaptation

“The Hobbit” was first published in 1937 (and first editions are listed on ebay in the $45,000-$60,000 range) – and it had more of a children’s story feel/style to it than “The Lord of the Rings,” which followed almost two decades later. It’s also a much shorter book, at 300+ pages compared to “The Lord of the Rings” at approximately 4-5 times that length.

Most books, when being adapted into standard length movies need to have some content discarded during the adaptation process. Despite being made into three very long movies, even “The Lord of the Rings” lost content along the way. But “The Hobbit” is also being made into three similarly long films and it doesn’t really have enough material in it to justify that style of adaptation. So, instead, material is being added to the original content to pad it out, while other existing content is being stretched beyond its inherent comfort range.

For example, in this story about a hobbit going on a journey, it takes 40 minutes before he decides to join Gandalf and his band of dwarves on their quest. And the film doesn’t really feel like it’s fully underway until about the midpoint, as the group (not a “fellowship” this time) make their way to The Lonely Mountain to reclaim the dwarves’ lost treasure in gold, currently being guarded and hoarded by Smaug, an enormous dragon with little regard for non-dragons.

It may be worth noting here, as I wrote while reviewing some of the previous films, that I’m a fan of Tolkien’s work. Most noteworthy is his accomplishment as the creator of an entire world and multiple timelines for it. Tolkien was a scholar of ancient languages and created his various fictional languages for his works before writing the rest of the content. And in creating his Middle Earth, he made out of whole cloth a world with a history as richly detailed, and with cultures as fully imagined, as if somebody had conjured the entire history of Western Europe out of thin air on a whim. It’s a stunning achievement that, in my opinion at least, is even greater than the actual writing which is sometimes a little bland by comparison. To some extent, I think the same is true on a far lesser scale of J.K. Rowling, whose “Harry Potter” universe is more inventive than her prose.

But “The Hobbit,” as mentioned, was children’s literature while “The Lord of the Rings” was darker – and we’re getting the film adaptations in reverse order, which also gives rise to some stylistic continuity concerns. For example, during those first 40 minutes while Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) is deciding whether to tag along (actually, for the most part he’s quite certain he won’t), his Hobbit hole (his house, in case that sounds euphemistically awkward) fills with far more eager dwarves. There’s a scene with Gandalf trying to remember their names, which feels a little like “Snow White” and another scene in which they sing a merry song and juggle the dishware, much to Bilbo’s (and my) alarm. The latter sequence feels almost like a slapstick scene out of an English Pantomime version of a fairy tale – and doesn’t entirely seem to belong alongside later, darker scenes of Orc bloodlust and violence. But this is a film that also bounces between cutesy bunny rabbits pulling an unlikely sled, and limb and head severing swordplay. It’s not so much a film for all ages as multiple films for different ages spliced haphazardly together.

The end result is an inconsistent film that feels like it could have been fully realized in one lengthy outing, which might have been over-extended in two installments, and which has no business being on screen in three. Except from a financial perspective.

The Performances

In general, the acting is good – although it’s also affected by the high frame rate screenings, as every line on every face, and every subtle nuance is more obvious than normal and occasionally the acting seems as visible as the effects and scenery. McKellen is back on form as Gandalf, despite suffering the reverse aging problem of shooting the earlier story after the later story. Martin Freeman (who is probably most known as Watson in the British versions of the recent “Sherlock” reincarnations) is neat in the role of the younger Bilbo Baggins (with Ian Holm back as the older Bilbo, introducing the story – which feels like more of the unnecessary narrative padding).

Andy Serkis does well again as the face behind the face of Gollum, seen via motion capture (which he has become known for – although he also worked behind the camera this time around). And the rest of the cast of characters is solid enough, although I was distracted by an oversized white Orc (the villain of the piece) that doesn’t seem nearly as well realized as Gollum (the same being true of the trolls and goblins), and some of the dwarves who seem a little more Disneyesque than warrioresque.

Elijah Wood, Cate Blanchett, and Hugo Weaving reprise their roles as Frodo, Galadriel, and Elrond respectively but, even in the stretched narrative, none of them have much to do.

Overall Impression

I honestly walked away with very mixed emotions. The little kid in me who read the books is always going to be a little excited to see them up on the big screen. But the adult in me can’t help but see a third of a short kids’ novel being adapted into an almost three-hour movie as though it’s an epic – and there simply isn’t enough content to warrant it. As stated, it doesn’t really make any sense except in financial terms, as three opportunities to sell tickets and merchandise instead of one or two.

I didn’t react as negatively to the high frame rate as some have, but it definitely distracted me and took some considerable getting used to as the movie progressed. That may actually be the only upside to the extended length, as one can get used to the image quality for an hour or so before anything significant happens.

There’s also the problem of revisiting places already visited that is inherent in many projects. It’s hard to tell whether the relative lack of wonder compared to a first viewing of “The Lord of the Rings” films is more a result of the image quality feeling off or simple familiarity. It’s hard to imagine how we might have felt about the projects had they been made in their original sequence – but my personal impression is that the prior films were simply more captivating, whatever the reason.

I’ll still watch the next episodes – and not simply because I write a film column, I want to see them. But I’m not jumping up and down and squealing with anticipation – it feels more like an academic exercise of some sort, coupled with a screen test of the new technology. And that doesn’t seem to bode well for at least some folks who actually have to pay for their films and who make tough choices of which ones to see or not see. It’s certainly not my top recommendation for the holiday season, even based on what I’ve seen so far.

Afterthought

I decided to gatecrash the midnight opening and watched the first 20 minutes or so of the film again, but in the “regular” 24fps 2D version –and I preferred it. Everything looks more “normal” for want of a better word. It may sound like a Luddite view of new technology, but I’ve been working with different frame rates and changing definition for years and what Jackson has created just seems too good – not just better than what we’re used to seeing on screen, but better than what we’re used to seeing in real life to some extent also. It’s all a little too perfectly lit and shot – I’m not used to sitting across a room from somebody and counting stitches in their clothing.

The lower quality version wouldn’t fix my other concerns, regarding the pacing and the dull first hour of the film, but even in the first few scenes I was just enjoying watching them more, and not being distracted by the unusual viewing experience (although at least the 48fps 3D imagery gave me something to ponder while the story languished during the initial screening). If I had to do it over, I’d probably have chosen to watch the two versions the other way around – once ordinarily to enjoy the story and again to experiment with the visuals.

I also wanted to re-examine something that had bothered me a little the first time – the Hobbit feet in the opening scenes looked a little clunky and I wondered if it was an effect of the super clarity showing up flaws in the fake feet. But in lower quality they still looked like bulky foam rubber socks. On the other hand, one white bearded dwarf who looked a little too pristine in the brighter, sharper screening, as if he was about to play dwarf Santa at the dwarf shopping mall, looked a little more real and simply weather-beaten and grey. If I’d had more time and patience, I might have stayed long enough to compare a later scene in a rainstorm to see if the rain looked equally conveniently placed as it did the first time I watched it. But I’ll save that for another day when I’m not on deadline.
--

FROM THE WEB:

The trailer for "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey"

Editor’s note: Every Thursday we deliver a local event guide straight to your inbox, right on time to make your weekend plans. Sign me up.

New films: Hitchcock, Playing for Keeps, Somewhere Between

2012-12-07T13:35:23Z

Hitchcock
Directed by Sacha Gervasi

There’s a similarity between the new film “Hitchcock” and “Lincoln,” which opened and was reviewed three weeks ago. Both are films about strong, well regarded men at the top of their respective professions, who had impressive and broad-ranging careers and life stories that could be adapted into films of epic proportions. But, instead, both films tackle a very specific time period and project, relatively late in their respective careers, in an attempt to illustrate the men and their temperaments and achievements through those specific chapters in their lives.

In “Lincoln,” the focus is on the passage of what would become the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution, outlawing slavery. It’s very well produced and well acted, but that limited scope may not be what all people want to see in a film about Abraham Lincoln. In “Hitchcock,” the focus is on the production of “Psycho,” but the film manages to capture a sense of a broader timeframe through reminiscences and relationships.

Following the release of “North by Northwest” in 1959, Alfred Hitchcock was at the top of his game, and his celebrity, with dozens of films under his prodigious belt and a growing presence in the burgeoning world of television. But he faced criticism and personal uncertainty that ranged from accusations that he was repeating himself to suggestions that he should retire. So he found himself looking for a project that would both prove that he still had it and also surprise people by not being what they might expect of him. He found that project in an unlikely tale of a murderer that was inspired by the crimes of Ed Gein. However, this wasn’t a story that appealed to investors or to the studio and in order to get it made, the film was funded by Hitchcock and his wife and partner Alma Reville, herself a talented editor and writer.

“Hitchcock” does a number of things very well, showcasing the filmmaking process, the deal-making that was necessary to get “Psycho” off the ground, and the complicated relationship between Hitchcock and the under-appreciated, under-recognized Reville. But it does these things without blindly championing Hitchcock himself. He could be hard and demanding to work with, was most likely hard to be married to, and was a pretty creepy guy in many respects, including his working relationships with his actresses. It’s a portrait of a talented but flawed man and of a successful but not always happy marriage and working partnership, carried by the wonderful performances of Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren in the two lead roles.

It’s not a perfect film, and there’s one recurring theme or device that’s a little distracting at times, but on balance it worked for me, managing to do several things well. And, at just 98 minutes long, it doesn’t just avoid being an epic, it’s positively brisk.

Playing for Keeps
Directed by Gabriele Muccino

“Playing for Keeps” is an awful movie that somehow manages to salvage almost nothing from an decent cast that includes Gerard Butler, Jessica Biel, Uma Thurman, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Dennis Quaid, and Judy Greer. It’s hard to imagine throwing that group together in a room with no script at all and coming up with something any worse than this.

The basic premise is of an ex-soccer player (Butler) trying to get his life together, and moving to be close to his ex-wife (Biel) and their young son. When taking their son to soccer practice, he spontaneously begins coaching the team and is asked by the other parents to continue, whereupon assorted relationships begin and much awkwardness and bad filmmaking ensues.

The main problem is that the movie feels as though it was written and directed by committee, possibly two separate committees, who couldn’t decide what kind of movie they wanted to make. At times it’s an almost raunchy sex comedy, with Butler being hit on by multiple soccer moms (Zeta-Jones, Thurman, Greer), and in these moments it isn’t a film you’d particularly want your kids to watch. At other times it’s a father-son bonding movie, interspersed with moments of romantic comedy and more significant family drama. But it never sticks with any genre long enough to do them justice and the end result is a failed mashup that seems as though it wouldn’t please a fan of any of them.

In fairness, I say “seems” because whereas I gradually disliked the film more and more, the test audience was far more positive about it. But, as of the time of writing this review, the film has failed to garner even a single positive response (out of 34 posted reviews) from critics on the review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes, so it may be another example of the divide between critics and audiences looking for a little escapist fun.

Somewhere Between
Directed by Linda Goldstein Knowlton

In 1979, in an attempt to cope with a rising population, China passed its controversial One Child Policy, limiting families to a single son or daughter. However, for cultural reasons, sons were considered more desirable, and the Policy resulted in a great many abandoned children who found their way into orphanages (despite often not being orphans) and into international adoptions. According to the documentary “Somewhere Between,” 80,000 of these children were adopted into American families.

When filmmaker Linda Goldstein Knowlton adopted a Chinese girl, she wondered what her daughter’s experience would be, growing up as a child of two countries. So she set out to find teenaged adopted girls from China, living in other American families, who might share their lives and experiences.

This is a fascinating film because it manages to successfully merge multiple topics that are each quite profound. The topic of adoption by itself can raise passions and arguments about adoptees having access to or knowledge about their birth parents – but these are girls who were often abandoned in a country with a vast population, thousands of miles away. Some don’t even know their own birthdays, having been assigned a best estimate by an orphanage, and information about the birth parents is generally even more scant. Others have strong childhood memories, including of being left on a city street by a family member. On top of that, there’s the question of the immigrant experience and fitting in, in a country with a completely different culture and where you’re always an outsider, not just because you don’t look like everybody else, but because you also don’t look like your own adoptive parents.

The girls followed in the film are remarkable young women of great talent, but they share a sense of questioned identity, both personal and cultural. One describes herself as a “Banana” – yellow on the outside and white on the inside, and another makes the same reference using the label “Twinkie.” One of the other girls says she feels more like a “Scrambled Egg,” because the elements of her identity, still using a yellow and white comparison and contrast, are too mixed up to separate so cleanly.

Some of the girls in the film are members of a global support organization for Chinese adoptees and they travel extensively to spend time with both other adoptees and other parents and prospective adoptive parents. On one of these trips, two of the girls meet the founder of another group of international adoptees who is very much of the opinion that such adoptions should stop, based on discoveries that many of the adoptions and supporting paperwork are falsified.

The girls also have varied contact with China, with some having other adopted siblings and one family dedicating time and resources, and many trips, to helping orphanages.

As one of them decides to attempt to find her birth parents, in what seems like an impossible dream (and I won’t tell you what happens), we see an odd variation on the missing child poster. Generally the “do you know this child?” question isn’t being asked by the child herself.
One recurring theme is a desire to be good at something, to succeed in life, to overcome the sense that at one point in their lives they were considered worthless and disposable, perhaps more so than with other adoptees. They don’t know the specific circumstances of their births and abandonment, but they do know the Policy and the cultural imperatives that caused their adoptions. And this also gives rise to gender-related concerns – they weren’t just considered worthless, they were generally considered worthless because they were girls.

One of the girls describes herself as being on “a journey going backwards” as she delves into her own past and her roots. And it’s an interesting journey to watch. Whatever somebody once thought of them, these are strong, smart, and capable young women. The film doesn’t definitively answer the questions generated, but it does have the potential to increase the awareness and understanding of the bi-national adoptive experience, and in a manner that’s touching, uplifting, and thought-provoking.

"Hitchock" opens today at the Tower Theatre and at Olympus Point in Roseville. "Playing for Keeps" opens in wide release. "Somewhere Between" opens at the Crest Theatre.

New films: The Waiting Room & Anna Karenina

2012-11-30T12:09:39Z

The Waiting Room
Directed by Peter Nicks

If you’ve ever visited a hospital emergency room, in any other than a life threatening emergency involving arriving by ambulance, you’ve probably sat for a long period getting frustrated by the wait, compounded by the pain or infirmity of the condition (or companion) that caused the visit. One of several things “The Waiting Room” does well is to convey the sense that the frustration exists on both sides of the big swing doors, with doctors and nurses having to deal with an overwhelming supply of both emergency patients and those seeking very basic interventions or prescription refills.

This documentary, shot during a 24 hour period in 2010, follows the patients and staff of the ER at Highland Hospital, the Alameda County Medical Center in Oakland, California. And it demonstrates through simple observation, and some brief commentaries from those involved, how broken the healthcare system in this country is. This isn’t a documentary full of facts and figures, or colorful infographics and animations, it’s a film about real people coping with real problems.

As is typical in ER’s and trauma centers, incoming patients are assessed by triage nurses and given a priority status that indicates how urgently they need to be seen. As more critical patients arrive, less critical patients who arrived earlier are pushed backwards in line – and victims of gunshot wounds or road accidents, etc., are taken directly to the trauma team who drop whatever else they’re doing. At least up to the point that the hospital simply can’t take any more patients and ambulances are diverted elsewhere while they play catch-up with the folks who have been sitting in line for hours.

The problem, of course, is that many of those waiting don’t have urgent problems – they have the kind of conditions and needs that a primary care physician, nurse practitioner, or clinic could address if only they had access to such people and facilities. But Highland Hospital is a public facility and the option of last resort for those who have nowhere else to go. So it’s where people go to get free Tylenol when they can’t afford it at the drugstore and it’s where the uninsured go to treat every routine problem. Several of the patients, or prospective waiting patients, make reference to being “at the doctor’s” rather than being at the hospital – this is the only place that they can see a doctor and for some of them it’s a regular visit.

Many also have more urgent concerns but at least some of them wouldn’t have been so urgent if they had been treated earlier. One young male patient is at Highland after paying to be diagnosed at a Kaiser facility and having multiple tests conducted, before being scheduled for surgery to remove a testicular tumor, and then being turned away when it becomes clear that he isn’t in a position to pay for it. Another older man has bone spurs that cause him chronic and acute back pain, but nothing can be done in the short term other than some limited form of pain control (which he must pay for), and he knows he must continue to work laying carpet as he has two younger generations of mouths to feed and an empty checking account.

Scenes of ER’s like this are hard to reconcile with America’s position as a world “superpower.” This is the only nation in the world with more than one operational aircraft carrier, for example (we have 11), and yet it’s probably the worst among its comparable trading partners at treating its own sick and dying citizenry. One of the statistics that often gets quoted when people criticize socialized or partially socialized healthcare systems in other countries is how long people wait to be treated. But the stats often compare those with coverage in each country – which would be everybody in a country like the UK and significantly less than everybody in the US - and so we don’t get an accurate count of those whose wait is infinitely long because they don’t have access to covered care at all.

Through it all, doctors and nurses like those at Highland somehow manage to stay positive and do the best they can with what they have to work with. Much of the process being a juggling game of logistics and resources, examination rooms and hospital beds, hallway gurney spaces and referral options.

If we’re going to avoid being the country that doesn’t even have these options of last resort, and that doesn’t want to watch people with minor infections and easily curable diseases routinely dying on the street, then in some manner those of us who are able to afford to contribute are going to end up covering the care of those who can’t. And that can either be done via massively increased premiums that get filtered and skimmed by large for-profit insurance companies and providers, or it can be done via a centralized system of taxpayer-funded healthcare (or some combination of the two). In Britain, the National Health System has operated hospitals and employed doctors for 64 years – and studies by the US government has concluded that the care provided is both better and cheaper than in the US. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue – if you’re fiscally conservative, you ought to like the idea of spending less money for better care and better outcomes on just about every major measurement of public health.

“The Waiting Room” is a simple but effective illustration of much of what’s wrong with our system. And it should be an example of why covering everybody in a centralized fashion makes sense. It’s a good film that was just nominated for an Independent Spirit Award earlier this week. And it can be enjoyed free of my ranting about healthcare provision.

“The Waiting Room” opens today in Sacramento at the Crest Theatre.

Anna Karenina
Directed by Joe Wright

“Anna Karenina” is a wonderful story by Leo Tolstoy, filled with drama, passion, love, regret, redemption and all the other components of classic literature. And this adaptation comes to the screen with multiple positive factors, including an A-list cast that includes Keira Knightley (as Anna), Jude Law (as her husband), and Aaron Taylor-Johnson (as her lover). All of which don’t add to the pleasure of watching the film but rather add to the disappointment associated with it being an annoying and distracting film to watch.

This version, directed by Joe Wright (“Hanna,” “Atonement,” “Pride & Prejudice”) seems to focus more on directorial flair than on the story. Much of the story is depicted in a large vacant theater, in which the cast moves around as though in a play, only without an audience (at least not within that context), and including action that takes place behind the theater’s scenes and up in the rigging.

Imagine a scene in which two characters talk and then agree to meet later at a restaurant. In most films, they would talk, make their arrangements, and then we would see them at the restaurant in a separate, later scene. Here they would be more likely to talk, then one would walk offstage, the other would do something along the lines of spinning around while donning a hat and coat, other cast members acting like crew would move scenery behind the spinning actor, the actor would continue in the same flowing motion and remove the hat and coat again, the other actor would reappear in a different jacket, and we would realize that several hours had passed in those few uninterrupted seconds and we’re now in the restaurant scene. It’s a type of flourish that seems better suited not just for the stage, but for a story set to music - and for much of the first several minutes I kept expecting the cast to burst into song.

And it isn’t even consistent in this regard, as the initial conceit isn’t held to as the film wanders between these overtly staged scenes and more straightforward scenes in separate locations, such as a farm field during the harvest.

The story of Anna, who deals with her brother’s infidelity prior to engaging in infidelity of her own is still there. The increasingly strained relationship with her husband the prim, proper and god –fearing government minister is still there. The passion is still there. The components are all in place. But the direction often seems to get in the way of the story, rather than facilitating its delivery.

The beginning of this film reminded me of the beginning of “Moulin Rouge” which required a certain stylistic leap of faith from the audience (and where the cast did actually burst into song). I remember there being a point about 15-20 minutes into “Moulin Rouge” where it all started to click into place and I simply rolled with it and subsequently enjoyed it immensely. That didn’t happen for me with “Anna Karenina.” I think the scale of the annoyance diminished, like a sharp head ache that becomes a dull pain, but it never went away entirely. And I think I would/could have enjoyed this screenplay and cast with more conventional direction. Instead, I reached a point where I felt the need to stay and watch the story play out but with a sense of semi-relief when it ended.

I don’t recall feeling quite that same way since experiencing a stronger version of those reactions at “Dancer in the Dark,” one of the most polarizing movies I’ve ever seen. And it’s worth noting, in that context, that early reviews for “Anna Karenina” from top critics (as aggregated by the review site rottentomatoes.com) are split evenly between good and bad opinions.

Anna Karenina opens today in multiple theaters in Sacramento.

New films: Red Dawn, Life of Pi & Silver Linings Playbook

2012-11-21T20:14:40Z

It's a holiday week and so we have have multiple midweek openings, reviewed briefly below. Also opening in wide release today is the animated "Rise of the Guardians." And Friday will mark the limited release of "A Royal Affair" at the Crest (Denmark's official Academy Awards submission).

Red Dawn
Directed by Dan Bradley

It’s been 28 years since the original “Red Dawn” was made and approximately 4 since the remake was made and then shelved pending solutions to studio problems. And if the two films are representative of their times, in the intervening 24 years, apparently we got more interested in gritty realistic action scenes and less interested decent storytelling – and it’s now hipper to bash North Koreans than Russians and Cubans.

This is a remake that manages to be considerably less cheesy than its predecessor but also ruins the basic premise. The earlier film has a bunch of high school kids, and one older brother who’s the earlier generation’s big man on campus, struggling to cope with a military invasion. They do this with little preparation other than some hunting experience and the character development is all post-attack, with the paratroopers arriving within a couple of minutes of the movie’s start.

By comparison, the newer movie is 21 minutes shorter, but spends far longer in redundant setup to what’s a very simple idea at its core – and then it undercuts it by having the older brother be an experienced Iraq veteran Marine, which completely alters the dynamic. And the group seems to be far closer to the town this time around and instead of simply surviving in a slow local war of attrition, they’re given a pivotal role to play in the larger conflict. In short, the new version achieves what seemed like the unlikely if not the impossible – it actually makes the original look better.

Life of Pi
Directed by Ang Lee

“Life of Pi” is being advertised as the best film, visually, since "Avatar" – and it’s certainly quite pretty to look at, at times. The story that unfolds onscreen is one that is being told to a writer, and consequently narrated for the audience, by a native of India who grew up in a zoo and who was later shipwrecked while the animals were being moved. This results in him being stranded in a lifeboat with a tiger for several months, leading to some neat imagery, albeit CGI that isn’t always quite as seemless as it tries to be, but not as much meaning as it strives for.

The plot seems like one of those wonderful flights of fancy, and it might have been, originally. It’s actually based on a shorter story that author Yann Martel read, about a man who crossed the Atlantic in a boat with a jaguar – a story that was somewhat oddly adapted without the original writer’s knowledge or consent.

The writer within the film who is listening to the story has been told that it is so inspiring that it will cause him to believe in God – and it’s a far more religiously themed and spiritual film than the previews might suggest. But it never really delivers on that promise – instead seeming to imply that more fantastic stories are somehow more enjoyable than mundane accounts and are therefore more worthy of belief or are preferable in some way (or, perhaps, that we all have an inner tiger who can save us when we need him to). And in that manner it may do more to explain why some people enjoy their beliefs than explaining why they hold them in the first.

Pi, the boy, started his ill-fated journey already profoundly invested in religious thought and belief, it’s not as though the journey and circumstances brought him to religion. So it also fits that pattern of associating God with good things that follow tragic events while somehow exempting God from the original tragedy. In short, it’s a more rewarding film to sit back and watch than to think too deeply about and it fails to live up to its own hype, either internal or external.

Silver Linings Playbook
Written and Directed by David O’Russell

Perhaps the least hyped of the holiday openings is “Silver Linings Playbook” – a film that might actually benefit from one of those “From the writer and director of …” advertising campaigns. David O’Russell has a short (in quantity) but well regarded filmography as a writer/screenwriter and director who has made very varied films over a 20 year period, including “Spanking the Monkey,” “Three Kings,” “I Heart Huckabees,” and “The Fighter.” That may be as diverse a back catalog as anybody but what they all have in common is rich storytelling and solid character development. This is a guy who knows how to tell a story, almost regardless of what the story is.

“Silver Linings Playbook” fits that list neatly for the same reasons – the content is different yet again but the delivery is strong. It centers around a man who leaves a psychiatric facility, perhaps prematurely, and who is still coming to terms with his own illness and his failed marriage – a marriage he desperately hopes he can save. He stays at his parents’ home – a location that comes with almost as much delusion and codependence as the facility he just left – and goes to therapy as he tries to get back on his own feet. But while obsessing over his wife, he meets a young woman who may very well have as many problems as he has and who sees the person in him rather than the diagnosis.

What unfolds is a messy family drama that delivers in its messiness. He obviously hasn’t fallen too far from the tree in his obsessive behavior and isn’t the only one with issues. It’s also genuinely funny, including a scene in which the two leads compare medication histories, as well as one of the most enjoyable dance scenes since “Pulp Fiction.” In short, it’s the best of the new films, if not visually then certainly in storytelling, and it may have the added benefit of making your own family seem stunningly sane by comparison – which has its value at the holidays.

New films: Lincoln & Twilight

2012-11-16T08:36:08Z

Lincoln & Twilight

There’s a movie opening this week that features a strong, charismatic leader with a rich life experience, making compromises and forging alliances to avoid future persecution of a targeted minority, against the backdrop of an extremely uncivil, civil war. Actually there are two as, on some level (and the comparison may offend some), that description oddly fits both Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln” and “Twlight” – or more accurately “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2.”

Naturally, the higher quality outing comes courtesy of Mr. Spielberg and Mr. Lincoln and stars Daniel Day-Lewis in the lead role, a role he allegedly immersed himself in so completely that even the crew dressed in period costumes to avoid breaking the concentration of both Day-Lewis and fellow method actor Sally Field, who played Mary Todd Lincoln. And in many respects such attention to detail and their craft pays off in a richly layered, strongly acted, and beautifully depicted episode from history – aided by supporting performances by such other greats as Tommy Lee Jones and Hal Holbrook, along with Joseph Gordon-Levitt, David Strathairn, James Spader, and John Hawkes (also currently starring in the amazing “The Sessions”).

But for all of the brilliance of the production, “Lincoln” is most likely not the film that many will be expecting. Despite the generic and seemingly all-encompassing title, “Lincoln” is not some grand scale biopic of the life or even the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. It primarily spans a very short and specific period before and during the House debate on the legislation that would ultimately become the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery. Which brings me back to my own generic description of the narrative: Lincoln recognized the flaws and limitations of the Emancipation Proclamation and knew that a more permanent and all encompassing end to slavery was needed. But whereas the Senate had already approved the content, the majority of opinion in the House was against it and its passage was dependent on much wheeling, dealing, and compromise – including the promise of an imminent end to the Civil War.

All of which is grand in scale when seen at the level of philosophical positions and vision. However, it’s far less grand when seen at the level of the inter-personal relationships. It’s not that it’s not fascinating at times but, in the screenplay written by Pulitzer Prize winner Tony Kushner (“Angels in America”) and directed by Spielberg, it occasionally feels like a 19th Century pilot episode for a pre-pre-prequel to “The West Wing” – or a period big budget costume drama constitutional adaptation of Schoolhouse Rock’s “I’m Just a Bill.” Not that either of those things is inherently bad, it’s just extremely procedural and the outcome involves more vote counting than cannons firing.

It also does two things with regard to comparing politics then with politics now. On the one hand much of the favor trading and negotiations may not have changed that much – albeit perhaps marginally less blatant. On the other hand, for all of the seemingly entrenched positions on both sides of the aisle depicted in “Lincoln,” the action was ultimately successful with enough votes swayed –whereas the level of gridlock currently in Washington seems to have reached a new high, or low depending on one’s perspective. And President Obama is in much the same position, with a Senate that’s more amenable to his ideas and a House that needs to be won over on everything – and which will likely fight a 4% tax increase even more aggressively than their predecessors fought the end of slavery.

At the other end of the scale of weight and meaning, Edward Cullen is back and forced to find friends, relatives, and perhaps even past enemies who will stand with him against the dreaded cape-wearing Volturi, to protect his newly undead wife Bella and their unlikely half-mortal daughter Renesmee (an awful name that doesn’t even get better when truncated). Apparently, vampires past were in the habit of biting small children whose development was then arrested in a permanent and devastatingly destructive temper tantrum phase, taking out entire villages rather than just a candy counter at the checkout aisle (and checkout aisle temper tantrums are almost as bad as political aisle temper tantrums). So, over time, these vampire children were outlawed on pain of even deathier death and so the arrival of little Renesmee/Ness/Nessie where such offspring are unheard of seems mighty suspicious and provocative to all of vampiredom.

Of course there are other sub-plots, like Teenwolf Jacob who has a predestined crush on baby Renesmee (“It’s a wolf thing”) – and Volturi boss Aro who apparently has a penchant for unique aptitudes. But despite actually being quite well put together, with some very engaging action scenes when the two sides finally meet, this last chapter doesn’t even feel like a last chapter. With the final book, “Breaking Dawn,” having been split in two for the screen (much like a disobedient vampire), “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2” never really feels like anything other than the disconnected final act of “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1.” And the pacing and material-stretching reinforces the idea that it was little more than a money grab rather than a narrative choice: With the 115 minute running time feeling like it’s almost an hour longer than the actual resolution required and a couple of false endings that had people about to get up and leave. These two two-hour movies would have made a far more memorable three-hour finale if they hadn’t been wrenched apart.

It’s a franchise that’s made worldwide stars of its three leads – Robert Pattinson as Edward, Kristen Stewart as Bella, and Taylor Lautner as Jacob. One intriguing aspect of the early screening and its audience of fanatic ‘Twihards’ were the rousing cheers, from respective halves of the audience, for Pattinson and Lautner, and the slightly more subdued and mixed boos and catcalls for Stewart. Whether or not that’s the result of Bella’s onscreen rejection of Jacob or Stewart’s off-screen drama with Pattinson was hard to tell – but it will be interesting to see how their respective careers and popularity develop from this point on.

The other interesting aspect to the “Twilight” dynamic is that while “Breaking Dawn – Part 1” was almost uncomfortably sexual when seen with a theater full of tween and teen girls, “Breaking Dawn – Part2” is more subtle in its sexual content but surprisingly overt and graphic in its vampire on vampire and wolf on vampire violence. Suddenly it seems like the pivotal scene is likely to appeal more to teen boys than teen girls – another argument in favor of keeping the parts together for balance rather than apart for dollars.

And so we have two epic movie projects hitting screens on the same weekend but unlikely to do battle, given two fairly distinct target demographics. The box office winner will, of course, be “Twilight” but the awards winner, everywhere other than the People’s/Teen Choice Awards and MTV Movie Awards, will be “Lincoln.” While the counter-programming might keep marketing executives happy, it’s a shame that “Lincoln” couldn’t have arrived on a slightly less competitive weekend as it’s likely to become the iconic image of Abraham Lincoln for a generation to come – but it’s a generation that will be more likely to stream it on a tablet or phone where a lot of the impressive detail will be lost. Meanwhile, the blood, fangs, and sparkly lovers of “Twilight” will be seen on an enormous number of big screens, as digital film distribution allows theaters to fill almost every auditorium with midnight screenings contributing to a weekend haul that could conceivably double last weekend’s $88million opening for “Skyfall.”

New (wonderful) film: The Sessions

2012-11-09T11:28:45Z

The Sessions
Directed by Ben Lewin

“The Sessions” is a wonderful film that tells the true story of Mark O’Brien, a Berkeley man and polio survivor who spent most of his life in an iron lung, and whose time outside the machine was still spent flat on his back and limited by the parameters of his physical disabilities. Given his condition, O’Brien reached his mid-thirties having never had sex or a romantic relationship of any kind and decided to remedy that situation. The film is adapted from an article he wrote entitled “On Seeking a Sex Surrogate.”

O’Brien is played brilliantly by John Hawkes, with William H. Macy as his sympathetic (and amusing) priest, and Helen Hunt in a career reviving role as Cheryl, his equally sympathetic and surprisingly vulnerable sex surrogate – and this is a project that seems likely to spawn acting nominations in the new year. It’s also worth noting that it’s a film that addresses the subject of sex openly and honestly, with both frontal nudity and very explicit dialog.

“The Sessions” seems destined to be enjoyed not only by theatrical audiences who will appreciate the touching and personal story, filled with self-effacing humor that pervades the telling, but by students in coursework pertaining to services for people with disabilities and assorted related therapies . It’s an amazing and unlikely combination of “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” and “The 40 Year Old Virgin” and it could be a case study for the now expected use of person-first terminology as the viewing experience transitions from a story about a disability, to a story about a disabled man, to a story about a man with a disability, to a story about a man. It really is a remarkable accomplishment.

"The Sessions" opens today at the Tower Theatre in Sacramento.

New film: Skyfall

2012-11-09T11:23:50Z

Skyfall
Directed by Sam Mendes

*ALERT: SOME MILD SPOILERS*

“Skyfall” is the 20th “official” Bond film (of 23 total) and comes 50 years after Sean Connery first graced the screen in “Dr. No.” It’s a series that has seen distinct highs and lows and, in some ways and in different moments, “Skyfall” manages to approach both ends of the scale. The problem is that it’s like two or three separate films all vying for screentime.

It starts with Bond in Istanbul, pursuing a contract villain who has stolen a hard drive with the identities of various agencies’ spies. Even this is somewhat unusual as most Bond films begin with a successful pursuit to set the ball rolling, leading into the required theme music and stylized opening credit crawl – but this time the opening action doesn’t go quite according to plan. It is otherwise, however, very Bond-like, with chasing and shooting and suave moments that fit the Bond that we’ve come to know and love.

The film then takes a turn, focusing more than in the past on Judi Dench’s wonderful depiction of puppetmaster “M” – Bond’s boss at MI6. This, in and of itself, is unusual and while it works very well, it doesn’t seem like a typical Bond movie. When Bond reappears, we slowly learn who our master villain is and contrary to tradition, he isn’t out to take over the world or to provide weaponry for somebody else out to take over the world, he’s a man with a grudge and a very personal score to settle. Naturally it’s a score that involves having planned ahead so meticulously that he somehow knows how a future foot chase will pan out – but that’s the kind of plot device one can never take the time to ponder.

And so the film transitions from standard Bond scenes of foreign cities and casinos populated by statuesque women that Bond can quickly seal the deal with, to a much more intimate battle of wits a little closer to home. There are moments here when it feels more like a Bourne movie than a Bond movie – which isn’t a bad standard but simply doesn’t feel quite right. And then it changes again – and becomes something entirely new and different – more of an ‘origins’ story and essentially a reboot of the franchise in a more blatant manner than we’ve seen so far in the Daniel Craig era. It feels a little like we’re visiting Wayne Manor and being told the ‘Batman’ backstory – only set in a Scotland that’s devoid of Scottish accents. And a reboot shouldn’t include props from the past, as the past at that point is implied not to have existed (this isn’t “Looper” or “Dr. Who”).

All of which contributes to my dilemma in reviewing the film. I’ve been a fan of the franchise since the beginning and I always want to like these projects. When “Skyfall” is being what we expect a Bond film to be, it’s doing it very well. When Skyfall is giving us more background on M, it’s also doing it very well but it’s feeling less like a Bond film. And in the third act, when it slows and then builds again to the expected and necessary but quite different climax, it’s still being very good – but it’s feeling even less Bond-like than the second act.

So I find myself thinking of it as a good film, but not necessarily a good Bond film. Or at least not a good traditional Bond film, but perhaps a better new age Bond film. It’s not that Bond isn’t capable of deep thought, pondering his past, and introspective conversation – it’s just that we expect him to do that in his own time, off-screen, and to shoot people and drive fast cars while we’re watching. And the change in tone seems only temporary, as it feels like the series is about to go old school again, not stay new school.

Meanwhile, the acting is good – Craig and Dench are solid, especially Dench who is given far more than usual to work with. Ralph Fiennes has less to do but does it well and Javier Bardem hams it up as a villain – but not just a film villain, a Bond film villain in the over the top, creepy manner of Bond villains past. Ben Wishaw comes on board as the new “Q” and the age difference is played to good advantage as this is a geeky, computer wiz Q not a gadget-happy maker of invisible cars and garrote-wire concealing wristwatches.

In summary, I suspect most people will enjoy “Skyfall” – as indeed I did. But if this was the only Bond movie I’d ever seen, my understanding of the character and my expectations of the other films would be quite different.

New films: Flight, Wuthering Heights, Wreck it Ralph, and more

2012-11-02T11:47:13Z

Flight
Directed by Robert Zemeckis

I’ll probably be bucking a trend here, but I’m not especially fond of “Flight” – a movie that stars Denzel Washington as a skilled but flawed airline pilot – which is fitting because it also feels like a skilled but flawed film. The previews focus on the action scenes – which are well done – but they’re also over fairly quickly at the start of a movie that focuses primarily on the aftermath of those scenes rather than on them directly. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing if you enjoy where that focus takes you – and I enjoyed it until about 10-15 minutes before the end of the movie.

Part of that aftermath is really quite interesting, as we see the process of investigating a commercial airline crash. This includes the National Transportation Safety Board team, the airline, the pilot’s union, and a rather pragmatic lawyer (Don Cheadle). The problem that they’re all dealing with, in their own self-interested ways, is that Washington’s Captain “Whip” Whitaker is a raging drunk – but one of those high functioning alcoholics who can still perform better than many or most around him, even while under the influence of enough intoxicants to put most of us to sleep.

And that, to me, is an interesting story – the way that the Whip Whitakers of the world manage to get through life, covering their addictions, and being covered for by many of those around them. Except that this is a film that feels like it pulls its punches, with an ending that seems more trite than profound.

Coincidentally, while “Flight” is playing in wide release, Sacramento’s Tower Theatre is screening “Smashed” (which I haven’t had the chance to review) about an elementary school teacher also battling alcoholism, a workplace incident, and attempting to address it through Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). And the Crest Theatre is continuing its extended engagement of “Bill W.” (reviewed last week) about Bill Wilson, another prodigious drinker who ruined his own career before founding AA. I probably would have enjoyed the story that “Flight” almost was more than “Bill W.” – but I think I enjoyed “Bill W.” more than the story that “Flight” became.

Wuthering heights
Directed by Andrea Arnold

This is a dark movie – quite literally - not just in terms of the star-crossed sweethearts and their doomed relationship. Set in Victorian England, many of the scenes are authentic in that they take place at night without lighting, or in interiors lit only by firelight or candles – which is good for mood and a sense of time and place, but not especially conducive to ease of viewing. In that sense it reminded me of the minimalistic style of a film like “Meek’s Cutoff,” about a group of settlers heading west across America, and also featuring scenes during which the audience strains to make out the action.

However the action and the classic story is still there – albeit occasionally murky. The daytime scenes are as spectacular for their scenery as the nighttime scenes are impenetrable and this is a production that is as much poetic in its imagery as it is focused in its narrative. There are moments that are almost like a Terrence Malick film, as the camera lingers on a view or on water droplets, but without being quite so indulgent. With tighter editing, the story itself could probably be told in 30 less minutes – but the film would lose a lot of its sense of slow and stark isolation.

In Emily Brontë’s novel, the character of Heathcliffe is dark skinned and a gypsy – but here he is played (as an adult) by black actor James Howson. After reading up on the production, there appears to have been quite a list of potential or attached actors for the lead roles, as well as more than one director associated with the project prior to production. The final choice for the adult Catherine Earnshaw was Kaya Scodelario, probably most recognized for her work as Effy Stonem in the British TV series “Skins.” And having seen most of her work in that show, it was interesting to compare and contrast the two works, written approximately 165 years apart but both featuring self-destructive relationships and a young woman torn between two love interests, one of which is more stable and the other more volatile.

This production is probably a little more front heavy than some – with more time spent with the younger characters. It’s likely to appeal to those purists who prefer their classics told simply, rather than spiced up or transplanted into a modern high school setting. But it’s not for those who want a speedy narrative that will get them out of the theater and on their way to dinner in a brisk and bright 90 minutes or so.

Wreck it Ralph
Directed by Rich Moore

The most upbeat of this week’s reviewed movies is “Wreck it Ralph,” an animated film about a video game villain who finds that a starring role in a classic game may offer great job security but it doesn’t offer much personal fulfillment. And realize that this is a depiction of the games in a video arcade in which all of the game characters are autonomous individuals who get to clock off work when the arcade closes and who have lives of their own to lead – like attending a villain support group.

Ralph is the bad guy to Felix, the title character of ‘Fix it Felix Jr.’ – a game in which Ralph breaks things and Felix repairs them in time to win a medal at the end. Which leaves Ralph yearning for a medal of his own. The arcade is wonderfully depicted with the games connected by their power cords such that the characters can move around within them – and this also gives plenty of opportunity for multiple classic references that will appeal to gamers – including those parents who are old enough to have grown up on games like ‘Pac-Man’ and who are bringing their children for the cute story. And films like this tend to be most successful when both the children and the adults in the room have a frame of reference to appreciate.

The cast here is fun to listen to in their voiceover roles, with John C. Reilly as Ralph, Jack McBrayer as Felix, Sarah Silverman as a small girl in a candy-themed racing cart game, and Jane Lynch as the leader of a military assault team in a game based on fighting off hordes of mutant bugs. If you’ve seen the previews and wondered if there’s enough interest and material here to carry a full feature film, there is – and it’s a neat treat to watch, and a concept that could yield multiple more cute video game crossovers (perhaps with even more recognizable games and characters wanting to get in on any sequels that might come along later).

Other film news and openings

Two other films are opening in Sacramento this week that I haven’t had a chance to review but which may interest some readers:

“Diana Vreeland: The Eye has to Travel” is a documentary about the woman who was Fashion Editor of “Harper’s Bazaar” and later Editor in Chief of “Vogue.” In 40+ years in the business, she also advised Jackie Kennedy on her clothing selections and consulted with the Costume Institute of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. All of which sounds like a must see for fashionistas and design students, amongst others.

“The Man with the Iron Fists” is a genre movie that appears to blend Grindhouse and ‘chop-socky’ action in a highly stylized, Chinese-themed action movie, starring Russell Crowe and Lucy Liu, that should appeal to those who like their fighting fast, bloody, and not remotely plausible.

New films: Bill W. & How to Survive a Plague

2012-10-26T11:38:27Z

Bill W.
Directed by Dan Carracino & Kevin Hanlon

A few weeks ago, the powers that be at the Crest Theatre decided to try a single day’s programming for this film – and the result was so overwhelmingly positive that they brought it back for a regular engagement. And it’s easy to see why so many people would be affected strongly by the story of Bill Wilson, the Founder of Alcoholics Anonymous, a man who’s a hero to so many struggling and recovering addicts – although he would most likely have scoffed at such an idea and described himself as a drunk trying to get through his life. One day at a time.

His story is likely familiar to many, not because they know it but because they’ve lived through at least a portion of it, looking at the world through the bottom of a bottle. But to at least some extent, the most powerful aspect of this biographical tribute is not the personal recovery, or even the book and the program he wrote (some of which had earlier origins in the tenets of The Oxford Group), but the fact that Wilson essentially gave up his own life and the pursuit of any personal wealth or status in favor of the organization he founded. That said, there are moments in the early days when the need to depend on the generosity of AA members begins to sound somewhat like the L. Ron Hubbard story that was the inspiration for the recent film “The Master.”

But it is a tribute – with the story being told by people who are great friends or fans of Wilson. If challenged, they would probably point out that they also describe his failings but they manage to excuse them in the same breath. It’s a tribute tale that seems like it’s well worth telling, and the kind of relative selflessness that we don’t see very often, but it also feels like we’re only getting a part of a larger story. Surely there were people who might not have had such glowing opinions and the film never addresses the residual controversies associated with the prevalence of a program that is so steeped in religious or at least spiritual concepts and often prescribed by the courts.

And yet it’s still fascinating to hear how it went down: Wilson’s early expertise as a traveling business analyst, the critical events and relationships that were often accidental, and the book in which they sold shares before they wrote the first word and which has gone on to sell over 30 million copies. One of the key turning points in the growth of the organization came when a Saturday Evening Post reporter came to write what was expected to be a very negative story, but who stayed and wrote his own testament – and it’s easy to see why that would have happened.

However one feels about some of the political implications of the program now, it was an amazing development 60+ years ago, following a period in which alcoholics were treated like the mentally ill, in a time when that could result in lobotomies and forced sterilization. And remember that the organization was also founded shortly after the failed attempt to suppress alcohol consumption during Prohibition – and here was a man who actually managed to cure people of their drinking compulsion, or at least to control it. I just wish that it were one film in a series that didn’t all have quite such an insider tone.

How to Survive a Plague
Directed by David France

For those of us who didn’t witness it up close and personal, it’s hard to watch footage of people dying of AIDS in the early days of the epidemic and reconcile ourselves with how recent it all was. The images of wasted, frail bodies seem reminiscent of earlier times – and there’s a new level of complacency for many today that belies the fact that an AIDS diagnosis was an almost 100% certain death sentence, and a slow, painful one at that, for both the patient and their loved ones.

By 1987, half a million people had died of AIDS worldwide, just six years after it was first recognized by the Centers for Disease Control. But the rapid onset of the disease stood in stark contrast to the slow acceptance and support from elected officials and the heathcare industry, with hospital staff turning away the sick. And when the first mass produced drug, AZT, became available it cost $10,000/year and was so toxic that many patients couldn’t sustain the treatment.

It was a disease that primarily affected, in the early years, an already marginalized population – still vilified by many leaders elected to protect that and all other populations. With little action, at best, and open hostility, at worst, from those in positions to help, it was left to a growing cadre of self-educated and remarkably organized AIDS activists to push for new drug research and releases, to write treatment protocols, and force the issue.

“How to Survive a Plague” tells the story of ACT UP and its spin-off TAG (Treatment Action Group), two organizations that fought the system, the FDA, the catholic church, the National Institutes of Health, assorted politicians and Washington, and changed the landscape of AIDS the disease, as well as AIDS the issue. It’s a powerful film that documents a long fight with a great many casualties along the way, but also illustrates an effective model for action – with parallel fronts of mass action and targeted expertise.

Both films open today, exclusively at the Crest Theatre.

New films: Cloud Atlas & Fun Size

2012-10-26T11:33:40Z

Cloud Atlas
Directed by Tom Tykwer, and Lana & Andy Wachowski

There’s something inherently off-putting about attending a screening of a film at which the studio feels the need to warn the audience that it’s a difficult film to watch and one that demands patience. It’s also odd to watch the stars of a film on talk shows, seemingly attempting to explain in greater detail than one might normally expect, just what the film is about and how it’s structured. And I can’t help but assume that the filmmakers are concerned about whether audiences will “get” the film or care for what they’re getting.

I haven’t read the book of the same name that the film is based on, but I have read about it, in terms of its structure and storyline. And the film departs from that structure by telling the multiple storylines in a much more fragmented manner. That may upset fans of the book, but the book also sounds like it would have been hard to adapt in a more parallel fashion. Any attempt to tell such a story pretty much demands an ambitious vision, but “Cloud Atlas” may be too ambitious in that it takes an already somewhat complex concept and seems to complicate it even further.

The book tells six stories, separated through the centuries from our past to our future, with central characters that are essentially the same reincarnated soul inhabiting different bodies at different times. At each stage of the story, difficult and defining decisions have to be made that have residual effects for the next generation(s). It’s like a variation of the ‘Butterfly Effect’ only across time rather than just across continents and oceans.

But the film muddies this concept by having a central cast of major star power, with each of them playing multiple recurring roles across those stories and times. And, if nothing else and without dwelling too much on the narrative complications, it’s distracting to play the game of “spot the star” in the various subplots. This is a film that’s the dream project for a maker of prosthetic noses and you almost want “the nose guy” to get top billing. But it adds to the sense of stunt casting as they bury Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Susan Sarandon, Ben Wishaw, Hugh Grant and several others behind multiple faces – some of which work far better than others, including some that look artificial enough to take you out of the moment.

Another unfortunate distraction is that dialog written for one of the future subplots is intended to sound like a variation of English that has morphed over time into something just recognizable for us to understand but clearly different enough to suggest the passage of time and isolation of the group. This would be neat if it didn’t sound uncomfortably close at times to dialog written by Jar Jar Binks moonlighting as a scriptwriter.

Still, there’s something wonderful in the attempt to bring this to the big screen. It’s ambitious and big and amazing at times in its vision. But it’s also weighed down by being overly ambitious in its casting and in its use of that cast. The themes are inherently profound – the nature of slavery, the founding of religion, and personal sacrifice amongst others – and the structure of the source material is inherently challenging. As such, it’s not a project that can sustain too many distractions and yet it’s a project that keeps piling them on with great gusto.

And so I find myself back where I started, apparently on the same page as the studio, choosing to warn future audience members to be open-minded and to be patient. This isn’t a film for those with short attention spans. Nor is it, at almost three hours, a film for those who chugged a Big Gulp on the way to the theater.

Fun Size
Directed by Josh Schwartz

“Fun Size” is an entirely predictable and derivative story about teenaged Wren who finds herself babysitting her kid brother Albert on Halloween, rather than attending the cool party that’s being hosted by the oh-so-dreamy Aaron Riley. The problem is that there’s virtually nothing in the film that doesn’t seem like things you’ve seen before in any number of teen babysitting and/or want-to-go-to-the-cool-party movies – including situations and scenes that seem lifted in their entirety from earlier films.

However, it’s also quite well done and often funny – and many in the cast make the most of the hackneyed material. What I have a hard time figuring out is quite who it’s targeted towards: It’s a PG-13 rated film that feels more like a slightly too hard PG rather than a softened R (and it’s the softened R’s that tend to make the most money). Which probably makes it better for tweens with liberal parents than for older teenagers who may be seeking out something a little edgier. It’s not bad, it just feels like an old joke you’ve heard before, being told by a new friend who’s younger than the joke. And that’s probably the key – most of the audience will also be younger than the joke and hearing it for the first time.

New films: Urban decay in "Alex Cross" and "Detropia"

2012-10-19T10:18:30Z

Urban Decay at the Movies

The cinematic coincidences continue as we get two new films that feature urban decay, specifically with regard to the City of Detroit.

In “Alex Cross,” Tyler Perry plays against type as novelist James Patterson’s long-running detective/psychologist, previously played on the big screen by Morgan Freeman (“Kiss the Girls,” “Along Came a Spider”). It’s a fairly awful movie on multiple levels – with poor acting, a story that gives itself away quite consistently, and a few special effects that would seem more at home in a late night movie on the Syfy channel.

But the plot does have an interesting premise, with a rich French industrialist scheming to make money by rebuilding the blighted Motor City. This is also of economic importance to the movie itself as Detroit, and Michigan in general, has some of the most competitive film production incentives, and so the story is set up to be a pre-cursor to most Alex Cross novels, in that it takes place before he relocates to Washington, DC.

However, that move from police detective to Capital FBI agent is premised on his expertise as a behavioral psychologist – and we’re given an early scene that could have come from a Sherlock Holmes story, as he makes various observations about his wife’s movements and new habits. Which would be great if not for the fact that the rest of the movie seems to be a series of mistakes, near misses, late deductions, and violations of protocol that are neither impressive nor likely to ingratiate one to the FBI.

Towards the end of the movie, I felt as though I had just sat through the longest ever General Motors commercial – after watching a series of GM vehicles up close and personal, being reassured of their structural integrity, and paying a visit to the GM Heritage Museum. And there’s an explosion that would be bad enough if we only had to watch it once, but we’re shown it twice for no good reason, as the plot is explained retrospectively during an exceptionally unrealistic stretch of a final scene.

On the upside, Matthew Fox makes a pretty creepy killer and transformed himself quite effectively for the role.

Detroit is also the center of attention in the less violent but, to some extent, more disturbing “Detropia” – a documentary that examines the changing fortunes of a city that loses a family every 10 minutes. As the film points out, in 1930 Detroit was the fastest growing city in the world and it is now the fastest shrinking city in the US, having lost more residents than most cities have ever had (the population has declined from approx. 1,850,000 to approx. 700,000, since a peak in the 1950’s).

That has created 100,000 vacant houses and lots and enough unoccupied space that you could drop the Cities of Boston and San Francisco, as well as Manhattan, into the gaps with room left over. Many of us have grown up seeing older relatives or friends pointing at development and saying things like “I remember when all this was green” – but Detroit has the potential to reverse that trend, with vast swaths of derelict buildings being torn down and controversial plans to relocate residents to more densely populated parts of the enormous territory (139 square miles).

This is a city with entire blocks that might only have one (or less) occupied homes – but where the streets, lighting, and city services still need to be maintained. And where the cost of a house in many cities could buy you an entire vacant block. It’s a sobering look at a situation that makes many struggling city economies, Sacramento’s among them, look almost rosy by comparison.

The positive outcome of the severe depression is that Detroit is seeing a late influx of young artists and creative entrepreneurs, lured by the extreme low costs. They don’t come close to making up for the hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs, primarily in the auto industry, but it is helping on some level.

The film conveys these and other facts, as seen through the eyes of several residents, including a long-time Cadillac employee and union leader. It has an easy-going pace that throws facts and figures more slowly than many documentaries, while letting the sense of anguish and frustration sink in more effectively than some. In this context, it’s worth noting that “Detropia” won a documentary editing award at Sundance and was nominated for that festival’s Grand Jury prize.

“Alex Cross” opens today in wide release and “Detropia” begins an exclusive engagement at Sacramento’s historic Crest Theatre.

New films (within films): Argo, Seven Psychopaths, Sinister (and Here Comes the Boom)

2012-10-12T22:46:18Z

Films within Films

In another interesting coincidence, three of this week’s new films feature films within films as plot elements. The best one is entirely fake, one is being written as events occur, and one involves a series of home movies you’d never want to take to a place that offers film to DVD transfers.

“Argo” is easily the best of the bunch, and one of the best films of the year so far. It’s more evidence that Ben Affleck’s greatest film talent is in his directing rather than his acting, although he acts here as well. It tells the true story of the improbable rescue of a six US embassy employees during the larger Iran hostage crisis. While most of those held were in the embassy itself, these six had escaped and were in hiding at the Canadian Ambassador’s residence. There weren’t any easy or obvious ways to exfiltrate the group and the longshot plan that was developed was to pretend they were a Canadian film crew producing a science fiction movie, in Iran to scout shooting locations.

This provides an interesting dynamic in the film as we’re given very successful and apparently quite authentic depictions of the unrest in the country, as well as the developing plan, with much of the film filled with a well-executed sense of tension. But we’re also treated to a neat quasi-exposee of the filmmaking industry and process that is genuinely hilarious at times. For example, in order for the deceit to work, and for the six Americans to escape, they needed to learn not only their Canadian cover biographies but enough to convince an interrogator that they were also members of a film crew. There’s something very open and self-deprecating about a film and a director that include the lines “Can you teach somebody to be a director in a day?” answered by “You could teach a rhesus monkey to be a director in a day.”

Affleck plays the CIA operative who came up with the plan, a real individual who was highly honored for his clandestine work with the agency. Much of the strength of the movie comes from the supporting cast, with John Goodman and Alan Arkin as the veteran industry insiders providing the audience with a steady stream of cynicism about Hollywood, and Bryan Cranston as Affleck’s CIA supervisor.

In a neat touch, during the closing credits, we’re shown a series of paired images of real events as they were recorded and the events of the film, as well as pictures of the real people and the (very well cast) actors that portrayed them. Some of these are also accompanied by a later description of events spoken by Jimmy Carter, who was President when it happened. I’ve seen many of these end credit tributes and comparisons in other films but there’s a compelling feeling of need to watch these and I can’t remember another occasion in which the audience, which had already started to get up and exit the theater, simply came to an abrupt and silent halt. In the preview screening, there was no movement during this period and, if there’s a criticism of the film at all, it may be that it would have been advantageous to start this sequence of images so quickly that people didn’t even begin to move as many people were struggling to see over others who had already started to walk along rows of seats.

In “Seven Psychopaths,” Colin Farrell plays a writer who is working on a screenplay that mirrors the action on screen. The two are so closely correlated that it’s hard to decide if the film is propagating the screenplay or vice versa. It’s a follow-up projects of sorts for writer/director Martin McDonagh who previously made “In Bruges.” And while both films are funny in a somewhat similar and twisted way, “In Bruges” felt lighter and happier, despite dealing with contract killers. By comparison, “Seven Psychopaths” feels darker and somewhat more mean spirited – and the result is less fun to watch.

That said, it’s still worthwhile for anybody who enjoys this cast – and it’s a treat just to watch Sam Rockwell, Christopher Walken, and Woody Harrelson play off each other – with Farrell as the straight man of the group. The actual count of psychopaths seems off as the film starts with an exchange between two killers who aren’t in the tally – but that’s hardly the point of the film.

Further down the quality food chain is “Sinister,” starring Ethan Hawke as a writer of true crime stories who may once have pursued his writing for idealistic reasons but who now seems more motivated by an attempt to regain past fame and fortune. Rather than simply relocating his unfortunate family to the town of a recent, grisly quadruple murder, he moves them into the house where it happened in order to dig up details. But what he doesn’t expect is the box of home movies that details that and several other killings.

The plot of “Sinister” is so obvious that I returned from the screening and then had a conversation with somebody who told me almost everything that happened (accurately) based on a single viewing of the preview. I had essentially switched gears myself, as a viewer, as the story held virtually no interest or surprises for me and I started to view it, instead, as an interesting filmmaking exercise. In that respect, in reminded me of the recent “The Woman in Black,” starring Daniel Radcliffe (aka. Harry Potter), in that both films do a very good job of creating scenes and frightening images (for those who are frightened by such films) through the use of clever cuts and camera angles more than through the use of special effects. I’m more inclined to recommend it to filmmakers than to film fans, unless you’re a genre fan of spooky haunted house/occult-ish films. And what's scarier than the movie is the trajectory of Ethan hawkes's career.

The film I least enjoyed (of this week’s openings) was “Here Comes the Boom,” with Kevin James as a high school biology teacher who takes up mixed martial arts to raise money to save the school’s music program. This one doesn’t fit the film within a film pattern of the others and neither does it fit any pattern of desirability or enjoyable storytelling. The first sentence of this paragraph tells you all you need to know in terms of how likely you are to appreciate it – except that it might be worth knowing that most of the people he encounters during the movie seem like they would be more successful than him, and yet the story continues to follow his stunningly unlikely pursuit of a sport that ought to have hospitalized him, perhaps permanently, moments after he first entered the octagon. But his ability to avoid long term paralysis was offset by my own case of almost paralytic boredom and disinterest in the material. If you’ve already watched “Argo” and you’re considering “Here Comes the Boom,” watch “Argo” again.

New films: Taken 2, Frankenweenie, Stars in Shorts - plus film highlights

2012-10-05T10:51:25Z

Taken 2
Directed by Olivier Megaton

When “Taken” opened, it came as a surprise for assorted reasons. The basic plot about a man who fights to free his kidnapped daughter was extremely simple, as simple as, for example, the original “Die Hard” about a cop in the wrong place at the wrong time. Both movies featured a favorite theme of mine – the reluctant hero, the person who finds themself in an unexpected and undesirable situation that requires their action. But “Taken” was also quite different from many other films of that nature in that while the hero is an ex government operative with prodigious skills, he’s also a father worried only about his daughter’s safety.

Most heroes in most films are bound by some set of rules – a character like Bruce Wllis’ cop in “Die Hard” may be off duty but he’s still a cop. James Bond may be licensed to kill, but the expectation is that he’s going to kill bad guys and he still has superiors to answer to. When we’re given protagonists who operate outside of some set of societal rules, they’re often renegades or outlaws to begin with – whether they be Robin Hood, Butch and Sundance, or a recent action character like that played by Jason Statham in the “Transporter” films.

In contrast, Liam Neeson’s Bryan Mills is a good guy, and the hero/protagonist of the “Taken” franchise, who has a background operating within some set of rules, however hazy, who is now completely unburdened by any such limits. And so we get the relatively unusual character who is quite comfortable strapping a villain to a chair (as in “Taken”) and electrocuting him to death, while also seeking the critical next clue to the whereabouts of his missing daughter. This is helped, of course, by putting him up against human traffickers who aren’t exactly the most sympathetic bunch of opponents, but it’s still an intriguing dynamic.

One of the most similar films might be Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “All I care about is Jenny” role as another father freeing a daughter in 1985’s “Commando.” But Schwarzenegger was already known for the “Conan” films, “The Terminator,” and “Red Sonja.” There was no big surprise in terms of the kind of character he would play or the action that would be involved. Whereas four years ago, Neeson wasn’t especially known for action hero roles – he was as more Oskar Schindler or Alfred Kinsey, than Qui-Gon Jinn or Godfrey de Ibelin (“Kingdom of Heaven”). So Neeson as a no-holds-barred ass-kicker wasn’t a given or even very expected.

Which brings us to “Taken 2,” which has the relative misfortune of needing to recreate what made “Taken” work, despite the fact that much of what made “Taken” work was a combination of surprise and the unusual character dynamic that we’re now familiar with. The action is still there, as is the pragmatic brutality as Mills has to keep his wife and daughter away from the disgruntled father of one of the men he killed last time around, but the plot stretches more in an attempt to bring us new surprises. It also has a slow buildup which might work well when the destination is a surprise but which represents more of an impediment when you know where the movie’s going – because, after all, where the movie is going is the movie’s only reason to exist, to show us Neeson killing the new crop of bad guys.

This recreation of Liam Neeson as action hero has brought us the god(s)awful “Clash of the Titans”/”Wrath of the Titans,” the interesting and meaningful “The Grey” (far deeper than the man vs. wolves survival story it’s often described as), and the sheer adrenaline rush of “Taken”/”Taken 2.” It’s worth noting that, at this point in time, Neeson is 60 and although he’s a big guy, he isn’t built like another Schwarzenegger. Don’t get me wrong, I’d be happy to look that good at 60 (or now for that matter), but he doesn’t radiate ‘action hero’ when you look at him. And that may be part of the appeal – he’s also handsome but not in a magazine cover, pretty boy kind of way – he’s like an everyman’s thinking/action hero – and in “Taken 2” there’s a also a lot of thinking. He ends up being more appealing because he doesn’t look like he was carved from a block of granite and neither do the rest of us – and so his actions seem more like they might be within the reach of an everyman with a similar background.

“Taken 2” can’t realistically recreate the moment that was captured in “Taken,” but it tries very hard and it’s still a fun ride. And each time you see a new boyfriend for the daughter or hear mention of the lead villain’s unseen additional sons, you can’t help but count forward in your head to all of the potential new combinations of family kidnappings and kidnappers that can lead to “Taken 3,” “Taken 4,” etc., each of which now have a slightly lower bar to hurdle.

Frankenweenie
Directed by Tim Burton

This feature length stop-motion animation version of “Frankenweenie” is based on Tim Burton’s 1984 live-action short of the same name. So if you see it and wonder why there are end credit thanks for Shelley Duvall, Daniel Stern, and Barret Oliver, it’s because they were the original cast. This time around the voice cast includes Catherine O’Hara, Winona Ryder, Martin Landau, and Martin Short. But, unusually for Burton, it doesn’t include either Johnny Depp or Burton’s partner Helena Bonham Carter.

The new version is neat on multiple levels. Not just for the story but for wonderful little details that give the film more depth. On its face, it retells the Frankenstein story with Victor Frankenstein as a young boy attempting to re-animate his dead dog, but the film also includes imagery consistent with other classic horror films. And this could be the secret to its potential success – where many films targeted towards children throw in all sorts of mildly adult jokes and double-entendres for the parents in the room, “Frankenweenie” achieves the same result through these visual clues that most of the smaller audience members won’t appreciate, at least not yet. It’s a film that many kids could watch now and enjoy, and then watch multiple additional times over the years and appreciate in new ways, as they expand their film horizons.

That said, to be honest, at the start of the film I was mildly annoyed that it seemed to be just another Burtonesque project with the predictable art direction and visual elements. But it all works here and is Burton’s best and freshest work in years.

Stars in Shorts

A film format not often seen by most filmgoers is the short which, under Academy rules, is any project with a running time of less than 40 minutes – and often considerably less. They are a staple of film festival programs and thematic collections occasionally make the rounds of art house theaters. Sacramento’s Crest Theatre has, for example, shown several annual collections of short films that have been nominated in their respective years for Academy Awards. Now they’re screening a collection of seven shorts that each feature actors that are better known for their work in feature films and television.

The films include “After School Special,” previously seen in Sacramento at last year’s Sacramento Film & Music Festival, starring Wes Bentley and Sarah Paulson as single parents whose encounter at a kids play area starts awkwardly and leads to an even more awkward ending. “Friend Request Pending” is a wonderful examination of dating in a time dominated by facebook and other social media, including the abbreviated language of “LOL” and “OMG” – except that the chatty action is between seniors, primarily the always wonderful Judi Dench. In “Steve,” socially isolated Colin Firth finds weak and increasingly desperate (and disturbingly amusing) excuses to visit his upstairs neighbors, Keira Knightley and Tom Mison.

The remaining four films feature Kenneth Branagh, Julia Stiles, Jason Alexander, Lily Tomlin, Jessie Tyler Ferguson, and Jennifer Morrison. Total running time for all seven films is 1 hour and 51 minutes and screening times can be found at www.thecrest.com.

Other upcoming film highlights

The 13th “A Place Called Sacramento” screening takes place on Sunday, October 7th at the Crest Theatre. This unique program, administered by Access Sacramento, begins in the Spring as a screenwriting competition, with 10 winning screenplays being advanced to the production phase and finished films being seen on the Crest’s historic main screen. All screenplays must feature Sacramento as an element in the storytelling and the program has helped many local filmmakers and actors take their first steps into the filmmaking community. Details at www.thecrest.com.

The 21st Sacramento International Gay and Lesbian Film Festival will be at the Crest Theatre, October 11th-13th. Details at www.siglff.org.

The 6th Sacramento Horror Film Festival will be at the Colonial Theatre, October 12th-14th. Details at www.sachorrorfilmfest.com.

Disclosure: Tony Sheppard is Co-Director of the Sacramento Film & Music Festival and a screenplay judge for the A Place Called Sacramento program.

New films: The Perks of Being a Wallflower & six others

2012-09-28T09:42:51Z

New(ish) Films

We seem to be in the middle of a run of good but not totally great films that succeed despite assorted minor flaws. Bear in mind that due to screening conflicts I haven’t been able to review “Looper” yet, but here’s a roundup of seven films that opened either today or last week in Sacramento.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower
Written & Directed by Stephen Chbosky

Probably the best of the current bunch is “The Perks of Being a Wallflower,” which has been adapted and directed by Stephen Chobsky, based on his own novel. Logan Lerman plays Charlie, a high school freshman with a (very) troubled past who is friendless and a loner at school until he’s virtually adopted by an odd pair of senior year step-siblings played by Emma Watson and Ezra Miller. Both the awkwardness and the wonder as Charlie stumbles through life and assorted first experiences is palpable and all of the central characters are assorted outcasts. Patrick (Miller) is the obviously and openly gay student of the group and Sam (Watson) is the only partially recovered girl who made every bad choice available when she herself was a freshman.

If there’s a problem here it’s related to the strength of the project. Lerman, Watson and Miller each seem perfect for their respective characters - and Lerman is far better here, playing the downtrodden kid, than in recent projects where he’s had to carry a more outsized role (as a Musketeer or as the heroic Percy Jackson, for example). Watson is also holding her own in a post-Hermione Granger period, with only the mildest of accent slips, and Miller inhabits Patrick. But they’re also slightly off in terms of their respective ages. Watson and Miller don’t seem four year older than Lerman – which isn’t surprising as they’re not (Lerman is actually older than Miller). It isn’t a fatal flaw and Logan carries the innocence well – but the adaptation combined with this particular cast might have worked slightly better if Charlie was, for example, a junior entering that school for the first time for some reason.

Aside from that, and I’m willing to bet it won’t bother most people, it’s well done and emotionally involving. And even for those who haven’t read the book (which includes me) there’s that sense the source material is being understood and respected that you get when the original writer brings his own work to the screen. None of the characters’ personal dramas here are sensationalized and the topics of bullying and being ostracized are both timely and timeless. Watching “Perks” is a perk of its own.

Hotel Transylvania
Directed by Genndy Tartakovsky

In the animated “Hotel Transylvania,” Count Dracula has built a castle fortress that serves as a refuge from the horrific and torch-wielding humans for monsters of all kinds (and they’re all on the guest list). Much of this is driven by his desire to safeguard his daughter after his wife has been killed in an assault on the prior family home by angry villagers. Skip ahead 118 years, and the hotel is full on his daughter’s birthday and she is anxious to finally leave the safety of the castle to explore the world.

Dracula is voiced by Adam Sandler and a young human who stumbles into the party weekend is voiced by Andy Samberg. But “Hotel Transylvania” is worlds apart from “That’s My Boy,” their last collaboration, which was an ugly mess. Here we have a cute, light story about family and friendship, with underlying themes of judging people as individuals rather than as members of a group. There are the typical jokes that rely on bodily functions and lowbrow comedy, but it’s upbeat and well intentioned, with a strong cast and neat artwork. And while there’s no secret surprise scene at the end, the closing credits display some of what I’m assuming were the original design concepts for the castle and characters and are worth sticking around for. If Sandler made more movies like this, I’d look forward to them more.

Pitch Perfect
Directed by Jason Moore

Sacramento is one of the chosen cities for an early release of “Pitch Perfect,” a somewhat Glee-like movie about college (rather than high school) level groups on the a cappella singing circuit. Beca (Anna Kendrick) is a new student at Barden University despite wanting to move to LA to try her hand at music production. Her father teaches at the school and has pressured her to attend, eventually making the bargain that if she finds a club to join and hates her first year, he’ll support her other plans even if it means dropping out. And, hence, she finds herself in the ill-fated, all-female Barden Belles a cappela group.

Following a bad experience in competition the prior year, the Belles have had a hard time recruiting and so end up with the typical ragtag bunch of members, including the large “Fat Amy” (Rebel Wilson) who calls herself that rather than being called it behind her back, and an Asian student played primarily around the running gag that she’s in a singing group despite having a voice that’s so soft one can’t even hear her speak.

Overall, the film is fun and pleasant enough but it suffers to an extent by trying to be too many things at once in service to too many presumed audience demographics. It’s a little like a “Bridesmaids”-light in that sense, with moments of being a touching father-daughter story, along with a light romantic comedy, but also a comedy of projectile vomiting and politically incorrect punchlines – all of which work independently of each other but make for an inconsistent whole. One other small aspect that bothered me mildly was the apparent ease with which the father strolls in and out of the daughter’s dorm room, as though it’s a bedroom in a family house, and despite the presence of a roommate.

That said, it’s funny – not all the time but on balance. And it’s the kind of project that makes you want to seek out outtakes online, and which surprises by not including them at the end. Also noteworthy is the funny performance by Elizabeth Banks who, along with John Michael Higgins, plays an exceptionally inappropriate competition commentator. She seemed like an odd choice at first until I realized that she had produced the film and this is her project and, even if she cast herself, she chose well in the process. It may not be absolutely pitch perfect, but it can certainly carry a tune pretty well.

Won’t Back Down
Directed by Daniel Barnz

“Won’t Back Down” plays like a slow and steady narrative adaptation of “Waiting for Superman” – and it makes most of the same points. Maggie Gyllenhaal plays a single mother who won’t accept the poor education that her young dyslexic daughter receives in the local public elementary school – not just any school, but a school that has been tagged as failing for 19 years. Viola Davis plays a teacher in the same school who has similar problems with her own son and who is recruited by Gyllenhaal’s character to lead a parent/teacher takeover.

Naturally we see much conflict here with the teachers’ union protecting both good teachers and bad teachers (sometimes really bad teachers), wildly varying school performance, parents and children taking part in a charter school admissions lottery (which, as in “Waiting for Superman,” makes you wonder if children should even be allowed in the room), and a deep sense of desperation on all sides.

The acting is solid, but there’s a lot of explanatory dialog that gets squeezed in along the way and the film suffers from the same problem of almost all narrative films that cover this topic – that you know exactly what’s going to happen before the film even starts. Films like this don’t tend to get made that are based on true stories about folks who failed to fix their problem school. But, again as with “Waiting for Superman,” we’re told that most experimental schools fail without being told much about those other examples. It tells an effective story but it doesn’t feel like anything we haven’t seen multiple times before.

Recent Releases

This has been a good week for fans of police/crime dramas with three interesting and quite different films. None are especially safe picks for those with sensitive stomachs but, for the hardier viewer, they are solid entertainment.

Dredd
Directed by Pete Travis

With a more substantial feel than many films in this genre, “Dredd” relies on less CGI and the outcome looks better as a result. It’s the familiar story of the cop/jury/judge public servants in a future society based in an overcrowded city state, with extremely violent and graphic imagery (of the stylized and slow motion splattered brains variety) as the Judges go up against a drug manufacturing gang. What is most noteworthy for folks who watch a lot of movies is how stunningly similar the structure is to the recent “The Raid: Redemption” – an Indonesian film that opened in this country earlier this year. Both involve raids on tall towers with open interior atriums that provide an opportunity for gun battles across the open interior space all the way up the building. The scale is far greater in “Dredd” but the setup is virtually identical with, perhaps, the scale working better in the earlier film as you get a better sense of the protagonists progress. Instead, in “Dredd,” with 200 floors to cover, we get action that jumps 100 floors at a time despite elevators and areas of the building supposedly being shut down. But that’s a quibble that doesn’t really detract from the nature of the action.

End of Watch
Written & Directed by David Ayer

This is another gritty film from the writer of “Training Day” and it’s both violent throughout, with some very disturbing scenes (more real and therefore more disturbing than “Dredd”) and emotionally devastating towards the end. It’s also a film that some may find difficult to watch due to it’s style and underlying premise. Jake Gyllenhaal plays an LAPD cop, partnered with Michael Peña, who’s taking a film class in college and filming everything he does on the job with both a handheld camera and smaller cameras clipped on both of their uniforms. So the footage the audience is watching much of the time is supposed to be from these small cameras and it’s jumpy and grainy. In the first few minutes I actually wondered if I would be able to put up with two hours of this, but it starts to feel less obvious after a while.

The two partners have a reputation on the street for making difficult arrests in a tough neighborhood and they find themselves encountering the same gang operations repeatedly, without knowing that they’re seeing the tip of the iceberg of cartel activity out of Mexico. And, not surprisingly, their activities are not held in high regard by the cartel, who have extremely little regard for human life, including the lives of two cops. The film also demonstrates the difficulties and emotional toil of being a family member of a police officer in a rough city. It’s a tough film but worth the time.

Killer Joe
Directed by William Friedkin

Somewhat unusually, the most casually violent and twisted film, with the mainstream box office kiss of death NC-17 rating, is playing at the art house Crest Theatre in a continuing engagement. But it’s also the latest film from William Friedkin who, 40 years ago, made such incredible films as “The French Connection” and “The Exorcist” – so there’s no reason to expect an upbeat love story. “Killer Joe” revolves around a Texas family of total reprobates and idiots (or both) who devise a plot to kill an ex-wife/mother who allegedly has a weighty life insurance that will benefit the schemers. In order to accomplish this, the motley family crew hires a detective who just happens to moonlight as a contract killer – and who is several rungs higher on the intellect ladder than his clients.

The strength here, aside from the story, is the cast which includes Matthew MacConaughey (as “Killer Joe”), Emile Hirsch, Gina Gershon, and Thomas Haden Church as the slowest of the group, but a man who recognizes his own limitations. It’s a low budget production with a simple, stark style that matches the content and which as well as keeping audiences on edge will make them thankful for all but the most screwed up of family situations at home.

Other film related news:

One of my favorite recent animated moves, “How to Train your Dragon,” has been turned into a “Live Spectacular” arena show that’s coming to Sacramento on January 3-6. The preview looks neat and more information, including ticket details and dates for other cities, can be found at www.dreamworksdragonslive.com

New films: The Master, Trouble with the Curve, & House at the End of the Street

2012-09-21T11:17:13Z

The Master
Written & Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson

“The Master” is an extremely well made and well acted film that I have mixed feelings about.

Joaquin Phoenix plays a young man who leaves the Navy after WWII with few clear prospects but a prodigious drinking problem – and not of the purely alcoholic kind, more of the torpedo fuel and chemical cocktail kind. After a few failed attempts at gainful employment, he finds himself in the company of an enigmatic man (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and his band of disciples, who address him as Master.

Both Phoenix and Hoffman are great in their respective roles, as is Amy Adams in the lesser (as measured by screentime only) of two performances this week (see also “Trouble with the Curve”) as Hoffman’s wife.

What is more difficult to assess, in my opinion, is the story. As we see more of the Master and his group, it becomes clear that they form the nucleus of some kind of cult-like organization with widespread followers and also detractors. Phoenix’s Freddie Quell is both a natural target for the group, as a wandering and vulnerable soul with little to lose, but also a loose cannon with his unpredictable nature and substance abuse problems.

Although it was less blatant earlier in the production and distribution process, it has been stated more clearly recently that much of the inspiration for Hoffman’s Master, Lancaster Dodd, was based on L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. And stories or allegations have surfaced about pressure being applied by Scientologists to suppress the production – although that also makes for good publicity as the film is released to theaters.

Which gives rise to my mixed feelings as it’s not entirely clear whether this is intended to be a full-on film about Hubbard, with names and details changed to avoid challenges, or a film about cults and acolytes that happens to use Hubbard and Scientology as models on which to base the leader and structure. The film manages to seem both generic in some moments, especially with regard to Quell as a troubled individual who might be vulnerable to the appeal of a structured environment, and quite specific in others as it depicts aspects of the methods and beliefs, books being published, and other details that seem quite consistent with Hubbard and Scientology, including the period.

It feels as if it’s trying to be both of those things at once and, at least at some level, it seemed to me as though it suffered in the process. When the camera is on Phoenix it feels like a story about Quell, the troubled individual, when it’s on Hoffman it feels like a story about Hubbard and Scientology, and when it’s on both of them, it feels more like a third film about a strained relationship (or even ‘bromance’) between two unlikely friends, co-conspirators in some grand adventure. There are even moments when it could be the inner turmoil of two parts of a single personality struggling for dominance.

It seems likely that the film will earn acting award nominations, but the rest of its fate during awards season seems less clear at this early stage. Almost every aspect of the production (art direction, wardrobe, etc.) satisfied me more than the writing. I have avoided production notes and interviews with Anderson to avoid preconceptions, but at some point I will probably track them down in order to get a better handle on what the ultimate goal was and to further determine to what extent it seems to have met it. Until then, my mixed feelings will remain mixed – wondering if the goal was to leave me pondering that lack of perceived clarity, perhaps leaving me as vulnerable to claims of absolute knowledge and control as Freddie Quell might be.

Trouble with the Curve
Directed by Robert Lorenz

“Trouble with the Curve” succeeds despite flaws that might destroy another film, largely because of the cast of Clint Eastwood, Amy Adams, and Justin Timberlake as a father, his daughter, and a guy who has a history with the father and who wants a future with the daughter. That’s a winning combination that could work in many contexts and happens to work here in the world of baseball.

Last week I mentioned an issue with recent stories and hinted at another to come – and this is it. Eastwood plays an elderly baseball scout with a great record in the age of probabilities and statistics – it’s essentially the anti-“Moneyball.” His employers, the Atlanta Braves want him to scout a highschool player (who’s a total schmuck) but the young gun in the office (Matthew Lillard) doesn’t trust him, preferring instead the objective numbers and, if pushed, his own scout. That’s already a decent story that could potentially carry a movie – it has conflict, competition, and a grudge.

But this is really more of a relationship movie about a father and daughter, set in baseball, than a baseball movie. So the story needs a convenient mechanism to get the high-powered lawyer daughter to tag along with crotchety old Dad. And we get that by virtue of Eastwood’s character losing his sight, which would seem inherently problematic for a scout, as well as an old guy living alone. It’s a bit of a lazy mechanism that drives the plot but also requires multiple shots of Eastwood tripping and walking into things.

He’s a widower with regrets, past his prime, who has a bad relationship with his daughter, in an industry that no longer values him, and facing retirement with no backup plan. He didn’t need to be going blind for the story to work and it felt like another example of a script that lays it on thick in case the audience wouldn’t otherwise appreciate the sense of jeopardy.

The other major league problem is that the story is profoundly predictable. There was only one minor plot detail that mildly surprised me. I even timed a brief trip to the bathroom perfectly within a single scene that I was confident would last a few minutes and add virtually nothing to the plot.

Which takes me back to my first point, that it’s the cast that makes it worthwhile. If you don’t like these actors, don’t see the movie – because you have to like them enough to enjoy watching them act out scenes you could probably write yourself after the first 20 minutes. And if you do like them, it’s a delightful, lightweight drama – like the ground rule double of baseball movies, that performs as well as it does by virtue of an inherent factor in the production, in this case the cast.

House at the End of the Street
Directed by Mark Tonderai

As with “Trouble with the Curve,” the fact that “House at the End of the Street” does as well as it does (which isn't that well) is largely due to the primary cast. Here we get Elisabeth Shue and Jennifer Lawrence as a mother and daughter with a strained relationship, where we’d often get two relatively unknown faces and a film that might have seemed better suited for a straight to video release.

Circumstances have caused them to move to a new town and rent a house next to another in which a grisly double murder was committed. In a neat touch of movie self-awareness, the plot doesn’t cause them to discover this over time, as creepy things occur, it’s presented upfront and the Mom even says that the history and location is what made the house affordable.

It’s not a great film but it does deliver on its dark themes – although it’s more of a thriller than the horror that some of the advance images might have hinted at. Even the title font flashes at the audience and shows a twisted version behind itself – and there’s a neat scene in which a faulty flashlight creates an effective boost in the suspense level. Of course there’s also the “Why would you go in there?” and the “Are you sure the person’s really dead?” moments that are essentially required in a film like this, but it’s simple and somewhat effective.

All three films open in Sacramento today.

New films: Arbitrage, For a Good Time, Call... & Dark Horse

2012-09-14T09:33:54Z

“Arbitrage”
Directed by Nicholas Jarecki

There’s an appealing and simple old school vibe to this well-paced story about a Wall Street patriarch (Richard Gere) who, at the age of 60, is in a frantic hurry to sell of the family company before it becomes apparent to family, friends, investors, and buyers that all is not quite as good as it seems on the balance sheet. A large investment has gone bad and the money plugging the hole is a very short-term fix at best, while the potential buyer for the firm is coincidentally stalling as a bargaining technique.

This is a plot that could play out in any time period but it comes after a period of real life financial disasters and with the implication or sense that this is business as normal in the present. And rather than introduce characters that discover what is happening and rush to unveil the truth to the world, we’re given the veil of secrecy that so many of us have come to associate with such dealings – that it’s better to cover the mistakes than admit that the system is flawed or so easily played.

There’s enough in that description alone for a decent, ticking-clock thriller as Gere rushes to get his affairs in order. However, in keeping with a recent trend I’ve been noticing, the writers felt the need to throw additional impediments and complications at the lead character, as though potential family and financial ruin weren’t sufficiently desperation-causing motivators. I’ll probably write about this again in a week or two as I’ve seen the same thing in another upcoming release, but it also happened in “Premium Rush,” the bike messenger movie in which lead Joseph Gordon Levitt is being chased by a dirty cop (Michael Shannon) who has not one, but three separate groups of ticked-off, violent debt-settlers on his tale (where one would have been plenty to motivate his character). It’s as if the writers either felt the need to up the stakes for stake-upping sake, or they weren’t sure that the audience would think a single life-threatening circumstance would be enough to drive the story.

That said, “Arbitrage” works and is well put together, with a strong cast that includes Susan Sarandon as Gere’s wife, Brit Marling as their daughter, and Tim Roth as a determined police detective pursuing one of the spare storylines. It’s a film that outperforms its minor flaws.

“For a Good Time, Call…”
Directed by Jamie Travis

“For a Good Time, Call…” is the pleasant surprise of the week. Where “Arbitrage” is a strong film that one would likely expect to be strong, this is a questionable story from a group of newer faces that hadn’t seemed to generate many positive expectations prior to the early screenings. But it succeeds, perhaps largely because it’s not quite the film it seemed like it was going to be.

The story throws two mortal enemies (in a catty bad college experience kind of way) together as roommates, after their mutual gay BFF realizes that by co-habiting they can solve their separate but equally desperate financial problems. What prudish Lauren doesn’t realize, however, is that brash Katie works as an operator for a phone sex line – which leads to them starting their own phone sex business to make easy money.

This isn’t handled remotely delicately and the film is intentionally and overtly crass – but in a manner that is often hilarious. It’s an R-rated comedy for a reason and if blunt jokes about sex toys and orgasms aren’t your thing, you probably shouldn’t watch it.

But it’s also a film with a good heart and a positive tone throughout and it’s as good as it is because it uses the sex business as a vehicle for exploring the roommates’ friendship rather than using a friendship as an excuse to throw sex at the screen. It’s lighter and bubblier than, for example, “Zack and Miri make a Porno” or “Humpday.” It's also neat to see cameos by several other filmmakers who have written and starred in their material, helping others doing the same thing - among them Kevin Smith, Seth Rogan, and Nia Vardalos.

If very raunchy comedy (albeit mostly spoken and not seen) is within your comfort zone then for a good time, watch… “For a Good Time, Call….”

“Dark Horse”
Written and Directed by Todd Solondz

There’s a dark comedic bleakness to much of Todd Solondz’ storytelling and “Dark Horse” is no exception. Framed as an apparent case study in extremes of failure and disappointment, it centers on Abe, a fat, plain, unsuccessful loser who’s living with his parents well into his 30’s and who only has a job by virtue of blatant nepotism. I’ve seen the character described as being in arrested adolescence, but he barely even seems adolescent, with a petulant attitude and a love of children’s toys that seems less like an adult collector and simply more like a child. And as if this wasn’t enough, in true Jewish comedic form, his younger brother is handsome, rich, and…you guessed it…a doctor.

He meets Miranda (Selma Blair) at a wedding and, also in a childish manner, decides she’s right for him and that he wants to marry her despite barely knowing her and that they have nothing in common. She is equally troubled in her own ways, seemingly over-medicated, and with a sense of loss and despair towards life that is best illustrated by the fact that she considers his offer (and just for good measure she explains that sense of loss and despair and tells him that’s why she’s doing it).

This set up is quite funny in a downbeat way but the film starts to become somewhat convoluted as the story dips in and out of dream sequences with little warning or clarity. Some of these seem obvious at first and then turn out to be dreams within dreams, which is disconcerting in a narrative sense as one repeatedly mentally backpedals to the last point that seemed well defined. The end result is less twisted than some of Solondz’ earlier work but also less satisfying despite the presence of supporting cast members such as Christopher Walken and Mia Farrow as Abe’s long suffering parents. But it does capture the crushing sense of despair associated with being labeled a loser by family and/or society and that may have been the goal.

New films: The Words & Sleepwalk With Me

2012-09-07T18:21:12Z

On writing and success: Two new films

As is often the case, we have two movies opening at the same time (in Sacramento) that have connected themes – both about individuals struggling to write their own material and jeopardizing their relationships in the process – one a novelist and one a comedian. And as is also often the case, the little indie movie is more satisfying than the big mainstream release, despite probably having a budget about the size of the larger movie’s food service costs.

“The Words” had the potential to be a really good film and story – but somewhere along the way it failed to deliver on that potential. The cast is good, with three major characters played by Dennis Quaid, Jeremy Irons, and Bradley Cooper – but none of them are at their best here. In his defense, Quaid wasn’t given much to work with, as an author who is giving a reading from his novel, and then later briefly discussing that novel with a graduate student groupie.

Most of the film’s action comes in the story within the story (within the novel being read by Quaid’s Clay Hammond) – about a younger novelist, or wannabe novelist, who has written stories but who has not managed to find a publisher for his work. Cooper plays Rory Jansen in these parts of the film, struggling with self-doubt and only able to get by financially with handouts from his frustrated father who suggests that maybe writing should just be his hobby. Until Jansen finds an old manuscript in an antique briefcase and, in it, finds the novel he wishes he was capable of writing. Naturally, a series of events occur that cause this to be published as though it were his own work – which might have gone well for him if the original author of the manuscript (Irons) hadn’t shown up.

This gives rise to a story within the story within the story, as Irons’ “The Old Man” character tells Jansen about the circumstances that led to him writing the manuscript – and we see these play out with Ben Barnes (probably best known as Prince Caspian) playing the younger Irons. And these scenes helped in causing the film to lose me as they never seem especially real or well acted – including one of those scenes of drunkenness that just looks like a sober person pretending to be drunk. But Irons also has problems playing approximately 20 years older than himself and seeming to focus more on the advanced age and infirmity than on the character.

This three-layered structure could have been more interesting and, indeed, there are multiple ways one might interpret the combined story, especially given that the primary part (with Cooper and Irons – and Zoe Saldana as Cooper’s wife) is itself a story being read by Quaid’s Hammond. The most literal interpretation is that Jansen is a younger Hammond – but it could also be a work of fiction, or a cautionary tale about bad choices in general. Hammond, while barely featured in the film, is to some extent a more interesting character – either coming clean about an earlier episode or willing to endure suspicions in that regard in order to gain fresh acclaim as a writer of a work of fiction.

Jansen is a simpler character, shown making a bad decision but without any great consideration of the topic of plagiarism or intellectual property in general – and with a jaded agent who implies this isn’t entirely unusual. The only aspect of the film that resonated with me was the idea that one can’t always make amends for wrong doing – sometimes we make bad decisions and simply have to live with them. But overall, the film just falls flat – it’s ponderous and less interesting than its own description.

In contrast, “Sleepwalk With Me” is both a far less conventional film and also a far more enjoyable one. It breaks film convention by also being a story we are being told, but this time with the protagonist speaking directly to the audience during assorted, mismatched scenes (and occasionally even from within the flashback scenes being described). This is in keeping with the source material, originally a one-man stage show by Mike Birbiglia, who has also co-authored and co-directed the screenplay and stars as his own alter-ego Matt Pandamiglio.

Matt is an aspiring comic with the fundamental problem of being short of material – especially comedic material. The few times that an opportunity to go on stage arise, he falls back on the same tired material he attempted in college, with a delivery that undersells it even further. He lives with his girlfriend Abby (Lauren Ambrose) and as with Rory Jansen in “The Words,”also receives handouts from his father - albeit that where Rory pleaded, Matts attempt to turn them down.

Matt’s chances for success or ever booking a show would remain close to zero if not for an even more jaded or cynical agent than Rory Jansen finds. And Sondra James is hilarious in her deadpan delivery as Colleen, the agent who sees no talent whatsoever in Matt but books him anyway. As she says, “You’re not funny, but the good news is that this business has nothing to do with funny” – indeed, she seems more impressed by learning that he has access to a car. And so Matt goes on the road, on an unlikely but ever-expanding tour.

Meanwhile, he is also struggling with the sleepwalking disorder suggested by the title – as depicted in one scene where he is found clothed and showering in the middle of the night and tells a friend that he was dreaming, and the friend tells him that dreams aren’t supposed to be acted out.

As with “The Words,” there are issues and ideas here that aren’t really fully explored (such as the reactions of loved ones to material based on their lives) and the film is quite brief – but it remains light and fun in its delivery, even when awkward. At one point, for example, before recounting a lowpoint in his travels, Birbiglia as Matt reminds us that it’s important for us, the audience, to remember that we’re supposed to be on his side.

I’m going to guess that this is a film that standup comedians will enjoy – especially those who have gone from gig to gig on college campuses and in small bars. We’re told that “to be a comedian you have to be a little bit delusional” – with so much failure but the need to convince yourself that things are going well – an observation that might well hold true for many other professions. And another comedian tells him that a casual remark is funny and should become a part of his act by saying “I thought it was funny but I’m a comic, I’m sick.”

Birbiglia is a contributor to NPR’s “This American Life” and the film is co-produced by host Ira Glass (who also has a cameo as a wedding photographer). I can’t speak for other cities, but in Sacramento at least this connection gave rise to a deluge of requests to the Crest Theatre to program this film – a facebook campaign that has paid off, to the benefit of both the campaigners, Birbiglia and Glass, and also those of us who might otherwise have missed it completely. And so I thank those NPR listeners and the Crest for its responsiveness and for its facebook page – I enjoyed it greatly and will also seek out Birbiglia’s current stage show or a future film adaptation of it.

"The Words" opens today in wide release and "Sleepwalk With Me" opens in Sacramento at the Crest Theater.

New films: Robot & Frank, The Possession, Lawless

2012-08-31T18:58:45Z

"Robot & Frank"
Directed by Jake Schreier

This odd, low budget little movie is probably my favorite of the new releases this week, starring Frank Langella as the coincidentally titular Frank, an ex-burglar who lives alone and has early signs of some form of dementia or memory loss and a diminishing ability to take care of himself. His son Hunter (James Marsden) makes onerous weekly visits to clean the house and make sure he’s OK, while his daughter Madison (Liv Tyler) pursues social justice causes in remote spots around the world.

Faced with the possibility of needing to place his ailing but reluctant father into a care facility of some kind, Hunter instead buys a robot that’s programmed to provide in-home assistance and oversee a healthy regime of diet, mental stimulation, and physical exercise. But what the robot’s programmers didn’t anticipate was that rekindling Frank’s burglary career, with the robot’s assistance, might fall within the parameters of the required mental and physical activities.

This could very easily have been a trivial little unlikely buddy movie with an infirm cat burglar and his robot assistant performing for laughs, and there’s a certain amount of that involved, but it’s also much more than that. While considering the ways in which various family members deal with the loss of companionship that accompanies the loss of memory, it also introduces other interesting ethical considerations. Madison, the pursuer of social justice, is not happy with the substitution of human care with mechanized care, nor with the implied slavery of robots doing their human masters’ bidding. And along the way we get glimpses of a not too distant future in which artificial intelligences will no longer seem very artificial and may or may not gain certain rights (moral and legal) and respect.

The production values here are simple and inexpensive. The robot is of the Honda exhibition style (like a child in a stormtrooper uniform and astronaut helmet) and there are very few special effects aside from some advanced looking cell phones and other electronics. Aside from robots themselves, the sense of a near future is provided by a single small commuter vehicle and a made-to-look-old Prius (and then a general avoidance of crowded street scenes that might undermine such an image), and general themes and commentary about the demise of books and the printed word. At first this approach seems a little cheesy and simple but it works well enough to deliver the pleasant and well-meaning story.

“Robot & Frank” is a somewhat minimalistic exercise in storytelling and film production and should appeal to people with an interest in aging, future technologies, or budget filmmaking. It would be a good choice of activity paired with a meal, but as movie+dinner not dinner+movie as it provides multiple launching points for interesting dinner conversation.

"Robot & Frank" opens today at Sacramento's Tower Theatre.

“The Possession”
Directed by Ole Bornedal

One of the best things one can say about “The Possession” is that it’s probably not the worst movie opening in some cities this weekend. And I say “probably” because I haven’t actually watched “The Apparition” which wasn’t screened for critics here – but 43 reviews are listed by the review aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes and only one is labeled positive (and that one basically says that if you have very low expectations “you could do worse”). “The Apparition” is also a film that’s sat on the shelf for two years, a victim of a dispute between the production and distribution companies that’s resulting in what has been described as Warner Brothers’ narrowest of “wide” releases.

However, if you think that makes “The Possession” seem like a winner, you’re wrong. By the same standards, “The Possession” also has 43 reviews and 28 are considered “rotten” within the Rotten Tomatoes system – and I would be on that side of the balance sheet also.

This is a movie as devoid of originality as deep fried butter is devoid of nutritional value. A pitch session for this film would go like this: “Let’s remake “The Exorcist,” replace the Catholics with Jews, and replace the suspense, intrigue, and head-spinning pea soup delivery with predictability, ennui, and moths.” But for its potential offensiveness, this movie would have been called something like “The Jewxorcist.”
As I look back at “The Possession,” the only things that stand out to me are the missed opportunities in the script and the fact that one fairly significant character disappears violently and completely without a single comment, or even a clear sense of the absence having been noted, by any other character. This isn’t so much a horror film as a horrific film.

“Lawless”
Directed by John Hillcoat

“Lawless” is adapted from the novel “The Wettest County in the World” by Matt Bondurant, who wrote about the exploits of his grandfather and two great uncles distilling and running moonshine in Franklin County, Virginia during Prohibition. It’s a moderately enjoyable, occasionally extremely violent, period piece that reminds us how criminalizing many activities doesn’t eradicate them, it just sets up entire economies designed to circumvent the lack of legal provision. Eighty years from now, we could get the same film made about marijuana running, if we didn’t already get something very similar from Oliver Stone in “Savages.”

The film is decently produced with fairly solid acting – although each of the actors seem like they were given only one or two characteristics to work with and within. It’s also an odd (but respectable) cast of actors who might previously have seemed to have very little likelihood of being cast in these parts (including multiple non-American actors and American actors without Virginian accents).

One other observation: I watched “Lawless” a couple of days after watching “Farewell, My Queen,” about the French royal court at Versailles during the French revolution, and both seemed to have the same inherent production error. When you make period pieces using buildings that still exist, they end up with buildings that look very old (because they are old) during periods in which they would have looked relatively new.

New films: The Imposter & Premium Rush

2012-08-24T09:22:59Z

"The Imposter"
Directed by Bart Layton

One of the strangest films I’ve seen recently is “The Imposter,” which opens today at the Crest Theatre. It’s strange in that creepy “truth is stranger than fiction” kind of way that often accompanies accounts of real life crime and dysfunctional families – and it becomes compelling viewing as the documentary (with minor dramatic recreations of events) unfolds.

In June 1994, Nicholas Barclay disappeared from San Antonio, Texas. He was a somewhat unruly kid, often in trouble. And he had briefly run away previously, if only for a night or two.

In October 1997, in Spain, a young boy/man is found with no identification and no ability or willingness to tell authorities who he was. He was taken to a children’s home where he might have stayed for some period had the local officials not been intent on determining who he might be.

That same person explains on camera that he had had a bad childhood and just wanted to be somewhere where he might receive attention and comfort and, when pressed, claimed to be American. He also said at that time that he would contact his family, himself, if they allowed him to remain alone in the office overnight. Instead he contacted US authorities, pretended to be a Spanish police officer, and by describing fabricated circumstances (but circumstances which fit his own fabricated story) in which an American boy had been found in Spain, discovered the identity of Nicholas Barclay on the missing persons roster.

And so he claimed to be Nicholas Barclay. The problem for him being that Nicholas Barclay was blond and blue eyed and, despite his young age, had three tattoos. Meanwhile he was dark haired and brown eyed and was actually seven years older, at 23, than Nicholas would have been at that time.

As this unfolds in “The Imposter,” at this stage the story is already getting bizarrely interesting as assorted wheels are set in motion to confirm his presumed identity and reunite him with his alleged family. But it’s also only the prologue to the real story – a story which ought to have ended as soon as a family member (any family member) saw him. Somewhat reminiscent of the recent events surrounding a young man who walked out of the woods in Germany and kept authorities guessing for months about who he might have been, it also makes one think about how police and governments determine identity in such cases and how powerful personal testimony and recognition can be.

What happens from that point on is worth watching and pondering, if only to wonder about human nature and, perhaps, the power of cognitive dissonance. Stories are told, not always matching, and one also wonders to what extent officials involved are inclined to embellish their own recollections to appear less foolish and fooled.

I won’t disclose the outcome but the film never pretends for a moment that the person found in Spain is actually Nicholas Barclay – we know from the start that he isn’t, because the real person is telling us what happened. What I will tell you is that it’s a creepier film than a supposedly creepy fictional thriller I saw on the same day.

"Premium Rush"
Directed by David Koepp

“Premium Rush” is a simple chase thriller, in which a bicycle messenger in Manhattan is given a seemingly innocuous envelope to deliver, only to find that somebody else has a vested interest in making sure that the delivery isn’t completed. At least it would be a simple chase thriller if the writers hadn’t felt the need to overcomplicate it.

The basic premise is one of those high concept (simple idea) movies that can be expressed in a short sentence: A bicycle messenger is chased through New York City traffic by a crazy guy who wants the package he has been tasked with delivering. And it could have been just that – almost to the point of the package being a MacGuffin (something that would never have been revealed or something that wasn’t intrinsically important in terms of the action and story we’re given to watch).

Instead we are told in some detail, not just about the package, the sender, the recipient, and the reason for it being sent – but also about the significant gambling problem that the pursuer (Michael Shannon) has that is causing certain others to be after him, thus motivating his quest to acquire this valuable cargo. We’re also told about the messenger (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), his girlfriend, his rival, and a detailed account of the life of a bike messenger (at least as described here).

All of which would be fine, if we weren’t told quite so much in quite so much detail – to the point that we’re given multiple overlapping backstories that include the same scene retold from a slightly different perspective or sometimes, apparently, from the same perspective a second or third time. It’s as if, in the attempt to avoid being a film that’s all action and no story, it starts to get bogged down in too much story. For example, the pursuer turns out to have not just one group of people gunning for him, but three – which is at least two more than is necessary. And we’re constantly reminded how big Manhattan is while being given coincidences that would fit better in a small village.

The same is true of certain special effects, point of view shots, and stunts – all of which seem to be excessively abundant. And we’re given a bike cop storyline that ultimately goes nowhere and which exists purely to introduce a little forced levity into the proceedings. Meanwhile, at its core, we have a very watchable, fairly unique premise and spectacle that is being weighed down by all these details.

It’s also interesting to see how the film will be taken by avid cyclists. The protagonist rides a “fixie” – a fixed wheel bike with no gears, no free wheel, and no brakes. These are bikes that are controversial even within some cycling circles and often illegal for street use. Beyond that, the movie will likely reinforce many non-cyclist’s view of cyclists as road users who never respect the rules of the road. At the same time, it depicts the sheer joy of riding that many cyclists will identify with. And in those respects it has the potential to at least partially annoy everybody and not fully satisfy any – except perhaps fixie riders. It also can’t do much for the image of the Mazda 6 - which apparently can’t catch up with a cyclist even when presented with occasional stretches of open road (and this seems like odd product placement).

Yet throughout this, with all the plot contrivances and despite an unlikely climax, “Premium Rush” still manages to be a fun ride. The simple chase movie that’s almost buried in the middle of it all manages to show itself enough to have a desirable if compromised effect. It’s just a shame that the writers didn’t believe in the idea enough to let it stand on its own more. (Note: There’s a neat piece of behind the scenes footage early in the credits – so don’t be in a premium rush to leave.)

"Premium Rush" opens today in wide release.

“The Bourne Legacy” & “Hope Springs”: Trying to have it both ways

2012-08-10T08:42:44Z

This may seem like an odd pair of movies to write about together but, aside from opening in the same week, they do seem to have something in common. Both seem to want to be something while also trying to be something else, for marketing purposes, and both suffer somewhat along the way as a result.

The more blatant of the two is “The Bourne Legacy” which isn’t a movie about the character Jason Bourne, but at times seems like it desperately wants to be. Without Bourne, the franchise needs a new hero but a new character has no brand equity – hence the title and the setup. We’re re-joining the action roughly where we left it, with Bourne on the run (and completely absent) but with Pamela Landy (an almost as absent Joan Allen) stirring up a fuss in Congressional hearings. This leaves the current bosses behind the various programs that have produced operatives like Bourne feeling the need to shut everything down, even if that means killing off everybody involved.

Which would be a sufficient starting point for the movie. They need to kill a bunch of people who are better at killing people than they are – which is an inherent dramatic conflict. And it’s not hard to appreciate a situation in which one of the targets, with all of the training they’ve received in not allowing themselves to become targets, would manage to in fact avoid being such a target. And so we get our Bourne surrogate, Jeremy Renner as Aaron Cross.

But the script just can’t keep away from Jason Bourne, even announcing at one point that he’s in the thick of things, despite nothing to back it up and no sight of him. And in an early training scene, we see Cross in a small cabin in the Alaskan woods, staring up at Bourne’s name carved into the wood above his bunk. Because of a need to remind us of this past character, whose name is right there in the movie’s title, the script wants us to think that this series of guys who have been plucked from obscurity and trained in the art of disappearing and maintaining perfect cover, would all take a few minutes to carve their real names into the agency’s training cabin woodwork. By about the midpoint of the movie, it’s Cross, Cross, Cross – but it sure took a lot of Bourne, Bourne, Bourne to get there.

In “Hope Springs,” we’re given the wonderful pairing of Tommy Lee Jones and Meryl Streep as Arnold and Kay, a couple of empty nesters who have been married for 31 years. And, let’s face it, they had half of us willing to buy tickets based on that casting alone.
But the movie has to start out by having us be sympathetic to Kay who wants to rekindle the romance in a relationship that doesn’t just feature separate beds but separate bedrooms. She’s the one making the overt effort, she’s the one advocating for couples therapy. Arnold is the curmudgeon – the one who falls asleep in front of endless golf shows and locks himself away down the hallway in what used to be the guest bedroom.

And at first it seems like this is an insurmountable set of hurdles to leap – they barely even talk to each other, let alone do anything else together. But it’s also a romantic comedy so one doesn’t go in expecting tragedy. Meanwhile, for whatever demographic watches the film, it’s also likely to be a date movie or a couples night out – so you can’t risk alienating half the audience by having it all be one person’s fault (because most people are going to identify with one more than the other, regardless of gender).

Which leads to the structural problem – at some point you have to make Arnold equally sympathetic, otherwise you wouldn’t be rooting for a reconciliation – you’d be rooting for Kay to escape. These are lovely, loving people who mutually drifted apart – but who still genuinely love each other. Which gives you a second problem, in that it no longer seems like an especially difficult rift to mend.

Both movies are well acted. Obviously, Jeremy Renner and his reluctant scientist sidekick Dr. Marta Shearing, played by Rachel Weisz, don’t have the awards and résumés of Jones and Streep but they do work well together on screen when given the room to do so. There are familiar faces in the film too, pulling the strings from Washington, but “The Bourne Legacy” works best when it’s allowing itself to be “The Aaron Cross Origin Story” rather than “Hey! Remember That Bourne Guy?” The plotting is rather hamfisted, with genetic enhancements and drugs involved, to provide excuses for the action to move from location to location – otherwise, frankly, the story would play itself out in the first half hour.

When it’s simply being a convoluted chase across continents, it’s a fun ride. There are some things that don’t make much sense and a couple of others that suggest some editing after the fact (with, for example, a character who we’re told has no conscience but who doesn’t seem to act any more heinously than anybody else) – but it’s lively and intense. At times it felt more like a Bond movie than a Bourne movie – but it does what it set out to do, which is to give us a new character to follow – at least until Renner decides it’s time to move on too.

In “Hope Springs,” Jones and Streep are nicely complemented by Steve Carell in a very modest performance, existing in the role of therapist largely to uncover awkwardness for the two stars to embody as they squirm in their respective seats and discuss sex, orgasms, and their secret fantasies. And it’s fun to watch all of this unfold, although it’s almost as much fun to watch it in microcosm form in the preview. It’s clearly a great cast and it would be surprising if they didn’t create an enjoyable experience, but the story itself and the need to keep the audience (the entire audience) in a favorable disposition stops it from being anything more than a trifle.

This might not be quite so obvious, but for the recent “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel,” which also explores love, romance, and marriage with an aging cast (albeit even older), but without feeling the need to avoid characters who seem entirely unsympathetic. Of course that’s easier in a larger ensemble than when you’re focused on a single couple, but the difference is still there.

I enjoyed both movies, more so with “Hope Springs” which is simply a treat with respect to the actors involved, despite structural flaws. And “The Bourne Legacy” is a simple but fun action film once it puts its legacy behind itself – I just wish it had done so sooner and more decisively. But you could probably have just as much fun at home with, say, “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol” (also with Renner) and “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” (also with an awesome cast) on video.

Both movies are playing in wide release.

"Total Recall" recall and "Wimpy Kid" nostalgia

2012-08-03T19:11:09Z

"Total Recall"
Directed by Len Wiseman

Somewhere in Hollywood, there’s a studio executive who apparently visited a memory implantation service and acquired a recollection of some kind of clamoring for a remake of 1990’s “Total Recall.” He should get a refund.

I missed the early press screening while hosting the kickoff meeting for this year’s Sacramento Film & Music Festival’s 10x10 Filmmaker Challenge guerilla filmmaking program and so I dutifully headed out to the midnight screening. Not only is this not a remake that was calling out to be made, it’s also not a film that seems to have needed midnight screenings – the attendance at mine was more like an early Tuesday afternoon.

There was, however, part of the screening that was entertaining: I saw a neat preview for Quentin Tarantino’s “Django Unchained” and a lengthy preview for “Skyfall,” the next Bond movie. Both of which were better than the feature presentation. Although the biggest laugh of the night came from the opening credits of “Total Recall” and the production company name “Original Film.”

The new “Total Recall” claims to be based on the last film and also on the original short story by Philip K. Dick, “We Can Remember it for You Wholesale.” But it might just as well have been based on that lesser known work by Jules Verne, “Commute through the Center of the Earth.” This time around, we don’t travel to Mars, we’re given most of the same characters in a post-apocalyptic Earthbound future, in which the only habitable areas left on the planet are around Great Britain and Australia, with the latter labeled “The Colony” and basically acting as a cheap-labor-filled dormitory town for the former. This works by having the inexpensive labor pool travel via what must be the most prohibitively expensive ever public transportation system, “falling” through the planet, past the surprisingly not oppressively hot core, and popping back up on the other side in time to do menial jobs in factories, manufacturing robots that are advanced enough that it’s impossible to accept that other robots couldn’t have already been made to do the assembly work.

Colin Farrell plays Douglas Quaid (the old Schwarzenegger role), who is now a factory worker bothered by dreams more worthy of an action movie star. But his trip to “Rekall,” to inject some spicier memories, backfires when it apparently uncovers an earlier set of memory overrides. Is he a factory worker, a spy, a double-agent, or a factory-working triple agent playing the part of a quadruple agent factory worker? Chances are you won’t really care – you’ll just kick back and watch the mayhem unfold as a futuristic maglev skycar falls onto an oddly non-futuristic current model FIAT 500 (I half expected a J.Lo cameo). This is extreme urbanization that has been depicted at least as well more times than one could track, with 1927’s “Metropolis” and 1997’s “The Fifth Element” coming to mind.

This is a dull, cliché-ridden film, that’s largely just an extended and convoluted chase sequence and which doesn’t improve upon the original. Frankly, you’re better off totally recalling the earlier film.

"Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days"
Directed by David Bowers

In this third installment in the “Wimpy Kid” series, our hero Greg Heffley (Zachary Gordon) embarks on a summer vacation filled with theoretical plans of unending video gaming but with practical outcomes that are quite different. Caught in a minor lie by his Dad (Steve Zahn), he’s banned from gaming and almost forced into an office internship, saved only by an even greater lie about a seasonal job at the local country club.

These films are filled with low tech, mundane antics that seem life threatening when you’re 12-13 years old, and moderately nostalgic when you’re 2-5 times that age (losing your swimsuit in the pool, trying to wrestle a pot roast away from the family dog, etc.). And they seem to do a decent job of entertaining kids either side of the lead characters’ ages – including older siblings, who probably wouldn’t choose these films if they went out with friends, but who might reluctantly and secretly enjoy them if dragged along to a younger family member’s movie night.

But most importantly, for many parents, they’re almost completely lacking in cynicism and shallow pandering. These are stories in which kids, and sometimes adults, screw up and suffer for it – feelings get hurt, friendships and relationships are threatened, and consequences occur. They’re wholesome in an old-school, prude-friendly way, and quite possibly even a little educational. I overheard a small voice in the audience question a civil war re-enactment scene with “What’s that?” followed by an older voice saying “It’s the Civil War!” and the younger voice continuing with “Is that real?”

The only odd things about this movie, except for an apparent lack of a script supervisor keeping an eye on continuity (people are wet and dry in alternating pool shots, for example) is that Gordon in the lead role seems to have aged noticeably while everybody around him seems to have stepped out of some kind of cryogenic suspension. And it seems like they should accelerate production of several sequels, even if they roll them out over a few years, just to keep these kids vaguely in their current age brackets.

These aren’t complex stories or fancy productions, they’re just wholesome and safe family entertainment that doesn’t feel the need to load the dialog with adult-oriented double-entendres or to introduce situations that cause an awkward need for explanations from parents on the way home. And sometimes that’s all it takes for a winning and low impact family day out.

"The Intouchables" re-opens and is honored with an award

2012-07-30T01:11:02Z

"The Intouchables" to recieve the Dana Reeve HOPE Award

In a pleasant coincidence, "The Intouchables" re-opened in Sacramento on Friday at the Crest Theatre and, on the same day, it was announced that the film is being honored by the Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation.

Excerpts from the Foundation's press release:

THE INTOUCHABLES is the First Film Ever to Be Honored by the Organization.

The Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation, the nation's leading nonprofit providing care to those living with paralysis and advancing research into treatments and cures for spinal cord injury, will honor international box office record breaking film THE INTOUCHABLES at its annual star-studded A Magical Evening fundraising gala on Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at Cipriani Wall Street in New York City. The Weinstein Company Co-Chairman Harvey Weinstein will accept the Dana Reeve HOPE Award at the gala reception on behalf of TWC and the film’s directors Eric Toledano and Olivier Nakache.

Peter T. Wilderotter, president and CEO of the Reeve Foundation, stated, “the Dana Reeve HOPE Award is presented to a person or organization that has shown amazing grace, strength and fortitude. ... We have always honored individuals and corporations that embody our mission to further the quality of life for those living with paralysis. After seeing this extraordinary film, we felt compelled to honor all of the individuals who helped bring this film and its inspirational story to light. This film captures the Foundation’s mission of ‘Today’s Care, Tomorrow’s Cure’ and we are passionate about sharing its empowering message with our community."

Since its release, THE INTOUCHABLES has shattered box-office records worldwide to become the third highest grossing film of all time in France, the highest grossing French film in Germany ever, and has held the #1 spot in many countries around the world grossing over $356 million worldwide and counting.

ABOUT THE CHRISTOPHER & DANA REEVE FOUNDATION

The Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation is dedicated to curing spinal cord injury by funding innovative research, and improving the quality of life for people living with paralysis through grants, information and advocacy. For more information or to make a donation to the Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation, please call (800) 225-0292 or visit http://www.ChristopherReeve.org.

From my earlier film column in Sacramento Press (originally published June 1, 2012):

... Here we see a wealthy quadriplegic man, Philippe, screening job applicants for the position of his live-in personal care giver. The majority of those showing up are highly qualified but emotionally distant and talk about him as though he’s either not in the room or defined by his disability, or both. The exception is a young man from the projects who has only shown up to help qualify for unemployment benefits (he needs three rejections to prove he’s looking for work).

What unfolds from that point is a remarkable and often very funny story of friendship and trust, and the film is based on a true story (with brief images of the real men being shown during the end credits). At one point, Philippe is defending his choice of employee to an even snootier friend, who describes him as an ex-convict who will show him no pity. Philippe’s response is to point out that that’s why he chose him – precisely because he doesn’t want pity – and the film goes beyond being simply about the relationship itself, saying much about what it means to be so thoroughly dependent and limited after a lifetime of independence and disregard for one’s own health and potential frailty. Omar Sy won the César for his portrayal of Driss, the seemingly unlikely care giver.

It's a wonderful film and we now have a second chance to appreciate it.

Cult films and the changing nature of movie fandom

2012-07-27T09:03:19Z

The following interview was initiated in conjunction with Allison Joy’s “What’s With That” column on Sacramento Press. It was prompted by the abrupt closing of the comment thread associated with “The Dark Knight Rises” on RottenTomatoes.com, the internet aggregator of movie reviews, following negative remarks and threats directed towards reviewers who gave the film its first negative ratings. Brief excerpts from the interview appeared in Allison’s column and the full exchange is reproduced here. The RottenTomatoes.com events preceded the shootings in Aurora, Colorado but the interview was conducted after that tragedy.

Allison: What I want to focus on is cult followings of films, why a certain storyline becomes so near and dear to viewers' hearts that a few bad reviews cause them to inadvertently shut down commenting on a site as popular as Rotten Tomatoes.

What characterizes a "cult following"? Does “The Dark Knight Trilogy” have one? What is the difference between a cult following and a widely well-received film?

Tony: The idea of a cult film has changed somewhat over time – in the past it was more likely to be used to signify a film that had a core group of followers, often relatively small, and perhaps with respect to a film that didn’t gain much mainstream support or success. One of the most referenced films when people talk about cult status is probably “Harold and Maude.”

But mainstream films and other projects/people can also gain a cult status, with a very loyal group of followers who will follow all developments, buy memorabilia, track related trivia, etc. Two obvious examples are all things “Star Trek” and “Star Wars” – with Trekkies (or Trekkers as some fans prefer), for example, being a recognized sub-culture of fandom – and both of these groups have had films made about them. So they’re not just film fans but they’re the subject of films about fans.

It seems fair to say that what has become known as “The Dark Knight Trilogy” has a cult-like following – but I’m not sure that it’s entirely similar and it seems unlikely to be as long lasting. But it is one of the hottest projects currently gaining that kind of level of attention.

Allison: Can you give examples of other movies with a similar cult following?

Tony: Aside from those already mentioned, in the current year you’ve got a reboot of the “Spider-man” franchise and the ensemble “Avengers” that have garnered significant followings. And recently you’ve seen the “Harry Potter” series and the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, with that project now carrying its fanbase over to the new “Hobbit” films that Peter Jackson is making. But, again, these are not the types of films that would have been likely to earn the classic “cult” label – these are massive projects with a new breed of film “fanboy”- which isn’t intended to be gendered, it’s just a term that gets used. Clearly, “fanboy” doesn’t do such a good job of capturing the same level of enthusiasm that is associated with the “Twilight” books and films, or “The Hunger Games” series – but it’s just as enthusiastic – so it’s not a male-only phenomenon despite the prevalence of that term.

Allison: Why is “The Dark Knight Trilogy” so popular, in your opinion? Why do these movies mean to people?

Tony: Well with several of these projects, and this is a good example, you have a confluence of factors that cause an almost perfect storm of constructive interference. The Batman character has been around for decades and has had generations of fans – it’s an heirloom story at this point. You also have a very popular cast that have followings of their own, and a director who might even be labeled as having his own cultish following, especially following not just this series but “Inception.” But people were raving about his earlier films, like “Memento” and “The Prestige” and it’s that kind of notoriety that gets you attached to a series like this.

So you potentially have multiple levels of fandom involved in the outcome and a great vested interest that fans of the comic book series have in seeing whether or not their own internal interpretations are successfully adapted to screen. It’s a quasi-religious experience for some fans.

Allison: Do you think fans truly took bad reviews of the film as personally as it would appear? Is this the work of your standard internet trolls, or is this something different?

Tony: I think it’s different, in a historical context, but not unique to this film. Lurking in the background of Rotten Tomatoes there are discussion forums that have been around for over a decade. They’re getting harder and harder to find as the site has changed hands and they clearly aren’t the core product. But, coincidentally, I’ve been posting there for over nine years and it’s not unusual for people to track the reviews as they come in and comment on the first negative reviews for popular films. There’s this weird undercurrent of commentary that implies that certain reviewers just like to be contrarians to attract attention to themselves, or that there exists “backlash” against popular projects. None of which makes much actual sense for assorted reasons, not the least of which is that many reviewers watch movies and write their reviews before there’s any way of knowing what the balance of opinion will ultimately be.

But I think there’s a bigger change that has occurred over time that’s more important than trying to understand “cult” status. If you look back at the way movies have been released, the patterns and the knowledge the public have both changed considerably. “Jaws” is often credited as having been the first of the giant summer blockbusters, with an unusual television marketing campaign and opening on 400+ screens – which was high at that time. Most films historically opened in a couple of cities and then slowly rolled out to more and more locations over the following weeks. You still see that pattern, as with this year’s “Moonrise Kingdom” and “smaller” films in general, but the major mainstream movies are released in a tidal wave of marketing, hype, and opening weekend frenzy on as many screens as possible.

The theater chains have fueled this also by building more and more screens, to their own detriment as traditionally studios have taken a larger cut of ticket proceeds earlier in a film’s run. So theaters traditionally did better when a film stuck around for weeks or months – and we’re now focused almost exclusively on opening weekend capacity and performance and films burnout relatively quickly.
And 20 years ago, the general public didn’t study or even have easy access to box office reports as they were compiled. This became a mini phenomenon of its own when the Hollywood Stock Exchange opened online and created a fantasy investment craze centered on film revenues and the value of actors, becoming the film equivalent of fantasy sports leagues.

What you’re seeing 10+ years later is this strange combination of factors that have turned films (as well as some books, theatrical productions, TV shows, etc.) into something more like sports have traditionally been. People are studying box office reports like baseball fans used to study box scores. They can tell you how much money Nolan’s films have made, the best opening weekends, the highest grossing franchises, etc. – much like sports fans can happily recite earned run averages and home run rankings.

Which changes the game – now if you’re a big fan of a project for whatever reason, it’s not just about how well it’s produced, it’s about how it stacks up against other projects as measured at the box office. After all, the deep, quality dramas have their awards shows to separate out the wheat from the chaff, but the giant effect-laden comic book and action movies are rated by their fans in the box office competition – and it’s just like a sport with home teams and rivalries.

The “Tomatometer” itself – the scoring system Rotten Tomatoes uses to aggregate “Fresh” and “Rotten” reviews - becomes another factor in these comparisons. Although it’s also largely misunderstood/misquoted as the Tomatometer doesn’t just count overall positives and negatives, it also tracks average scores – so a movie could have, for example, a 90% fresh rating (i.e., 90% of reviewers gave it an overall positive score and 10% gave it an overall negative score) while also having an average score of, say, 7/10 (which would mean that although the scores were overwhelmingly in the positive range, the reviews were not exactly stellar). And other sites such as Box Office Mojo exist to compile all manner of budget and revenue data.

So now a bad review isn’t just an opinion – it’s no longer “Oh, we obviously have different taste” and it’s no longer dismissed with the old favorite putdowns “You didn’t get it!” or “If only you were more familiar with the source material!” Now it’s a threat to your “team’s” performance. Now a bad review might put somebody off seeing a movie and actually hurt your favorite project in terms of long term box office performance, rankings, and subsequently its perceived success and status in the pantheon of movies. And god forbid a bad “The Dark Knight Rises” review helps “The Amazing Spider-man” or “Avengers” look like better movies as a result. Suddenly it’s personal and people care unduly what others think.

Allison: The following is part of a statement made by Rotten Tomatoes: "The job of policing the comments became more than my staff could handle for that film, so we stopped the comments altogether," the site's editor-in-chief Matt Atchity said in an open letter. "It just got to be too much hate-based on reactions to reviews of movies that people hadn't even seen.”

Tony: This isn’t a situation entirely unique to Rotten Tomatoes – if you read the comments sections that used to exist, for example, on Yahoo! News stories the level of discourse was appalling and routinely filled with assorted manifestations of hate speech. Rotten Tomatoes has two problems – the comments themselves (which can be policed in various ways, including having them be subject to either advance moderation or by not allowing anonymous posts and anonymous threats) – and also the backlash against its reviewer base. But reviewers have had hate directed towards them for as long as there have been reviewers. It’s long been said that bad reviews in the New York Times could shut down both restaurants and Broadway shows. That said, we also live in a weird world where people tend to take things into their own hands to perhaps an unprecedented degree – as we saw this week in a mass killing that we may never fully understand. I’m not saying that was linked to reviews – indeed it was planned for months beforehand – but people used to exercise their frustrations through angry letters to the editor of a newspaper, rather than by credible death threats to a reviewer. And the scale and instant momentum provided by the internet has also changed that dynamic – it’s not just one angry fan or five angry fans, it’s suddenly hundreds or thousands all reinforcing each other overnight.

Allison: Have you/Will you see the movie? Why or why not?

Tony: Yes, I saw it at an early screening and my review appeared here. To date, I have not received any hate mail nor have the local servers crashed, that I’m aware of!

Thanks to Allison Joy for beginning this process and for permitting me to reproduce the entire exchange in this form.

The Dark Knight seemed a tad unleavened

2012-07-20T09:16:12Z

"The Dark Knight Rises"
Directed by Christopher Nolan

This is a huge film – big budget, 164 minutes (probably 3 hours if you include previews, which I was spared), and the end game in the most recent cinematic trilogy of Batman movies. It’s also a film that seems to want to keep reminding you of those things – it doesn’t so much rise as jump up and down and wave its arms around. But the end result seems somewhat less rather than more – it’s longwinded and flat where its predecessor was captivating and occasionally breathtaking. It’s only 12 minutes longer – but the difference feels greater than that. Whether or not the Joker of “The Dark Knight” fits your own or the comic book’s (whichever version you’re reading) image of the Joker, Heath Ledger’s Joker elevated that movie to a different level. “The Dark Knight Rises” has dropped, somewhat, to the level that “The Dark Knight” most likely would have been without Ledger. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad movie, by any means, it’s just the last of a series that unexpectedly peaked early.

We’re back in Gotham where crime has been suppressed and both Bruce Wayne and Batman have disappeared from view – unneeded and unappreciated, battered and bruised into submission. Harvey Dent has been immortalized, Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) is his High Priest, and all but the pettiest of thieves are either behind bars or in banking. But something is afoot, on a scale that only Gordon and a Hollywood director (Christopher Nolan) with access to deep pockets can truly fathom – and Gotham is, of course, in the greatest peril it has ever faced (until next time).

Enter a new villain, Bane (shut up Rush Limbaugh!). After two films in which Batman’s voice was often criticized as sounding ridiculous, the answer seems to have been to make us forget about it by introducing a voice that sounds worse – with Bane (Tom Hardy) speaking through a mask that protects him from a long-suffered affliction and projects his voice like a psychopathic, socratic, motivational speaker addressing the balcony.

He’s huge and menacing and as prone to casual killing as Darth Vader during a construction delay – but that’s all he is on an individual level, a big, strong, violent guy. And for a movie that’s excessive in scale and style, the major showdowns come down to two strong guys punching and kicking each other – one with a mask and muscles of steel, and one with a mantle and muscle coverings of Kevlar. It’s also the latest in a very long line of stories in which characters taunt their enemies and hold them captive rather than simply killing them – as though nobody ever learned anything from Dick Dastardly and Penelope Pitstop.

As I’ve said before, a few months ago, “John Carter” made the mistake of giving us a villain who was essentially just a henchman of a larger force that was never seen. And while “The Dark Knight Rises” avoids at least part of that trap, there’s less to Bane than meets the eye. Which is much of the problem of the film – we have a bunch of characters circulating around each other and none of them are especially interesting – certainly not as interesting as the Joker. Even Bruce Wayne/Batman (Christian Bale) seems off – he’s beaten down, then angrily gets moving again, then beaten down, and then even more angrily motivated. Anne Hathaway as Catwoman gets a few fun lines, but she’s more of a plot element than a counterpart and she goes from kicking up her heels to riding the Batcycle as quickly as Barry Pepper went from grunting futuristic anachronisms to flying a Harrier Jump Jet in “Battlefield Earth,” with about as much tutoring.

Joseph Gordon Levitt takes on many of the heroic duties in the story as a young cop who knows Bruce Wayne’s secret (not that it seems very secret any more) and can see past the City’s posturing, with the film acting better as an origins prologue than as a legendary epilogue. Morgan Freeman is back as Lucius Fox, like Bond’s “Q,” and Michael Caine again plays butler and therapist Albert.

All of which sounds as dark as the movie and perhaps my review needs to rise as much as the film does – so here goes. It’s an entertaining film. But it’s not as much fun to watch as this year’s Spiderman reboot or Avengers ensemble. It’s bigger and grander and more spectacular, but it’s also less engaging – and it employs social commentary as more of a sideshow, as it is within the plot itself. Nolan is an ambitious filmmaker and he swings big and hard, which can be inspiring at times, but a big swing doesn’t carry the ball any further if it doesn’t connect any better.

What the film does do is wrap up the storyline fairly well, with the requisite number of opportunities for spinoffs, sequels, and additional reboots. It does its duty and it will make a ton of money from the same fanboys who crashed the servers of reviewers who dared to say less than stellar things, prior to audiences even seeing the finished product. It will probably show up in technical awards categories and on several action-friendly and/or box office oriented end of year lists, but it doesn’t have anything that inherently elevates it above being a solid, effect-laden outing in a series that has had higher high points.

"The Dark Knight Rises" opens in wide release today.

Note: As I finish writing this, in my late night/early morning ritual, breaking news is reporting a mass shooting event with multiple deaths at a theater in Aurora, Colorado during a midnight screening of this movie.

Every cloud has a silver screened lining: “Polisse” and “Beasts of the Southern Wild”

2012-07-20T07:48:06Z

Two movies open this week in our local art house theaters that manage to salvage powerful human dramas from some of the most potentially depressing materials: child abuse and the displacement of the poor during natural disasters.

“Polisse”

When we read or hear stories about child abuse, there’s often a focus on the offenders (the outrage, the trial, the 24 hour cable news coverage) followed by guilty reminders of the victims (the pain and suffering, the psychological damage, the years of recovery). The recent Sandusky trial is a good example of this – Sandusky, Sandusky, Sandusky, Victim #x, Sandusky, Sandusky, Victim #y, Sandusky, Paterno, Sandusky, and how much will Penn State have to pay?

The missing part of the puzzle is the focus of “Polisse,” a strong film that was chosen recently to close this year’s Sacramento French Film Festival – and it was like ending a party with a gut punch. “Polisse” follows the members of a police unit tasked with tackling child abuse, in all forms. These are regular people who live lives of their own, some of which are good and some of which aren’t, who go to work every day and deal with the worst perversions and neglect – which isn’t the kind of thing you can joke about later.

One of the central characters in the story is a photographer who is chronicling the unit’s work and she becomes us, a proxy audience, as we watch her watch them – the things they criticize her for are the things they would criticize us for if we watched and asked questions directly. There are, of course, children and their abusers in the film – but they aren’t the subject matter here – they’re the subject matter’s work. And sometimes the folks who are slowest to recover aren’t the victims.

“Beasts of the Southern Wild”

There’s an inherent conflict in seeing depictions of extreme poverty – on the one hand we see people who have a tiny fraction of the things we commonly take for granted and have come to think of as necessities, but on the other hand they also often appear to be living free of many of the obligations that seem to go with them. And throughout most of human history, societies have thrived without refrigerators and smart phones, and monthly payments.

However the level of poverty exhibited in “Beast of the Southern Wild” is extreme enough to remind us that shanty towns aren’t limited to the developing world. Set in a rural bayou community c. Hurricane Katrina, the “Bathtub” is home to corrugated iron and found object architecture, built on stilts to avoid the ever-present threat of flooding. It’s also the kind of remote location that makes the Ninth Ward of New Orleans, often at the center of lamentations about neglect, casual disregard, and failure to respond, look like an attention whore by comparison.

The center of our attention is six year old Hushpuppy (Quvenzhané Wallis - who could set a new record for young award winners), who barely lives with her distant provider of a father – distant enough that they live in separate structures on the land he values more than the creature comforts found elsewhere. He’s also dying, and we come to see that much of his insistence that Hushpuppy fend for herself is essentially a training program for her future. She’s learning to live a post-apocalyptic existence in a pre-apocalyptic world – until the apocalypse actually comes in the form of the hurricane.

She’s also learned about pre-historic creatures that dominated their world and she has visions of them as she watches the struggles around her, where forces of nature collide to define existences. But in the midst of all of these downbeat events, there’s an upbeat undercurrent of human persistence and tenacity that can somehow overcome the meanest of circumstances. And a reminder that sometimes the strongest force of nature can be the heart and will of a six year old who hasn’t been taught by society to limit herself or to count the material things she doesn’t have.

"Polisse" opens today at the Crest Theatre and "Beasts of the Southern Wild" opens at the Tower Theatre.

Avoid "Ice Age: Continental Drift" and seek out the Japanese Film Festival

2012-07-13T08:40:34Z

It's the week after a major holiday, so there's nothing of any merit opening at the multiplexes. And if you point out that "Ice Age: Continental Drift" is opening, I'll counter by repeating that nothing of any merit is opening at the multiplexes. This is a film that isn't only not-educational, it's uneducational in the sense that it has the potential to cause your kids to know less by the end than they knew when they walked in. It reminds me of 1998 when both "Antz" and A Bug's Life" opened and we had competing films about anthropomorphic insects. However, where "Antz" featured ants with six legs, the correct number, "A Bug's Life" starred four-legged ants - causing one to wonder why anybody would ever want to convince a generation of kids of something so wrong-headed when another production was demonstrating how easy it was to get it right.

It's similarly hard to know what's going on with the writers and producers of the "Ice Age" franchise, other than that it's another attempt to cash in on past success. The film even makes fun of its own predecessors by pointing out how ridiculous the last script was. It's as if there was some desperate attempt not to risk excluding any potential audience members by not siding with the idea of an earth that's billions of years old or one that's merely thousands of years old. It does this by allowing for the existence of such phenomena as evolution and the movement of tectonic plates, but basing a plot and story details on the idea that these things happened over days rather than eons. Whether the primary goal is to accommodate short attentions spans or young earth creationists, the outcome is awful. The kids may dig it but you're not doing yourself any favors by distracting them this way.

But all is not lost as the 8th Annual Sacramento Japanese Film Festival opens today and runs through Sunday at the Crest Theatre. This has been a consistently excellent event over the years and this year's seven screening program includes the typical mix of both recent and classic films.

This year's Sacramento Japanese Film Festival schedule (with synopses from the Festival's website):

Friday, July 13, 2012, 8:00 PM
A GOOD HUSBAND
A famous photographer, Shunseke, has the marriage blahs. His wife, Sakura, suggests that they take a holiday to a seaside resort and that Shunseke commemorate their marriage by taking photographs of her.
Director: Isao Yukisada
2009, 128 minutes
In Japanese with English subtitles

Saturday, July 14, 2012, 1:00 PM
PORCO ROSSO
The unsung treasure from Miyazaki nestles a tale of morality and identify inside a soaring airborne adventure - a tribute to early aviation and the reckless flyboys whose home was the open sky.
Director: Hayao Miyazaki
1982, 94 minutes
In Japanese with English subtitles

Saturday, July 14, 2012, 3:00 PM
A BOY AND HIS SAMURAI
A hard working mom and her son see a man dress in Samurai garb outside their Tokyo supermarket. She thinks it’s an advertising promotion. It’s a 1800’s Edo period Samurai caught in a time warp.
Director: Yoshihiro Nakamura
2010, 109 minutes
In Japanese with English subtitles

Saturday, July 14, 2012, 5:10 PM
SUGIHARA: CONSPIRACY OF KINDNESS
The PBS documentary on Chinue Sugihara, diplomat of Imperial Japan, who saved over 2000 Jews from the Holocaust. Archival film; interviews with survivors, and Sugihara family members.
Director: Robert Kirk
2005, 82 minutes
In English and Japanese

Saturday, July 14, 2012, 8:00PM
ABRAXAS
Jonen is a young Buddhist priest, father, and husband, who has a meltdown. He rediscovers life and himself through his love of rock and roll.
Director: Naoki Kato
2010, 113 minutes
In Japanese with English subtitles

Sunday, July 15, 2012, 1:00 PM
KABEI: Our Mother
Yoji Yamada’s tribute to Japanese women during WWII. The story of a hard working young mother and her two daughters when their father is put into prison.
Director: Yoji Yamada
2008, 133 minutes
In Japanese with English subtitles

Sunday, July 15, 2012, 3:00 PM
THE TSUNAMI & THE CHERRY BLOSSOM
Lucy Walker’s Oscar nominated documentary on the tsunami and its aftermath. The cell phone films and the survivors speak for themselves.
Director: Lucy Walker
2011, 40 minutes
In Japanese with English subtitles

Combined screening with:

DAVID AND KAMAL
The difficulties of an American Jewish boy, David, and a Palestinian boy, Kamal, who try to become friends in Jerusalem. Co-presented with the Sacramento Jewish Film Festival.
Director: Kikuo Kawasaki
2011, 78 minutes
In English, Hebrew, and Arabic with English subtitles

More information about the festival, including film screenshots and ticketing options, can be found at the Festival website.

Two more opinions of one more Spider-Man

2012-07-06T10:18:58Z

“The Amazing Spider-Man”
Directed by Marc Webb
Review by Malcolm Maclachlan & Tony Sheppard

Malcolm: The best thing I can say about this version of Spider-Man is that I liked it a lot better than the Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire films. But I would have liked it a lot better if the Raimi/MacGuire ones had never been made. After the film, I keep hearing other people in the audience talked about what a “great reboot” it was. Which left me wondering why we aren’t being offered more original software.

Tony: I hear ya! But Hollywood is a risk averse place and these comic book movies generally sell pretty well, with this new one already beating records for similar opening days/dates. That said it’s often tough to compare with past films, on a dollar for dollar basis, as the newer releases cost more per ticket with even higher premiums for 3D screenings. And as for the past films, I heard another reviewer say something along the lines of “I was worried about how I would feel about the Tobey Maguire films and now I’m thinking Tobey who!?”

Malcolm: To back up, a lot of the ingredients are there. Relative unknown Andrew Garfield has been getting raves for playing a more vulnerable, troubled version of the hero, a kind of Peter Parker meets Holden Caulfield (a line I plagiarized from EVERYWHERE). Emma Stone is always good, this time as original heroine Gwen Stacy. But when the pair start dropping hints about the coming films in the franchise shortly before the closing credits, I found myself thinking that I won’t be there. I’m happy to watch them both—in something else.

Tony: Well, they’re coming – it was announced yesterday that there will be two more films in this series. In an odd way, I liked it enough to almost want it to fail, to avoid bad sequels. But I’m OK with seeing them back together – they have far more onscreen (and offscreen) chemistry than most matchups. And Andrew Garfield has been around, he’s just easy to miss at times because he tends to change his appearance and accent at will and is proving to be pretty versatile.

Malcolm: If this had been a terrible remake, I could have just written it off. If it had been a brilliant recasting of the basic story— something truly troubling, like Spider-Man as an idiot savant or vigilante killer, or better yet a middle-aged Spidey as Michael Corleone, wanting to hang up his Mexican wrestler mask but not knowing how—that would have been something. But instead it’s “darker” without being truly dark. We get the cinematic version of comfort food: even if it’s a noticeably better telling than the most recent big-budget versions, it really is the same old origin story told basically the same way. I found myself having a decent enough time, but I never stopped wondering why this film had to be made, especially given that the last Raimi/Maguire sequel came out only five years ago.

Tony: Then again, if all reboots were this good, I’d be asking for more and sometimes much sooner. How about a better “John Carter”? It’s only been a couple of months but I’d welcome a better retelling of that story. And “better” would be my main descriptor here, rather than darker, it all just seemed to work so very well. It seems more natural with better character development – especially as the super powers kick in. And Sally Field and Martin Sheen add a certain quality/gravitas in quite small roles as the Parker grandparents. It was like hearing the same joke from a better comedian – it just worked. It also looked a lot better than the previews and early glimpses, many of which looked horribly artificial.

Malcolm: I think the hint as to why we’re getting a new film comes in the repeated refrain we’re hearing that this version is “more faithful to the original.” Think about that for a minute: we’re judging a $215 million movie on how faithful it is to a 50-year-old comic book most viewers have never read, and won’t. Maybe the nostalgia we’re being sold isn’t Spider Man, but 1962 (insert your “Mad Men” reference here, because I won’t).

Tony: I’m one of those non-readers of the source material, so I always feel a little out of the loop on those comparisons, but I’ve seen and heard the same thing being said – both in analyses and from audience members leaving the theater.

Malcolm: It looks modern, of course, all smartphones and racial diversity (mainly among the minor characters and extras). But the ethos is something else, a democratization of morality as the working people of New York rebel against the authorities and declare Spider Man a hero, not a vigilante. Meanwhile, the plot, lacking a true bad guy, really centers around biotechnology run out of control in ways that eventually evoke 9/11 and the heroism of the husky urbanites of yesteryear.

Tony: I think there’s more of a clear villain here than in some other recent movies, such as “Brave” or the aforementioned “John Carter” (in which the onscreen villain is a minion of some force we never meet). But I agree that we do get to champion the working man/woman – from Sheen and Field's grandparents to the crane operators of Manhattan, led by C. Thomas Howell, who might once have donned tights himself for an equally mythic role (and who has an amazing actor-man 149 titles in his IMDB profile).

Malcolm: Superhero flicks almost inevitably go for the mythic, but we seem to feel like we now live in a fallen age where we can’t make any new myths. Heck, we can barely make cars anymore. Spider Man isn’t just a time traveler from a time when we had a strong industrial base, he’s an excuse to indulge in the kind of gee-wiz idealism that might feel forced and hokey on the shoulders of any truly modern hero. But I wish someone would try. In the real world, such people still exist.

Tony: Or try telling a story in its own era – as with the remarkably successful “Captain America.”

Malcolm: In short, it’s an update so timeless it didn’t really need to be made. Though I suppose that $215 million had to have created some jobs somewhere in the good old U.S. of A.

Tony: True. Plus all the Chinese workers who are churning out plastic 3D glasses so that, amongst other things, movies are harder to pirate and bootleg. After all, if we’re going to stop Chinese bootleggers from manufacturing DVD’s so we can control more of our copyrights, we can at least keep them busy crafting our stylish cinematic eyewear.

"The Amazing Spider-Man" is currently in wide release and can be found at multiple local theaters.

Katy Perry: Part of Me

2012-07-06T08:33:40Z

“Katy Perry: Part of Me”
Directed by Dan Cutforth, Jane Lipsitz

I had mixed feelings and fairly low expectations going into “Katy Perry: Part of Me.” It’s fair to say I’m not her target demographic and although I know most of her songs, I have a tendency to identify several of them with “Glee” rather than with Katy Perry. I had also seen her in a recent interview in which she sounded a little ditzy and came across seeming like a better musical guest than an interviewee. That said, I actually enjoyed the movie, albeit still with mixed feelings overall.

For starters, there are enough relatively complete performances for this to feel like a concert movie as much as a documentary. And it’s fascinating just to watch the stage sets and the costumes – including a surprising number of changes within a single song. This is a tour that’s described in the film as having seven buses and more tractor trailer rigs – and then you watch them take all that gear to multiple international locations. All of which makes you think about the army of logisticians involved and the stories you hear about successful tours that never make money.

Like many people, I “discovered” Katy Perry when her hit “I Kissed a Girl” achieved omnipresence on the radio in 2008 – and it was easy to think of her as a sudden and extreme overnight success, which made a documentary about her career only four years later seem a little odd. However, I had recently read an article about how British diver Tom Daley had written a memoir at the age of 18 that actually managed to sell me on the idea that he had a story to tell, so I rolled with it. And, amongst other things, the film does a decent job of describing the years and the unsuccessful and soul-destroying record contracts that preceded 2008 – there really is more to the backstory. It’s still a relatively short time span, but it’s not four years.

I also watched a recent Piers Morgan interview in which a guest was lamenting that kids no longer have career aspirations for specific occupations, they simply want to be famous. That may be a generalization but at some point in the film Katy Perry reinforces it by saying that at age 9 she knew that she wanted to be on a stage with people cheering her when she got older – and this was before she was singing, so it comes across as fame for fame’s sake rather than fame for a reason. And in that sense, the film may not be what I’d want a 9 year watching as you do see this dream of non-specific fame realize itself on a grand scale.

However, the film also shows the difficult times, not just in the down years, but also in terms of relationships. At the start of filming, she’s madly in love with husband Russell Brand and by the end the marriage is over – and that’s after countless crazily scheduled flights across the world in an attempt to squeeze in some together time between venues. In that sense this may be a film about a successful singer-songwriter on a massive world tour, but it’s not a fairy tale of magical outcomes and uninterrupted joy – there’s a point where’s she’s so run down and so emotionally drained that a show is almost canceled and you watch her dig herself out of this dark place in order to be that peppy, upbeat dynamo the audience paid to see.

That aspect of the film reminded me of “Conan O’Brien Can’t Stop” – the documentary that followed the concert tour O’Brien undertook between losing “The Tonight Show” and starting his cable talk show. There we saw a celebrity who, despite good intentions and a decent outlook, was pummeled into the ground by the constant need to be everywhere and to be everybody’s best friend at the drop of a hat.

She also had to break away from a strictly religious upbringing – not with a loss of faith but with a separation from the expectations of her devout, traveling preacher parents. And, as you can imagine, “I kissed a girl and I liked it” is not exactly her mother’s favorite lyric.
The movie does just enough to make even a non-fan appreciate the struggle and the success, including the attention to detail in the staging and the wardrobe choices, and the loyalty to and from key members of her team. From a distance there’s a sense of a stage persona that seems completely artificial and as self-consciously manufactured as a Madonna or Lady Gaga, but the film manages to make it seem, accurately or otherwise, much more of an extension of her own personality than some calculated, focus group approved, synthetic pop star.

But it doesn’t actually delve all that deeply into Katy Perry the person – we’re hearing more from others than from her directly. I don’t know if that’s a good or a bad thing but it does feel like we’ve only skimmed the surface of what drove her through the lean years. We’re seeing the success and the scale of the success, and we’re being reassured that it has been earned, but one can’t help but feel that there’s some deeper drama yet to be mined. So maybe in another four years we’ll get “Katy Perry: Another Part of Me” and they’ll dig a little more. If so, I’ll probably watch – she’s pleasantly surprised me once and next time she’ll have the benefit of the doubt on her side.

"Katy Perry: Part of Me" is in wide release and is playing at multiple local theaters.

"Ted" and "Magic Mike" - Overcoming arrested adolescence at the movies

2012-06-29T11:35:53Z

"Ted”
Directed (and co-written) by Seth MacFarlane

Two weeks ago, we were presented with a character who grew up in Boston, became famous as a child for unlikely reasons, and who grew up into an obnoxious, broadly accented, substance abusing, painful embarrassment to those who ought to be nearest and dearest. And now we have another – but with a key difference.

Then it was Adam Sandler who single-handedly managed to stink up what might possibly have been a moderately funny, albeit inherently crass, story (“That’s My Boy”) about a kid who impregnated his teacher and then squandered the fame, fortune, and parental relationship that ensued.

This time around it’s a walking, talking teddy bear (creatively named Ted) who comes to life after eight year old John Bennett receives him for Christmas and wishes that he might become a real-life best friend. The key difference being that the teddy bear is quantum leaps funnier – not just because of better writing and Seth MacFarlane’s experienced voice acting, but also because the fake teddy bear appears to have a more expressive range than Adam Sandler.

Mark Wahlberg, also not generally noted for dramatic range, plays the adult John who’s never outgrown his best (thunder) buddy Ted. But Wahlberg, like this week’s other major lead actor Channing Tatum (see below) does fine when he’s not overly stretched or expected to play against type – and they both seem to have recognized their own respective strengths and weaknesses in that regard.

“Ted” starts amusingly enough, helped by some offensive narration from Patrick Stewart, with a wonderful scene that plays against the typical fairy tale discovery of a miraculous occurrence. And as John and Ted both age, they remain equally emotionally stunted, sustaining the same friendship that made perfect sense when John was 8 but which makes less sense at 35. In this transition, the film makes two interesting choices by having Ted and his abilities be openly known to the world (so we’re never hampered by cumbersome secrets) and by having Ted age in his language and temperament, just as John does, but showing his advancing years by becoming a little threadbare (pun intended).

However, Ted is no longer John’s only friend – he’s been dating Lori (Mila Kunis) for four years and for some reason best left unconsidered, Ted’s presence is only now starting to truly grate on her. It’s an obviously odd threesome that initially seems like it might not quite work, with some forced dialog that sounds awkward rather than funny. I’m not sure if it simply gets better a few minutes after introducing us to the adult relationships or if it just takes us a few minutes to roll with the premise, but it soon becomes quite consistently hilarious. It also avoids the common flaw of many high concept comedies by shifting direction at some point rather than relying on finding new ways to offend, something Sandler could stand to learn.

Clearly, a foul-mouthed, pot smoking, adult teddy bear isn’t the most common of movie characters but the plot is really very familiar at heart. It’s the story of best buddies whose friendship changes when one of them meets the girl of his dreams and they can longer hang out all the time. That it works as well as it does isn’t just an outcome of the intentionally foul jokes and equal opportunity offensiveness of John and Ted, but also because of the muffled sincerity of the relationship between John and Lori, which in turn benefits from the easy going chemistry between Wahlberg and Kunis. In short, there’s a love story here that will keep some moviegoers happy while their own beer-swilling, farting dates laugh loudly at the crazy antics – and they might even recognize a few of their own Teds.

“Magic Mike”
Directed by Steven Soderbergh

A couple of weeks before “That’s My Boy” lowered comedic standards, we were treated to an equally unspectacular action movie that started out with an aimless and unsuccessful young guy, drifting from job to job, and relying on the generosity of his older sibling. That may be the only structural similarity between “Battleship” and “Magic Mike,” but along with the movies already discussed, they follow a similar theme of arrested development and poor decision making skills in young males – the modern day slacker antihero.

“Magic Mike” is the movie billed as a being based on star Channing Tatum’s own past as a male stripper and occasional construction worker, growing up in the not-as-glamorous-as-Miami city of Tampa, Florida. Tatum plays Mike, an experienced stripper/dancer who has several side ventures but who really yearns to make a living as an artist, with his own line of specialty furniture. He meets Adam (Alex Pettyfer), who is more the sibling-reliant slacker of the story than Mike is (at least at this moment in time), on a roofing job and drags him along into his other late-night life. There Adam is laso introduced to Dallas (Matthew McConaughey), the somewhat sleazy dance club owner, and several other regular performers including the aging Tarzan (played by ex-wrestler Kevin Nash) who has trouble keeping up with the demanding routine(s).

Naturally there’s a love interest and Mike is drawn to Adam’s sister Brooke (Cody Horn) who isn’t exactly thrilled with the new developments in her brother’s life – and who gets to utter the classic “you’d better take care of him!” (paraphrased) line to Mike.
But what elevates this above a simple buddy story of male strippers is the set of temporally displaced parallel characters and the multi-faceted character study they represent. Mike isn’t the only Tatum-esque character on the screen. Adam dropped out of college and lost a football scholarship in the process, another parallel to Tatum’s own life – he’s essentially the younger Mike, finding easy financial success in a field that takes some basic talent but which requires no great thought, dedication, or leap of faith. Similarly, it’s easy to see Dallas as the person Mike might become if he sticks around the club world a few more years, and perhaps even Tarzan as what he might have to look forward to if he keeps it up even longer.

“Magic Mike” is a story about finding and living your own dream, not the life that somebody else might temporarily find dreamy. It fits with other movies like (the much better) “Requiem for a Dream” as an indictment of taking the easy way out rather than making the tougher, more rewarding decisions. For Mike, the world of “adult” dancing isn’t the adult choice, any more than hanging out with an adult-mouthed teddy bear is the adult choice for John Bennett in “Ted.” Both need to grow up while deciding who and what they want to be ‘when they grow up.’ And in that sense, the message of both movies is far more meaningful than the subject matter might initially suggest (which shouldn’t come as a complete surprise from either director).

Both "Ted" and "Magic Mike" are in wide release and can be found at most area multiplexes starting today.

4 New films and 1 bonus review

2012-06-22T10:12:44Z

“Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter” is another of those high concept movies that would probably be a blast if it didn’t try quite so hard. The basic premise is pretty well explained by the title – it retells the story of Lincoln with one tiny extra detail – he was fighting and killing vampires before he was President. It all starts when he witnesses the death of his mother and yearns for revenge against the (presumed) man who killed her. After almost getting chewed up himself by the killer, he instead gets chewed out by a mysterious stranger who saves him and teaches him the ways of re-killing those who are already dead.

All of this is great fun and the basic vampire hunting and killing sequences would keep me coming back for more through several lifetimes. Except that somebody felt the need to throw in two spectacularly over the top and unnecessary scenes that don’t look good enough by today’s effects standards and which added nothing to the story. For example, Lincoln chases his nemesis across the backs of a herd of stampeding horses in one of the worst action sequences since Legolas rode his shield down a stone staircase.

The plot manages to weave its way around some major milestones and characters in Lincoln’s life (and death), while also leaving out most of the detail (albeit as unnecessary in this context as the scenes described above). But it also has some continuity flaws that occasionally take you out of the moment. All told it still manages to be fun, assuming you’re not tired of vampires sinking their teeth into every genre, but it would have been better if it had stayed focused on the central elements and not the showmanship.

Perhaps the oddest thing about the new Disney/Pixar movie “Brave” is the title. Originally to be called “The Bear and the Bow,” it seems as though the name was changed to allow for promotion based on the female lead – something new for Pixar. The problem however is that there’s not much bravery on display. There’s a lot of spoiled self-centeredness and plenty of ass-covering desperation but not that much straight-up courage from the lead character.

Merida is the daughter of a Scottish chieftain (spoken by Billy Connolly, whose voice doesn’t seem large enough for the vast body) and isn’t keen on the semi-arranged marriage that tradition calls for, so she takes things into her own hands with disastrous results. She then spends the second half of the film desperately trying to fix things without being found out.

It’s an awkward story with no clear villain, and plot developments that don’t so much develop as suddenly occur. For example, at one point her mother, who is having a bear of a day, has a complete change of heart about the marriage – out of nowhere. It’s also a film that some will probably say is strong on feminism – but aside from proving that girls can be just as bratty as boys, that also seems like a stretch. And it ends with an act that doesn’t come from bravery or canny deduction, but rather accidental dumb luck.

That said, it’s pretty to watch, especially the red hair. If you see it, be sure to stick around for the bonus scene at the end.

Probably my favorite film of the week, “Seeking a Friend for the End of the World” comes close to feeling like two separate films. It starts out as a hilariously dark exploration of the idea that the world is about to end due to an imminent asteroid strike. Steve Carell plays Dodge, an insurance agent (naturally) who keeps going to work yet is horrified that his housekeeper does the same thing. After his wife displays a lot less sticking power, he meets Penny (Kiera Knightley) and they embark on a trip to try to reunite her with her family before it’s all too late. This half of the film is a riot of understated but hilarious awkwardness and social/media commentary.

The tone then changes as it becomes more about the two of them than about the crazy circumstances and I thought for a while that it might lose me along the way. It’s not that I don’t like films of that tone, it’s just that it didn’t seem to be what I had been sold in the first half. However, it held my attention and interest with enough throwback moments to keep the newfound sincerity a little off kilter. There’s one “what the…” moment towards the end with a very large prop that simply isn’t large enough for what it needs to be, but it doesn’t detract from the actual content in the way that the flawed scenes in “Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter” or the flawed storytelling in “Brave” do. By the end, rather than feeling like a film I was enjoying had shifted directions rather uncomfortably, it felt more like two pleasant experiences for the price of one.

The smallest and most difficult new film to classify is “Safety Not Guaranteed,” an indie sci-fi romantic comedy character study (or something like that). In it, a magazine reporter and two interns head off to a small beach town to investigate a classified ad that seeks an assistant for a time traveling enterprise - the title of the movie being a clause from the text of the ad. The reporter (Jeff), it turns out, only really wanted to be there to look up an old flame and the investigation is largely left to the interns – one an introverted female wallflower (Darius) and the other an even more introverted male geek (Arnau). And this becomes a multi-dimensional examination of these three unlikely companions and the truly odd, seemingly nutty writer of the ad himself (Kenneth).

A couple of times the result is awkwardly slow and the film has that super low budget feel that suggests the biggest line item might well have been the food. But then it surprises you with some of the most wonderful and funniest moments, including fantastically quotable lines of dialog. In one moment, while trying to keep up with Kenneth’s apparent lunatic ranting, Darius comes out with “There’s no sense in nonsense, especially when the heat’s hot” to Kenneth’s surprising and immediate satisfaction. Later, when Darius and Jeff argue about “Star Wars” and technology, the downtrodden Arnau verbally tramples them both by frustratedly pronouncing “Stormtroopers don’t know anything about lasers or time travel, they’re blue collar workers.” “Safety Not Guaranteed” doesn’t get easier to define as it continues, but it does win you over with its heart and sincerity.

Bonus Guest Review:
“Moonrise Kingdom”
Directed by Wes Anderson
Review by Malcolm Maclachlan

If the Coen brothers took ecstasy and made a movie, they might end up making something a lot like “Moonrise Kingdom.”
Director Wes Anderson has long formed a kind of bookend to the Coens. So many of the stylistic flourishes are similar: the bright primary colors, the subtle absurdist humor, the actors standing around declaiming in dialogue that is usually more clever than realistic. But while the Coens had long been heading towards the stark nihilism of “No Country for Old Men” and the arguably-darker careerism and self-absorption of “Burn After Reading,” Anderson’s characters really just want to talk about their feelings. The dramatic tension comes because they’re not very good at it.

There’s a feeling of safety in his films, a cocooning Americana where mistakes can be made and people forgive each other. In this way, “Moonrise” is Anderson boiled down to this essence. The opening takes us through a giant New England farmhouse opened up like a dollhouse. The soundtrack for the scene is "Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra," a classic record which broke down the different parts of a large philharmonic so children could understand it. Moving neurotically around all of it is 12-year-old Suzy Bishop (Kara Hayward), who with her binoculars understands far more than the adults around her know, including who is cheating on who in their little island town.

This is another common Anderson theme: Children wise beyond their years, contrasted with adults who have lost their way or reached the limit of their abilities. It’s the Generation X theme also at the heart of Anderson films from “Bottle Rocket” to “The Royal Tenenbaums:” How do you become a well-adjusted adult when there aren’t any around to model on?

Suzy’s romantic foil is Sam (the scene-stealing Jared Gilman), who’s deep unpopularity with the other boys at Khaki Scout camp probably has a lot to do with his extreme competence and self-assurance. He’s a younger version of high school Renaissance man Max Fischer from “Rushmore,” the role that made Anderson-favorite Jason Schwartzman famous. Both are focused on actual mastery over credentials, and suspect other people have their priorities out of whack. Like Suzy, he’s surrounded by adults who aren’t nearly as in control as they pretend to be.

In other words, the characters are cartoonish versions of familiar types. But all of these extremes of character and dialogue serve a purpose: providing a stark highlight on the actual moments of humanity and connection. Witness a late scene between Frances McDormand and a schlubby Bruce Willis, or a Sam-Suzy exchange where he reacts to one of her complaints about her life by saying “I love you, but you have no idea what you’re talking about.” When the snark and irony are snatched away, these moments get burned into your post-film memory.

I’ve always liked Anderson’s films, but also often thought they were very flawed. I’ve also always been leery of films that seem like they were made with the idea of being instant classics. “Moonrise Kingdom” throws both of those out the window. It’s Anderson’s best film, unpredictable, completely absorbing and oddly touching.

“Safety Not Guaranteed” is in limited release at the Crest Theatre and one or two other area locations, while “Moonrise Kingdom” continues at the Tower Theater. The other films are in wide release at a multiplex near you. The Sacramento French Film Festival continues on Saturday and Sunday at the Crest Theatre with more details at sacramentofrenchfilmfestival.org.

Film Openings

2012-06-15T11:08:21Z

The highlight for the next two weekends in Sacramento’s film scene is the Sacramento French Film Festival at the Crest Theatre – always an excellent experience. For more details visit www.sacramentofrenchfilmfestival.org or read the separate profile here: LINK.

It’s also a week for multiple interesting and diverse film openings:

Probably the highest profile and glitziest of the new films is “Rock of Ages,” a film adaptation of the stage musical of the same name. It’s a fun story about a small town girl from Oklahoma who arrives in Hollywood with $17 to her name and who almost immediately, in the manner seemingly only possible in musicals, gets robbed and then finds work at the Bourbon – a bar and music venue modeled rather obviously on the Whiskey. Naturally, she’s really a wannabe musician – along with virtually all of the Bourbon’s other employees, including her instant boyfriend Drew. Meanwhile, the new Mayor of LA has a wife who’s on a crusade to shut down the clubs on the Strip, just as big time rocker Stacee Jaxx, who started his career at the Bourbon, is scheduled to play his last gig there.

The story itself is fairy tale simple and the film has the awkward problem of trying to project an R-rated persona, in a PG-13 reality, with that PG structure. It’s also got potential conflicts in terms of who will find the retro-80’s music appealing compared to who are Hollywood’s cash cows at the box office. But none of that stops it from being fun. It’s light, loud, bawdy, and amusing – helped by a great cast of well known actors in all the supporting roles. Jaxx is played by Tom Cruise, in a role that grows on you to the point of almost seeming perfect by the end, with Alec Baldwin, Russell Brand, Catherine Zeta Jones, and Paul Giamatti helping to propel the melodic mayhem.

The other most mainstream project is “That’s My Boy,” the latest from Adam Sandler’s Happy Madison production company. The premise is high concept and offensive, which isn’t atypical. There’s a common perception that girls who are sexually molested by any adult and boys who are molested by men are all victims, while boys being molested by women often result in off-color “where was she when I was a kid?” remarks by adult men. And this entire film relies on that crass and potentially damaging double standard.

Sandler plays the adult Donny Berger who, as a kid, impregnated his teacher resulting in her going to prison and him becoming a juvenile father – a status that doesn’t change much as he ages but doesn’t mature. He also becomes famous from the scandal, with a notoriety that stays with him. Years later he attempts to reconnect with his son who has since distanced himself entirely from the father who constantly embarrasses him.

If you aren’t overly offended by the subject matter (and realize that on a scene by scene basis, the subject matter is far more offensive than that basic premise) then the content is often quite funny. But the film is almost destroyed by Sandler’s decision to play Berger as broadly as possible, as a drunken loser with an annoying delivery and equally annoying habits. This wouldn’t ever have been a great movie but it could have been a solid laughathon. Instead it gets old less than a minute after Sandler first appears onscreen. Andy Samberg of “Saturday Night Live” is a good pick to play the son but he also demonstrates how well the material works with less over the top characterization. Overall, I think I winced as often as I laughed.

And continuing with the varied lineup, “Hysteria” is a period costume drama, set in 1880’s London and recounting the invention of the world’s first electric vibrator. (It starts with a title card that says “This story is based on true events. Really.”) At that time, and for hundreds of years previously, hysteria had been a diagnosis for assorted conditions exhibited by women and attributed to malfunctions of the uterus. One treatment, albeit hard to believe today, was for women to visit a doctor who specialized in such matters, and to be manually stimulated to orgasm. The problem being for some doctors that this caused certain repetitive stress injuries to the hands and fingers. That is until Dr. Mortimer Granville accidentally discovered, more than invented, the vibrator – this being at a time when electricity in the home was a locally generated, unusual, and expensive utility.

This is another film that wins by virtue of a great cast having fun with an inherently funny and intriguing subject matter. Hugh Dancy plays the cramp-handed inventor, Maggie Gyllenhaal (with a convincing English accent) the daughter of his employer and a feminist champion of the poor (it’s hard to tell which offended her wealthy peers more), Jonathan Pryce her father and expert treater of hysteria, and Rupert Everett as Mortimer’s friend and benefactor. It’s the best of the bunch and the one that will be least seen.

"Rock of Ages" and "That's My Boy" are in wide release as of today. Hysteria opens exclsuively at the Tower Theatre. The Sacramento French Film Festival is at the Crest Theatre.

Prometheus unwound

2012-06-08T09:02:56Z

Prometheus
Directed by Ridley Scott
Review by Malcolm Maclachlan and Tony Sheppard

Malcolm: Even under distant suns, no new ideas.

Tony: Well, new to the “Alien” franchise but not new in any other sense. This is a film that owes as much to Erich von Däniken’s 1968 book “Chariots of the Gods?” (if that’s too obscure, think “Ancient Aliens” on TV) as to the previous films.

Malcolm: I’ll admit to some tyranny of high expectations. Between 1979 and 1982, director Ridley Scott nearly created the modern science fiction film with “Alien” and “Bladerunner.” Sure, the “Star Wars” movies did more box office, but I would argue had far less influence.

Tony: Influence is a loaded term – it depends whom you’re suggesting was being influenced. The “Star Wars” films probably influenced more fans while the others influenced more folks in the business – writers, directors, cinematographers, etc. And “Alien” doubtless caused many more sleepless nights.

Malcolm: So this time combine Scott, a $125 million budget and a stellar cast, and what do you get? A by-the-numbers suspense flick where the characters die off in reverse order of fame. Throw in some plots holes, multiple examples of inexplicable decision-making by people who were judged competent enough to go on an interstellar science mission, and a few sciency ideas mashed up in a mumbo-jumbo-tron…my buddy Ed summed it up well: “It either needed to be a lot better, or take itself a lot less seriously.”

Tony: I agree – I think it’s a problem to throw out some pretty significant ideas about the origins of life as we know it, for example, and then fail to follow through with those ideas or even to make the ideas themselves unambiguous. Although I think I enjoyed the overall film better than you did – it looked great and does manage to do a passable and tough job of filling a prequel-ish void in a respected series. But it seems to get weighed down by its own sense of self-importance. Although, on some level, I'm surprised it wasn't more expensive.

Malcolm: Which gets to how I could enjoy the likes of “John Carter” and “Battleship,” while panning this epic space opera—those films didn’t ask to be taken seriously, they just needed you to pay the carnie and strap yourself in for the ride.

Tony: They do both have the virtue of never taking themselves too seriously, albeit that they are also flawed films. It’s just that they’re easier to forgive as being fluffy summer popcorn movies rather than the latest outings in one of the more respected science fiction franchises in film. But they also have the dubious distinction of being two of the largest box office flops of recent times, which doesn’t bode well for Taylor Kitsch, the lead actor of both.

Malcolm: “Prometheus,” meanwhile, pretends to be about those big issues: life, death, god, reproduction, science. Yet the writers clearly lacked an understanding of genetics or human nature. The plot, such as it is, involves ancient travelers who left us codes and might have created us in their image. Yet it also seems to hold out the idea that they’re related to us to not to the rest of life on earth. One key discovery geneticists have made is that while life may have popped into existence millions of times, here and elsewhere, all known life on this planet—worms, grass, mold, your cat, you—descended from a single origin. Nitpicking? Sure, but it could have tried a little harder to make sense.

Tony: It does get quite muddled at times. I don’t like being told that two beings that look similar but not quite the same in some marked characteristics have exactly matching DNA – just tell me that their DNA is remarkably similar and I’ll be satisfied. Also, we’re left without any clear sense of intent: Pretend for a moment that you discover that I infected some poor sap with the common cold by sneezing on them, that doesn’t provide any great insight as to whether or not I did so on purpose (and if so with good or bad intent), did so by accident, sneezed intentionally but without knowledge of the likely outcome, infected multiple other saps with the same or other sneezes, etc. You just know that one sap is sick because of me. And often intent is more interesting than causation.

Malcolm: Yet this would be a minor point if other aspects of the script worked, but they didn’t. There’s lots of action movie shorthand—the nice guy, the angry guy, the two dudes are bro-rivals. But repeatedly characters behave in ways that make no sense, either in terms of logic or emotion.

Tony: I don’t think I was struck so much by events not making sense as by them not being surprising. I felt like the film kept holding back in order to try and surprise me, but generally failed to do so.

Malcolm: With all that, there are a couple of performances that nearly save this thing. First is Noomi Rapace, who I’m becoming more and more impressed with even as she’s starring in worse and worse movies. Given a fairly flat character to work with—her archeologist comes from the “scientist who still has faith” cookie cutter—she manages to create a human center for the film in an often-understated performance that reminded me a lot of Sigourney’s Weaver’s in the original “Alien.” She’s also perfect for action movies: a short, muscly sparkplug who you actually believe could pull off the physical feats portrayed. Though I was kind of annoyed by the name they picked for her—Elizabeth Shaw, transparently meant to evoke the character that made her famous, Lisbeth Salander in the original Swedish “Dragon Tattoo” movies.

Tony: For me, she did all that she was being asked to do but didn’t thrill me with any of it. It seemed like a very workmanlike performance – as did most in the film. Much of the time I was wondering why her partner in science and life, whom she came on board with and who seemed like her equal, suddenly became a disillusioned heavy drinker and general liability. During a period in the film when we’re being introduced to a fairly mixed bag of thawed out crew members, I had to remind myself a couple of times who he was, because he didn’t seem like the earlier same guy. It's also a busy couple of weeks for Charlize Theron, with "Prometheus" coming hard on the heels of "Snow White and the Huntsman."

Malcolm: The other lead performance is the always-great Michael Fassbender as David. Imagine Hal from “2001: A Space Odyssey”—if Hal was prissy, self-absorbed, actually had a physical body and always kept his hair just-so. His deadpan delivery, even of sometimes painful lines, is also just-so in such a way that he steals many of the scenes he’s in. David also makes a lot of inexplicable decisions too, but at least there is an explicable reason why. As things dragged on, I found myself hoping these two would hop into a spaceship and fly off to a better movie.

Tony: It’s funny that you were bothered by the name “Elizabeth Shaw” because I was quite distracted at times by the name “David.” For me it just seemed like an overt reference to the young artificial boy in “A.I.” with many of the same kinds of remarks being made about not really being able to feel emotions, etc. He was like the younger David all grown up, if only he was capable of growth and of aspiring to go on ill-fated deep space missions. But I didn’t approach the end of the movie wishing for anybody to fly away together like that, I don’t think I really cared enough about any of the characters to want much of anything for them. I was mostly struck by the feeling that although I quite enjoyed certain parts of the film, I was expecting that it would be a more interesting film to talk about than to watch.

"Prometheus" opens today in wide release, including in several Sacramento multiplexes.

Two good French language dramas and another bad fairy tale

2012-06-01T20:17:15Z

With just two weeks before the opening of the always excellent Sacramento French Film Festival (SFFF), francophiles and quality film fans have two opportunities to warm up their love of French language cinema. Plus more pretty crap at the multiplex.

Opening today at the Crest Theatre, “Monsieur Lazhar” (which is co-presented by the SFFF) is a French-Canadian film that was Canada’s entry and nominee in the Best Foreign Language category at this year’s Academy Awards. With a quick glance at the poster, it’s easy to think it’s another one of those “inspiring teacher” movies but it’s actually quite different. The film opens as Martine, a troubled schoolteacher to a class of 11 and 12 year olds, has made the extraordinary decision to hang herself in her classroom. Despite locking the classroom door it seems obvious that the children will see her body and be affected by it, not least guilt-ridden Simon who returns early from recess to deliver cartons of milk and who is the first to discover what has happened.

Left in the lurch and with few people interested in stepping into the ill-fated classroom, the principal is approached suddenly by Monsieur Lazhar, an Algerian immigrant who offers to teach the class. What only the audience is allowed to see is that Lazhar has also suffered recent profound losses, along with significant related complications. “Monsieur Lazhar” is a profound study of loss and coping as both young and old deal with mortality, helped by one wise-beyond-her-years little girl.

Meanwhile, across downtown at the Tower Theatre, another awards-season heavy hitter (with nine César Award nominations and one win) “The Intouchables” also opens today. Here we see a wealthy quadriplegic man, Philippe, screening job applicants for the position of his live-in personal care giver. The majority of those showing up are highly qualified but emotionally distant and talk about him as though he’s either not in the room or defined by his disability, or both. The exception is a young man from the projects who has only shown up to help qualify for unemployment benefits (he needs three rejections to prove he’s looking for work).

What unfolds from that point is a remarkable and often very funny story of friendship and trust, and the film is based on a true story (with brief images of the real men being shown during the end credits). At one point, Philippe is defending his choice of employee to an even snootier friend, who describes him as an ex-convict who will show him no pity. Philippe’s response is to point out that that’s why he chose him – precisely because he doesn’t want pity – and the film goes beyond being simply about the relationship itself, saying much about what it means to be so thoroughly dependent and limited after a lifetime of independence and disregard for one’s own health and potential frailty. Omar Sy won the César for his portrayal of Driss, the seemingly unlikely care giver.

In a different class of movie, today also marks the opening of “Snow White and the Hunstman,” the second of two recent re-tellings of the Snow White fable. First of all, it’s only fair to say that this one is far better on almost every level than “Mirror Mirror.” But that’s faint praise given the limbo-low bar.

The single best aspect of the new movie is that it looks beautiful through much of its running length. The cinematography is wonderful and many of the special effects blend in with a seemless, tangible substance. But, having said that, the list of positives is pretty much exhausted.

The story itself is muddled to the point of seeming at times to be a parody of a dozen other films at once. It’s fun to watch many of the individual scenes, but they don’t always flow together very well and, for example, at one point you get the distinct impression that Narnia’s Aslan is being played by Harry Potter’s Patronus against a backdrop from “Avatar.” And putting Kristen Stewart in the lead role and then giving her two hunky male suitors makes it hard not to draw “Twilight” comparisons (Team Huntsman!).

Here, the Huntsman is not sent to kill Snow White in the forest, but rather to find her and return her to the castle where the evil “Black Widow” stepmother (played by Charlize Theron in a performance that really needed a coat made of 101 Dalmation puppies) wants to suck the life out of her, literally. Which is typical of the loose interpretation of the traditional tale. But whether or not one cares about such things, it’s also hard to favor a telling in which both accents and talents are so inconsistent, with Snow White going from vulnerable prisoner (with perfectly plucked eyebrows after a decade in the tower) to armored Joan of Arc after a reluctant, one minute lesson in opportunistic stabbing. It’s like the impersonation went from Anne Hathaway to Milla Jovovich between scenes.

What both recent movies do in a particularly over the top manner, is to overthink their interpretations of the talking mirror. “Mirror Mirror” did this by having it be some kind of Tahitian timeshare portal to an advice-heavy aquatic cabin in another, inherently pointless dimension. “Snow White and the Huntsman” starts promisingly with a fairly simple looking polished shield, but then has it produce some kind of resident spirit that oozes out in liquidy gold drapery to stand in the room like an unformed but spendier model of an upgraded “Terminator.” These are classic ‘less is more’ moments that yielded ‘more is less’ outcomes.

And the little people are played by recognizable and not especially vertically challenged actors, made to look smaller onscreen – but at least they’re not the gymnastic, spring-loaded stilt wearers of “Mirror Mirror.”

So, for pretty but often unnecessarily effects-laden imagery and messy storytelling, go to your nearest multiplex. But for meaningful and well-acted character studies, with much to say about the human condition, go and read a movie at the Crest or the Tower. And mark your calendars for the SFFF, coming in two weeks time.

Battleship - and a few other moviebriefs

2012-05-18T09:23:53Z

Battleship
Directed by Peter Berg
Reviewed by Malcolm Maclachlan and Tony Sheppard

Malcolm: If you were looking for a summer blockbuster idea, you could do a lot worse than “Tim Riggins versus the Aliens.” If you don’t know what I’m talking about, Riggins is the character that made “Battleship” star Taylor Kitsch famous, and who was also one of the main reasons “Friday Night Lights” was one of the most underrated shows (formerly) on television. As the brooding fullback with daddy issues, he lurched back and forth between self-destruction and acts of great moral courage. He was both brawler and dreamer, bully and mentor, and a ladies man who behaved with surprising honor at times. I used to joke that someone should make a “What Would Riggins Do (WWRD)” t-shirt—and then someone did (http://shop.cafepress.com/what-would-tim-riggins-do_).

In other words, he’s a quintessentially American hero, at least as we see ourselves—a bundle of glossed-over contradictions who pulls it all together when the challenge is finally big enough. The reason I bring this up is that Kitsch’s Alex Hopper here IS Tim Riggins, down to his DNA (as to a lesser extent was “John Carter,” in the actually quite entertaining movie of the same name).

Tony: Let’s not revisit “John Carter” – most people didn’t even visit once. That was a fundamentally flawed movie with appalling marketing and a villain we weren’t ever introduced to – saved, apparently, for a sequel that will never be made. If not for the disastrous “LOL” starring Miley Cyrus, it would probably be the worst performing major release of the year.

Malcolm: Meanwhile “Battleship” is such a FNL rip-off that they also brought is Jessie Plemons to reprise wisecracking placekicker Landry Clarke as boatswain Jimmy Ord. Rihanna in to play Ord’s comic foil, a non-sexual version of Clarke’s interracial relationship that was a major plot point in season four of FNL. If Admiral Liam Neeson had just ended a speech with “Full hearts, clear minds, can’t lose,” the stars and stripes zeitgeist would have come full circle onto the watery gridiron.

Tony: I saw it as more of a “Pearl Harbor” with a side helping of “Predator” combo plate – which is to say that is has all of the shortcomings of “Pearl Harbor” and at least some of the coolness of “Predator.” Consider the fact that we find ourselves in the middle of a human versus alien battle, with destruction and death being rained down on all sides and the most carnage we ever see is somebody with a bloody face. It might actually be more sterile in its appearance than “Pearl Harbor” which is quite an accomplishment.

Malcolm: However, “Battleship” is a ton of fun and feels great. Toss in a U.S. versus Japan rivalry with a “the enemy of my enemy is actually a really cool dude” subplot and a heroic amputee veteran, and pretty soon all you’re missing is a pickup truck, some steelworkers and a side of fries. They even acknowledge that any Hasbro “Battleship” movie (yes, it really is) should have been about WWII by making it about WWII by the end, complete with some old salty dogs getting one last go.

Tony: I would agree that it’s fun, despite its obviousness and shallow nature. It’s also actually set in and around Hawaii with that America versus Japan rivalry you mentioned taking place in the real Pearl Harbor, albeit on a soccer field. And the Hasbro connection to the simple game of the same name is, sticking to toy analogies, a Stretch of Armstrong proportions.

Malcolm: Of course, like many movies in this genre, you could argue that America beats the aliens because the aliens are stupid. They can travel all the way here in four years in ships that can survive hitting the ocean at thousands of miles an hour (and where were the tsunamis?), but these same ships seems rather brittle when involved in actual combat. They have horrific weapons, but seem to lack the basics of guided missile technology. Despite the fact that they’re evil galactic marauders who treat us “like we treated the Indians,” they seem quite willing to let non-combatants live—even when the “noncombatants” are passively-for-now sitting on a fully-armed destroyer. Seems like they’d want to just exterminate everything in their zone of operations…never mind.

Tony: Yes – these ships can withstand atmospheric re-entry but they have tinted glass windshields that can be taken out with a well-placed bullet. They’re also aliens who are so remarkably humanesque that one assumes some kind of parallel evolutionary backstory, yet they have ships that bounce around on the surface of the ocean like a giant robotic mudskipper with poor motor controls. And that “like we treated the Indians” concept is the same idea that was completely buried in “Cowboys and Aliens,” where that movie failed to capitalize on the obvious fact that the cowboys were angry at the aliens for doing exactly what they themselves had done to the native population.

But the WWII analogies go further in that the aliens don’t so much appear stupid as arrogant – they seem to be more concerned with the presence of advanced machinery, in terms of being threats, than they are with the people operating said machinery. One of the downfalls of the German military was that they found it so inconceivable that anybody could ever crack their Enigma machine-generated codes that they became sloppy in their coding techniques. There’s a similar level of under-estimation here in that the aliens just don’t seem to consider the humans as being up to the task of killing them, let alone defeating them.

Malcolm: Which does bring up another highly-American subplot: they were inadvertently brought here by a SETI-type scientist using a beacon. The scientist (Hamish Linklater as Cal Zapata) does redeem himself, but it’s Riggins/Hopper as the untamed working class male who really saves the day. There’s a lot of ambivalence towards science here, as part of the plot involves our suddenly pressing need to blow up our deep space transmitters in a fit of Fortress Earth astro-isolationism.

Tony: Although this also provides an amusing “E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial” reference/joke as the aliens have lost their own communications ship and appear to be trying to “phone home” using the same beacons that attracted them in the first place. And it’s an interesting conundrum about the desire to contact alien civilizations as, if all we can do is send out a signal but they end up on our doorstep as a result, they’re quite obviously going to be significantly more capable than us in various ways.

Another aspect to the story has a certain “Black Hawk Down” vibe to it, in that we don’t know quite what the aliens’ original mission was but they’ve essentially crashed behind enemy lines and are trying to secure their lines of communication to arrange either retreat or reinforcement. They are also depicted with the same “no alien left behind” mindset.

Malcolm: Meanwhile, Riggins, the just-a-guy just trying to survive in the topsy-turvy economic world science has created, dips from lows of jail to highs of driving a destroyer (aren’t people going to Annapolis for the privilege of doing that?) to court martial to “Hey, I just saved the world.” At the end, my equally geeky best friend remarked: “He redeemed himself through violence.” And how.

Tony: It really is an odd ride – for most of the movie, the combatants are trapped within a massive bubble that excludes the rest of the naval forces. But it also excludes Liam Neeson, for example, who is almost just the straight guy in a couple of bookended scenes of comic awkwardness (he’s the Admiral of the fleet but he also happens to be the father of the screwup hero’s girlfriend). Which takes me back to “Pearl Harbor,” as “Battleship” has almost as many movie genres and references battling for a piece of the action. Ultimately, somehow, it defies all of the odds by being an escapist victory with both the hero and the film achieving a win via triumphs of low expectations.

"Battleship" opens in wide release today.

Moviebriefs
By Tony Sheppard

“What to Expect When You’re Expecting”
Here’s a movie that tries really hard to be more than it is and then slips in its own burst water. This could have been nothing more than an airheaded romantic comedy involving multiple couple all with babies on the way – and if that’s all it was, it might have worked on that limited playing field. Instead, it tries to get serious in places by showing the riskier and uncomfortable downsides of pregnancy and childbirth – and then pulls its own punches by limiting the tragedy to fit within the boundaries of a lightweight date movie. There are certainly both funny and sad moments, but it ends up feeling like a project that undermined itself by never quite finding its own consistent tone and being too scared to plumb its own depths.

“The Dictator”
Sacha Baron Cohen looks like a one trick pony as yet another extremely foreign foreigner - this time as the brutal dictator of a small oil-rich nation that’s openly wanting to develop nuclear capabilities. That said, I actually enjoyed most of it more than his last couple of projects and it differs from them quite considerably. “The Dictator” is scripted and staged, rather than relying on awkward and improvised encounters with often unsuspecting victims and, as such, the extreme political incorrectness somehow manages to be less mean spirited. We’re laughing along with the script rather than laughing at poor saps caught in a trap of Cohen’s making. This is helped by a neat satirical script that avoids overstaying its own welcome and which appears to be poking fun at tinpot dictators but which is also pointed directly at ourselves.

"We Have a Pope”
In this odd little Italian movie, the traditional conclave of cardinals is called to select a new Pope, following the death of the last incumbent. The scenes within the conclave itself are typical of the humor within the film as a whole, with no broad comedy but rather recurring comedic circumstances – such as the cardinals sneaking peaks at each other’s picks, like geriatric schoolboys in an algebra popquiz, or their shared silent prayers (“dear god please don’t pick me”). But the basic premise revolves around the idea of what might happen if a Pope is selected and immediately fails to perform, in this case because he has a panic attack or a depressive bout of self-doubt that renders him incapable of moving forward with his duties. It’s an interesting concept that loses its way a little towards the end but which still delivers some choice moments – like the introduction of a psychoanalyst who doesn’t believe in god to a room full of cardinals who don’t believe in psychoanalysis.

"What to Expect..." opens in wide release today and "The Dictator" opened in wide release on Wednesday. "We have a Pope" opens today at the Crest Theatre.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

2012-05-11T08:55:42Z

“The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”
Directed by John Madden
Review by Malcolm Maclachlan and Tony Sheppard

Malcolm: I loved the Newsweek headline for their review of “Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”—“Eat, Pray, Die.” Not that there was a lot of praying going on. Actually, I don’t remember any. Maybe it should have been “Eat, Love, Die,” (though that sounds a little Darwinian) because the aging Brits in this predictable but charming little tale remain obsessed with their love lives, but not much concerned with any afterlife they’ll soon experience (or not).

To back up, the story involves a group of down-on-their-finances British retirees who decide to stretch their money by settling at a hotel in India advertised for the purpose. A big part of the draw for many viewers will be the Dream Team of British actors in their 60s and 70s, headed by Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, Tom Wilkinson and Bill Nighy.

Tony: Seriously – the cast is phenomenal. It’s also a re-teaming for Judi Dench and director John Madden, who worked together on “Mrs Brown” and “Shakespeare in Love” (for which Dench won an Oscar). In a recent interview with Charlie Rose, Dench credited Madden and Harvey Weinstein with causing her success on the big screen. Madden had cast her in “Mrs Brown,” which was originally intended for television and Weinstein decided it deserved to be a theatrical film. That said, any one of those four names are likely to make a film worth considering and all four of them put the film on another level. Which isn’t to diminish the importance of the rest of the excellent cast.

Malcolm: The standard cultural misunderstandings ensue: the place is run down, the country is hot and loud, and the spicy food sends everybody scurrying to the bathroom. Dev Patel - the young Tom Hanks of Indian crossover cinema, made famous in “Slumdog Millionaire” - runs around trying to keep everyone happy and his crumbling hotel intact. Differences are overcome, obvious epiphanies are reached (though sometimes a bit too easily), smiles abound and you’re reminded sometimes it’s better to leave a theater with a smile on your face.

Tony: Patel started out on the British television series “Skins” which was controversially adapted for US television by MTV. The problem being that 16-18 year olds in the UK, the age group depicted on the show, are generally far more independent than their US counterparts, often more like college students than high school students, sometimes living alone and already over the age of consent. In short, the content was more shocking to US audiences that tend to shy away from depictions of sex and sexuality more than European audiences. But even in that context, Patel’s character was dealing with culture clashes as the son of a devout muslim family in Bristol, England – although still very much a young English kid. So it’s interesting to see him now as the host of a reversed cultural immersion story, with English sensibilities being immersed in Indian culture.

Malcolm: A couple things did stand out to me in “Marigold.” First, the film does make a nod towards larger cultural and economic trends. Patel’s young love interest works at a call center, and Dench’s character gets a job teaching them how to talk to British retirees (I could have used a similar course before recent volunteering for campaign phone banking). Another character is a member of the “untouchable” caste—and we see the two rooms where she lives with about 17 other people.

Tony: Yes – while you expect to see much being made of the cultural difference between the British retirees and their Indian hosts, the more meaningful illustrations are of the differences and expectations within Indian society. And while the retirees are, for assorted reasons, shorter on cash than they might like, they are still economic scales of magnitude apart from their new neighbors. The exception to the whole depiction of culture shock is Tom Wilkinson’s Graham, who grew up not just in India but essentially just down the street, and who is eagerly attempting to rediscover a lost youth and an even more lost love.

Malcolm: Second, the distasteful characters were all women. I don’t usually think much about this subtle anti-male sexism that one often finds in movies, but compared to real life, where horrible personalities are distributed approximately evenly between the genders, it seems like men more often take on the nasty roles in movies. While not without their faults, the four male leads are all portrayed as good people—even the aptly (for this role) named Ronald Pickup, an septuagenarian horndog who comes east in hopes of reviving a moribund sex life.

Tony: That’s an interesting point because, on the one hand, it seems like it favors the male characters. But, on the other hand, it perhaps also allows for greater character development for the females – where weighty females roles, especially for older actresses, are often sadly nonexistent. And, amongst all of the cultural references and amusingly rushed trips to bathrooms, this is a project that’s largely defined by an entire ensemble’s worth of character studies. They’re all interesting and often flawed people, products of their respective times and places – and all in need of being themselves, rather than being some combination of stereotypes or the reflections of others’ expectations of them.

Malcolm: And the whole premise is based on an idea so plausible you have to wonder if it’s becoming a real world trend. That is, Europe is filled with crowded countries with aging populations in need of care, while the third world is filled with young people who need jobs. Most discussion of the problem involves bringing the latter to the former, but India looks a lot more like Florida than London does.

Tony: It’s not just retirement living – Smith’s Muriel is initially motivated to travel for the relative speed and affordability of surgery. Healthcare related tourism is a whole different phenomenon that has been around in some form or other, and in different quantities, for decades (or millennia, if we go back to the Romans’ propensity for distant spas and hot springs). And given that the US has what is generally considered to be some of the most expensive (and not necessarily the best) healthcare in the world, one has to wonder whether this is something that we will also see more of. There are already colonies of ex-patriot retirees who pick friendly locations in Central America and Europe, often predicated upon the availability and affordability of health services. Will we see more packaged surgical holidays and vacation procedures?

Meanwhile, it’s worth pointing out that amidst all of these cultural cues and opportunities for classic “compare and contrast” exercises, it’s also simply a beautiful film, filled with rich characters, well-meaning humor, and copious quantities of fine acting. But then again, they had me at Judi.

"The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" opened last week in limited cities and expands this week, including in Sacramento at the Tower Theatre (where it would make an excellent double-header of wonderful films and unusual titles with "Salmon Fishing in the Yemen").

The Avengers - and other local film news

2012-05-04T07:02:09Z

The Avengers
Written and directed by Joss Whedon

Review by Malcolm Maclachlan and Tony Sheppard

Malcolm: I was thinking about skipping “The Avengers” before I found out it was written and directed by Joss Whedon, who was apparently given free-reign to do basically whatever he wanted. Not because I was ever a huge fan of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” (though I did like “Firefly”). Instead, it was because it seemed like if anyone could make sense of the confusing pile of characters and plot lines he’d been handed, it was Whedon. And how.

Tony: Agreed - Whedon is on a recent roll, having also co-written and produced the surprisingly fun “The Cabin in the Woods.”

Malcolm: “The Avengers” is easy to follow, true to the characters, and has great pacing and a nice mix of characters and action. Unlike Kenneth Branagh’s “Thor,” which dragged on and seemed to want to be a grander story than it could be, or “Iron Man 2,” which got bogged down in the psyche of Tony Stark, “Avengers” clicks along and a fun pace, masking it’s 142 minute run-time.

Tony: I actually liked the way that “Thor” was put together, with a more grown up tone than many comic book properties. A year ago, when it was released, I wrote the following: “Thor exists in the same story series as Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, and Captain America – and the separate movie properties are all being released in advance of “The Avengers,” which will unite all of the characters (planned for this time next year). The success of that project may depend on the ability to bring them all together with a tone that suits them all.” But the outcome succeeds - there’s a coherence to it that is reassuring, especially given that variety of tones and styles of the predecessor films. In that sense alone it’s a noteworthy achievement.

Malcolm: One of the things which I thought would be a weakness turned out to be a strength—that is, that a couple of the heroes aren’t superheroes at all, just well-trained regular humans. Hawkeye (Modesto native Jeremy Renner, who looks pretty silly at times standing next to the others with a bow) and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson, who may have actually gotten too much screen time, though it was kind of cool that her best power is just being smarter than almost everyone else) are just really talented SHIELD agents without supernatural (Thor) and super-scientific (Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America) powers. Even among the supers, Captain America clearly isn’t as powerful as the others. But like a sports team, they work in ways that take advantage of everyone’s talents, and it doesn’t come off as (that) contrived.

Tony: It’s an interesting group of characters and the interaction between them is quite believable, with some initial distrust followed by a smart-alecky rivalry and competition. But despite the diversity of talents and powers, as you’ve just described, there’s little other diversity among the variously gifted, with five white men and one white woman. They do have a boss of color in Sam Jackson’s Nick Fury – but even he was white in the comic books and it’s clear that we’re still watching a cast of characters formed several decades ago. If this was a new story with new freaks…err, heroes…they’d look more like a Benetton ad.

The other problem is that their powers and strengths seem to vary from moment to moment. There doesn’t seem to be any consistent pattern of who might win in any given fight in any given scene. They take turns beating on each other early on and fight as a team later, but the relative supremacy seems to change. It’s not a problem of reality, which isn’t to be expected, it’s a problem of consistency within the story.

Malcolm: And even in the world of willful suspension of disbelief, the physics didn’t entirely work. At one point we’re asked to believe that something so absurdly strong as the Hulk could hit Black Widow without turning every bone in her body to jelly. And I’m also a little bugged to once again see space age bad guys—this time sort of undead fish men under robot armor—who lack the ability to put together a decent fighting strategy, and who are so weak they can be taken out with tasers and handgun bullets.

Tony: True. They can travel across the galaxy but they can’t navigate a tight turn on a city street. And there are more problems that are a tad spoilery, especially towards the end of the film. Although Hulk probably has the most scene-stealing moment in the entire film, he also has the most abruptly convenient character development at a key moment that comes almost out of nowhere. Meanwhile, the conclusion of the battle makes very little sense and looks a lot like the end of “The Phantom Menace” (which was flawed in far more significant and different ways but which at least made some sense in the context of that film). It’s all fun to watch but there’s a point at which you simply have to stop thinking about what’s on screen. Which is a shame, because to some extent it works far better prior to that point.

Malcolm: Still, this is nitpicking with what I think is probably the best film in the series—certainly the one with the best dialogue (a Whedon signature). The characters clash and come back together in ways that make sense, and there’s a ton of good eye-candy. Arty websites like Salon may be obsessing over Whedon wasting his time, but when was good silly fun ever a waste of time?

Tony: Again, agreed. This is a fun film and I have no problem recommending it to anybody who ever enjoyed a film of this series or genre in general. But it’s not flawless and some of the plot problems aren’t that profound, which makes relatively easy fixes seem more surprising for their absence. It’s a long film but, as you said, it moves along well and, overall, it’s an upbeat start to the summer season.

"The Avengers" opens in wide release today and is playing at multiple local theaters.

Other local openings that might be of interest (without reviews):

For fans of Tom Hiddleston who either don't get enough of him as Loki in "The Avengers," or who would like to see him in a more dramatic role, he stars opposite Rachel Weisz in the moody 1950ish drama "The Deep Blue Sea" which opens today at the Crest Theatre.

And Sacramento's own native actress Greta Gerwig ("Greenberg," "Arthur") plays the lead as one of a group of female students who try to improve the lives of their peers in "Damsels in Distress" which opens today at the Tower Theatre.

The week in film(s)

2012-04-27T10:54:53Z

The Week in Film(s)

Six weeks ago, “21 Jump Street” opened and had one week of opportunity before being trampled at the box office by “The Hunger Games.” This week’s one week success story is likely to be “The Five Year Engagement” – which isn’t the only big opening of the week, but is the best of a crop destined to be ploughed under by “The Avengers” (on May 4th).

It’s a fun enough romantic comedy starring Jason Segal and Emily Blunt (who is better currently in "Salmon Fishing in the Yemen") as a couple who come fairly close to marrying several times, only to find circumstances repeatedly stacked against them. He’s an up and coming chef with an established career in San Francisco and she’s searching for jobs teaching psychology in a university. This causes difficult decisions to be made when she’s offered a post-doctoral research position in Michigan – which would make for an uncomfortably long commute for him.

“The Five Year Engagement” is co-written by Segal and Nicholas Stoller (they were writing partners on the recent “The Muppets”), who also directed. Stoller previously directed “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” and “Get Him to the Greek.” Segal starred in three of those titles and produced three, and is rapidly becoming a successful mini-mogul in his own right – serving as Executive Producer (typically the financier) of the current release. And it should come as no surprise that another producer is Judd Apatow, who has one of the longest lists of both successful and pleasantly crass comedies.

It’s not a fantastic film but it does deliver some reliable laughs, albeit often pretty cheap ones. The two leads are probably the film’s best assets, although they’re ably supported by a cast that includes Chris Pratt, Rhys Ifans, and Brian Posehn.

Another film opening this week has a decent cast who provide solid performances, but it’s marred by a fundamentally flawed premise. “The Raven” stars John Cusack as Edgar Allen Poe, who is caught up in a series of murders that mimic scenes from his own stories, shortly before his death.

That he dies is no surprise, as the film starts by telling us so. In an opening title, we’re told that Poe was found dead on a park bench in Baltimore, with the last few days of his life remaining a mystery. That’s a pretty interesting premise for a fictional account of what might have transpired during that time period – but it’s destroyed by the way the story is written.

If you start by telling us that nobody knows what occurred during those days, it would make sense to tell us a story about a murder mystery that was shrouded in secrecy – such that whatever transpired would have remained unknown. We, the audience, would be privy to the events, but the good people of Baltimore would be unaware of the action going on all around them. You could perhaps have others involved, all of whom might have been sworn to secrecy or died before revealing anything.

Instead, the movie makes the comment about Poe’s last days being a great unknown, and then proceeds to tell us a story about a series of murders that were front page news, and in which Poe’s involvement is also widely known. As told, pretty much the entire Baltimore police department knows exactly what’s going on and the general citizenry appears pretty well informed too. Which makes it impossible to reconcile those events with the fact that he died in supposedly unknown circumstances.

Aside from the plot not so much having a hole but rather being a hole, the movie is lightweight fun. There are a couple of truly gruesome scenes and a lot of dialog that seems out of place for the period, but it’s a pleasant enough romp alongside a detective (Luke Evans) who is strongly attempting to be the lead in “C.S.I: Baltimore, 1849.”

Even more gruesome, primarily because of the veracity of the subject matter, is “In Darkness” – the Oscar-nominated (in the best foreign language category) film about a man who saved a group of Jews during WWII in Lvov, Poland. Leopold Socha was a sewer worker who was eager for any opportunity to make extra money at the same time that the local Jewish ghetto was the site of indiscriminate degradation and killings. However, what started out as a fairly mercenary and opportunistic scheme to hide Jews in return for cash payments, slowly became more of a labor of love.

There’s something remarkably unsettling about a film like this that’s set, for the most part, far away from the death camps of the holocaust. When slaughter, even on a wholesale basis, is removed from the general population, it’s easy to imagine or assert that ordinary folks had little knowledge about what was happening. But here we see people being treated like freaks, and later being gunned down in large numbers, in front of their former friends and neighbors who are continuing with their lives.

And it’s in this context that Socha hid “his Jews” in a fetid corner of the town’s sewer system – not just avoiding Nazi’s or the local police, but also avoiding notice by the townspeople who were likely to turn all of them in, in return for a reward.

It’s clearly a compelling story but it too has a drawback. Saving lives, harboring fugitives, and risking one’s own life repeatedly in the process has the potential to be both a worthwhile history lesson and a great film. But, sadly, a film that primarily takes place in dark sewers is not the most visually stimulating material. I’ve seen other films that convey similar content (about rescuers and the rescued) and I find them all moving, but I found myself wishing at times that I had read about these circumstances rather than watching this particular film.

It also comes from a respected director – Agnieszka Holland – who has a long list of prior successes, including “Europa, Europa,” “The Secret Garden,” and “Total Eclipse.” I’m a fan of her work and she has delved into the war and the holocaust multiple times before. It’s just that this one wasn’t as successful in my eyes as some of her previous projects. It’s not bad, it just seems relatively flat at times.

Note: “Safe” was not screened for the press in Sacramento and the planned screening for “The Pirates! Band of Misfits” had a scheduling miscommunication that precluded the press from attending.

Film Reviews: The Lucky TWO

2012-04-20T11:33:44Z

There are two films opening this week that feature a relatively young male character who finds himself in an awful situation, suffering profound loss, and then having to figure out how to move on from that experience.

In “The Lucky One,” Zac Efron plays a marine who, during three combat tours, witnesses multiple deaths and injuries to those close to him, but manages to come through unscathed. At least physically – he’s certainly not emotionally and psychologically unscathed, jumping at sudden sounds and reacting adversely to being woken suddenly by his young nephews. He’s also a bit of a self-reliant loner, now that he’s away from the camaraderie of the Corps and when he decides to travel from Colorado to Louisiana to track down a woman whose photograph he found during combat, he does so on foot, accompanied by only his trusty pooch and a cinematic ability to walk vast distances with ease.

In “The Kid with a Bike” (“Le Gamin au Vélo”), the Golden Globe nominated and Cannes Grand Prize winning French film, Cyril is an 11 year old boy whose father has abandoned him at a state facility. Desperately hoping that his father still wants him, despite all signs to the contrary, Cyril repeatedly escapes the grounds to try and find him. During one of these incidents, he clings desperately to a woman in a clinic waiting room, before being shown the now empty apartment he used to share with his father upstairs in the same building. Unlike Efron’s Logan, Cyril doesn’t have a dog but he does have the titular bicycle, a young boy’s ticket to freedom, although it’s a fairly ill-fated ride.

Both Logan and Cyril encounter and interact with other emotionally damaged people – some bitter from what life has handed them and some equally desperate to make a new connection. In Logan’s case (and this is clear even from previews, so it’s no significant spoiler) his quest is driven by the mystery woman whose photograph he credits with saving his life – he originally saw it and went to pick it up, stepping out of the blast zone of an improvised explosive device in the process. Cyril’s quest for his father morphs into a desire to connect with somebody, anybody, who can provide him with the attention he’s missing. Unfortunately this includes a local neighborhood hood who has spent time in the same facility and who recognizes his innocent vulnerability.

“The Lucky One” is based on a novel by “The Notebook” author Nicholas Sparks and, as such, it’s no surprise that there’s an emotional roller coaster of a love story at its core. What might be more of a surprise, to some at least, is that Efron has the acting chops to pull it off. I’ve been anticipating this performance for a while, having seen him do solid work in multiple projects that either didn’t stretch him or didn’t quite find an audience (“Me and Orson Wells,” “Charlie St. Cloud,” “New Year’s Eve” – and in that last one he held his own against Michelle Pfeiffer). He may have come to most people’s attention in the “High School Musical” franchise, with a similarly themed and competent role in “Hairspray” along the way, but this kid can do more than burst into song on cue.

The other change in Efron for this role is that, contrary to the countless teen magazine covers, beach shots, and paparazzi pics that consistently depict him as smooth as a marble statue, he’s really a pretty hairy guy. I’ve said for years that there must be a small legion of groomers who make a living shaving, waxing, and tweezing him into his established and expected image – but perhaps no longer now that the fur is out of the bag.

While it’s Efron’s movie to carry, he’s part of a solid production and a well chosen cast and whether or not you enjoy this genre, it’s about as well done as one might hope. His is a role that might just as easily have gone to an actor like Channing Tatum, who recognizes his own limitations and would have given it his best shot, but who probably couldn’t have pulled it off quite as well. The character needs to look a certain way – not necessarily wise beyond his years but somebody who has seen enough violence for several lifetimes and who is happy to move from the frenetic pace of a war zone to as simple a job as possible without needing to explain himself to people who haven’t seen what he has seen.

Cyril is also forced to grow up too soon, but at 11 years old he’s far from being fully formed. He’s at an age where he’s impressionable, hopeful, and almost entirely lacking in the ability to make reasoned judgments based on long term consequences. He’s like a walking example of the idiocy of adult trials and sentencing statutes for pre-teen offenders. And while that’s not a topic of the film, there is an interesting scene in which a somewhat different approach to legal settlements is seen, with a remarkably pragmatic and non-sensationalized arbitration contract that most likely would have been cause for a wildly hyperbolic civil case in an American courtroom.

But every time that you want to reach into the screen and slap Cyril for his choices, you find yourself remembering that age and developmental stage – something that doesn’t excuse other characters in the story, including the father who finds fatherhood to be an inconvenience he’d rather avoid. And you’re left wondering about the backstory of the woman (played by Cécile de France) who decides to help Cyril, by being a weekend foster parent, and who puts up with his frontal lobe-deficient behavior.

This might be the biggest flaw of what is otherwise a neat and award-winning film – that we’re asked to believe and simply accept that a random stranger would suddenly and profoundly alter her life based on nothing more than a passing, spontaneous request from Cyril. It’s not that it’s impossible, it’s that it seems to require a little more context – perhaps she’s had her own rough childhood or abandonment experiences – but without that context we’re left to watch Cyril’s character arc with her as little more than a prop in his story.

Both films are well made and well acted and worth checking out. Making the audience lucky too.

“The Lucky One” opens today in wide release and “The Kid with a Bike” opens today in Sacramento at the Crest Theatre.

"Bully" and a few other Moviebriefs

2012-04-13T12:20:32Z

"Bully"
Directed by Lee Hirsch
Review by Tony Sheppard and Malcolm Maclachlan

Malcolm: As is becoming usual for flashpoint issues in our society, one of the most insightful things said recently about “bullying” came from a comedian, this time John Fugelsang (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZgDCQDmtqU). If you want to do something about the problem, he says, stop using such a trivial-sounding word.

“Bullying is a flaccid, outdated, Archies Comics term,” Fugelsang says, before suggesting “criminal harassment.”

Though for much of this film, plain old “assault” works better. Watching Alex, the main victim shown in “Bully,” getting slapped, punched, strangled and threatened with death on a school bus, the idea that popped into my head was that if an adult tried to do any of these things to someone on a city bus, they’d probably find themselves in a jail cell. I bet a lot of these young scumbags will find themselves in prison cells anyway in coming years—getting them involved in the criminal justice system now might be doing them a favor. It’s not like there’s a lack of evidence.

Tony: I also thought such a comparison between youth and adult crimes was interesting – especially in light of the recent shooting in Florida and that State’s “stand your ground” law. In the one instance where a kid in this film pulls a gun on her tormentors, she’s locked up for months in a juvenile facility, charged with 45 felonies (including imprisonment and assault for every other kid on her bus). There are also laws that allow for battered spouses to take action, but bullied kids are largely powerless to act.

Malcolm: It also brought back memories of growing up in the South. I wasn’t really bullied as a kid, but my memory of South Carolina in the 1970s and 80s is that the attitude towards bullying and fighting was boys-will-be-boys, fight for yourself, why are you bothering us with this, etc. So it’s not like this is pointing out a new problem. Rather, our society has evolved to a point where we think this is a problem (and if evolution isn’t real, why do kids act so much like troops of baboons?).

Tony: And you get that attitude in the film. In fact, perhaps the film’s strongest and most worrisome moments are not in the bullying itself, but rather in the sheer cluelessness of the adults that are supposedly in charge of these kids. It’s easy to think of bullying incidents wherein a kid gets picked on or beaten and nobody knows anything about it until it’s too late. But most of the cases in this film involve reported problems and school officials who allegedly did little or nothing to help, with several examples given in which teachers or other adults were either present or even involved in the abuse.

However, the film is limited to a small number of specific cases with no sense of scale given. There are no statistics quoted and no discussion of the phenomenon, beyond the shared stories and the kids that are followed with cameras. Not that those stories aren’t valid – but it would be easy for some dismissive viewers to walk away thinking this is a small-scale problem, or one that’s limited to rural areas. Indeed, some of the adults in the film, like a teacher who describes kids on a school bus as being “good as gold,” would probably dismiss the broader scope.

Malcolm: As a documentary work, I’d echo Tony’s thoughts that this is a decent documentary lifted up by having a very compelling subject. It does have some things going for it—it’s well-shot, with the shaky-camera immediacy of “Waiting for Superman” (another compelling but flawed film about the plight of kids). It uses music well, and shows-rather-then tells most of the time—particularly when it comes to a school administrator who is so cheerfully, reprehensibly, blame-the-victim clueless you want to punch her.

But I would also have liked some larger context—more statistics, more of a thematic umbrella. Too much of the film is focused on regretful parents. While it’s interesting to see how parents change from the experience of having a bullied kid, it was always more interesting to hear it from the kids themselves. Also, it seemed to mainly focus on a particular mode of bullying, boys being attacked physically. While this is horrible, it’s not really complicated. If you have evidence of assault (and here we do), the attackers should be expelled and charged with crimes—and if school administrators don’t make this happen, they should lose their jobs and be charged with crimes as well. The more subtle end of the bullying spectrum, verbal and emotional abuse, gets less attention.

Tony: Yes – there are scenes where you see one of the boys just being taken advantage of repeatedly, as another kid eats off his lunch tray and he then sits alone eating what’s left. And that kind of combined abuse and rejection can be as damaging over time as physical attacks.

Malcolm: There are clear differences in why the kids shown are bullied, and it also seems pretty clear they face different likely life outcomes. At one end is Kelby, who appears to get verbal abuse solely for the fact that she’s a lesbian. It’s pretty bad, but you get the feeling she’ll have the last laugh. She’s outgoing, athletic and attractive. Assuming she can overcome the trauma, once she gets to even a medium-sized city, she’ll be fine. The very fact that her lesbianism will drive her to bigger city may result in her having a better life than her tormenters.

Alex, meanwhile, was a premature baby who is very small, possibly learning disabled, and socially clueless. We can marvel at his abuse and at his well-meaning father who scolds him for not fighting back, but one has to wonder what he’s even doing in a mainstream classroom at with all his vulnerabilities.

Tony: I found the face of Alex to be one of the most symbolic visuals in the film. He has an unconventional look that causes much of the teasing that he endures and, as Malcolm says, he’s socially clueless enough to think that any attention is good attention even when it’s abusive (“I think when he’s strangling me he’s messing around.”). But his expressions range from abject fear at the idea of something that ought to be as fear-free as simply going to school, to joy and laughter at home with his family. He’s a neat, funny little kid who tragically ends up looking like he’s got a combination of PTSD and Stockholm Syndrome – mostly from hellish bus rides (“I’m starting to think I don’t feel anything any more.”).

For Kelby, the abuse spread further, with her entire family being ostracized. And yet she put on a brave face for the camera and her friends, at one point joking about being intentionally run down by complaining that she didn’t get hit “by something cool like a Jeep” but instead getting hit by a minivan.

Malcolm: In a final note, it’s pretty pathetic that this film nearly got an R rating for using the F-word. It shows real violence against children, for f---'s sake. Though I guess if the idea is to show that our society has the wrong priorities, that effing sums it up pretty well.

Tony: Agreed – I wrote about this when “The Hunger Games” opened, and how it’s apparently OK to show the systematic and government sponsored fictional slaughter of teenagers to other teenagers, for fun, but it’s not OK to include real life swearing in a documentary that’s actually intended to benefit that same demographic.

“Bully” plays exclusively at the Tower Theater.

Moviebriefs
By Tony Sheppard

“Blue Like Jazz”
In “Bully,” a young lesbian is ostracized in her religious hometown and in an odd coincidence, in “Blue Like Jazz,” a young man finds himself in an place where he’s subject to being ostracized for his religion. It tells the autobiographical story of Donald Miller as he turns his back on his Texas Baptist roots and a Christian College scholarship, and heads across country to Reed College in Portland, Oregon – a decidedly more bohemian environment. This decision comes at the urging of his largely absentee father, and following a discovery that’s somewhat disillusioning at church. This is an overtly Christian-themed film and will likely appeal to those believers who have found themselves questioning their own faith at a time or times in their lives – but it’s also likely to be a painfully preachy experience for non-religious viewers.

“The Cabin in the Woods”
There’s far more going on here than just another film about a group of college students who somehow manage to find the creepiest place imaginable (complete with the requisite creepy guy at the gas station on the way) for a quiet weekend away. Early on, we also see a team of people in a control facility of some kind who seem to be keeping tabs on our would-be vacationers. It’s an easy story to spoil and so I’ll simply point out that it was written by Joss Whedon who also wrote the original “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” the “Buffy” TV show that followed, “Angel,” “Firefly,” and who wrote and directed the upcoming “The Avengers” – so it’s fair to expect both strong thematic elements and several doses of humor along the way. It’s a film that manages to follow the formula of teen horror stories while also parodying a broader horror genre – including assorted Japanese films. As such, it should appeal both to genre fans and to those who wouldn’t normally select a movie such as this but who, perhaps, enjoyed “Shaun of the Dead” or “Attack the Block.”

“Footnote”
This Israeli nominee in the Best Foreign Language Oscar category focuses on a father and son who both study historical aspects of Jewish scriptures. That said, to some extent it could be translated to any situation in which a parent or mentor finds themselves being eclipsed by the success of their younger counterpart - especially a situation in which the older individual envies that success, yet doesn’t actually respect the work that earned it. Here, the father has worked for decades on a very specific line of research with his greatest recognition coming in the form of the titular “footnote” citation in another scholar’s work – whereas the son has popularized related content in a less rigorous but far more prolific style. It’s essentially a multi-dimensional character study that encompasses jealousy, rivalry, and anger – but also love, respect, and loyalty. It’s also an interesting blend of serious drama and light, witty asides that manage to keep it from bogging down in family dysfunction.

“Footnote” plays exclusively at the Crest Theatre.

Jiro Dreams of Sushi

2012-04-06T11:20:34Z

Jiro Dreams of Sushi
Directed by David Gelb

Back when their economy was booming, and the Japanese were snapping up real estate in Hawaii and golf club memberships in Arizona, there was a joke that suggested that you only needed to be able to say three things in Japanese:

1) No, it’s not for sale
2) Can I play through?
3) Cook the fish!

For the uninitiated, this always seemed like a gag about sushi, but it’s sashimi that’s always raw whereas sushi comes in assorted forms based around the common element of rice that has been cooked and then flavored with vinegar.

The art of sushi preparation has been mastered, and perhaps perfected, in a small restaurant tucked away in the basement of an office building in Tokyo, by owner and chef Jiro Ono. To put this in perspective, this tiny and unlikely venue seats only 10 people, doesn’t have its own bathroom, and yet has earned an exclusive three star rating from Michelin’s restaurant guides, signifying that it’s worth a trip to the city or country just to experience the cuisine.

It also costs approximately $360 per person, with reservations needed for both lunch and dinner, assuming of course that you’re booking a month in advance. And that buys you a 20 piece sushi meal, served sequentially in what is described in the film as the culinary equivalent of a musical performance.

The film addresses assorted topics, not least of which is parenting with Jiro having learned his style of fatherhood at the age of nine when his own father kicked him out of the house, telling him that he was on his own and that he couldn’t come back (he considers parents who welcome their adult children back into the home to be fostering failure). Thus, at the age of 85, he says that he has held the same job for 75 years.

And it’s clearly a job that he loves. The film’s title is a literal interpretation of Jiro’s own recounts of waking up having thought of new recipes and combinations. We’re also told that he has a habit of lamenting national holidays as days that cause him to stop working.
There’s a single-mindedness and passion here that is fascinating to watch, regardless of one’s taste for or interest in sushi. I actively avoid seafood of almost all types but was captivated by this film on multiple levels, and it reminded me of last year’s “Buck” about horse trainer Buck Brannaman, a film that was equally interesting regardless of my lack of knowledge of horse training. There’s simply something special about watching talented people engaged in their life’s passion, almost regardless of what it might be. At one point we’re told that Jiro was given an award and then promptly went back to work, reminiscent of another recent movie “Bill Cunningham New York” which showed the eponymous and similarly veteran fashion photographer taking photographs at his own investiture ceremony, in France, as an Officier de l'ordre des Arts et des Lettres.

But there are also inconsistencies. While Jiro is clear regarding his own passion and his belief that you must love and stick to your chosen career, it’s not as clear whether his two sons, both of whom are also sushi chefs, would have chosen the same path if they hadn’t been pushed into it. The older of the two admits that he hated it for the first two years.

The other part of this is the nature of the training. And here we see an excellent example of something that has lost favor in our own society – the long format apprenticeship. Trainee sushi chefs, working under Jiro, take 10 years to advance to the point where they’re considered competent to function on their own and prepare the harder dishes. In contrast, we’ve become so enamored of classroom educations that we’ve largely turned our backs on the kinds of on the job training programs and apprenticeships that were commonplace in Western Europe, for example, for centuries – and the kinds of working relationships that raised generations of carpenters and stonemasons, and the great houses, palaces, and cathedrals they built.

The film also reminds us of something else that we’re not very good at – but that we’re not alone in. For all of the transitions in life that we prepare people for, we and others often do a lousy job of preparing people for retirement. At 85, Jiro’s life is defined by his business and his fixation on further improvement of the art of sushi preparation and delivery, including placing the sushi on a customer’s plate in a manner that reflects whether they are left or right handed. Meanwhile, his older son is capable of running the original restaurant (the younger son operates his own spinoff) and Jiro could stay home – except that he seems incapable of stopping and apparently lacks anything else to do with his days.

Yet another lesson comes in the form of the nature of excellence and its assorted factors. One of which is that excellence either begets excellence or is, sometimes, dependent upon or at least associated with other excellence. Jiro and his team don’t simply take their ingredients and do extraordinary things to them (like hand massaging an octopus for 45-50 minutes to help tenderize it), they seek out excellent ingredients from people who are equally passionate about their own trades – whether it be wholesale tuna purchasing or selling specialty forms of rice. In one amusing exchange, the rice vendor explains his reluctance to sell the same rice that Jiro buys to the local Hyatt, because he’s sure they won’t take the necessary and painstaking steps to prepare it in the same way, thus rendering it a waste of a special resource.

Respect for resources also comes through in assorted themes of sustainability, whether it be in the context of over-fishing (and the indiscriminate catching of small fish before they have a chance to mature), the sustainability of a long-term career, or in the context of sustaining a business model and continually satisfying one’s customers over time.

“Jiro Dreams of Sushi” is a wonderful depiction of a life spent in the passionate pursuit of perfection, complete with its pitfalls. It would make a neat companion piece to the life lessons from 60 years ago in Akira Kurosawa’s “Ikiru” – in which another elderly Japanese man contemplates a life spent doing one thing and one thing only, to the exclusion of all else. The circumstances and the joy are very different but both are thought-provoking exercises in what it means to have accomplished a life well lived.

"Jiro Dreams of Sushi" opens today in an exclusive engagement at the Crest Theatre.

Big name movies and a movie with a big name

2012-03-30T12:45:33Z

There are a lot of big name movies to choose from this week – as in movies with high profiles – including the second week of the cinematic behemoth “The Hunger Games” which has already ably proved that hunger trumps taste.

There’s also Julia Roberts as the evil stepmother in “Mirror, Mirror,” the first of two 2012 retreads of the Snow White story. This one is directed by the master of gratuitous form over necessary function, Tarsem (“The Cell,” “The Fall, “Immortals”), so it’s a little like Cirque du Soleil threw up on Julie Taymor at a revival screening of “The Princess Bride.” The dwarves are a marauding gang of thieves who wear pogo-stilts in some overcompensating need to appear giant, and who also have normal stature acrobatic stunt doubles. This results in some of the most awkward transitions between long shots and close-ups since we spent time with hobbitses. And you get scenes in which Julia Roberts transports from one small room with a mirror to another small room with a mirror for no other purpose than to have her transport from one small room with a mirror to another small room with a mirror. Nothing happens in the second room that couldn’t have happened in the first room – but, ooo, the transition is an extra extravagant visual for the director to exploit. Overall, it’s an overstylized but occasionally moderately amusing mess.

Also competing on spectacle is “Wrath of the Titans” – the creatively named sequel to “Clash of the Titans” – for those who prefer their dots already joined. On the upside, the sequel is actually far more coherent than the first film and while it displays an overt fondness for fire-dripping special effects, those visuals are at least in service to the story. Also on the positive side, it wasn’t directed by Tarsem – so you get a legitimate minotaur rather than some dude in a fancy mask as in the pretty but pretty awful “Immortals.” You also get more moving stairwells than Hogwarts and enough family dysfunction to warrant a mock reality show with a name like “Olympia Shore.” And, naturally, there’s an opening for a threequel – perhaps “Spawn of the Titans: The Next Generation.” It’s not great but it’s certainly not the worst sword and sandal wannabe epic of recent years.

But one of the biggest named movies opening in Sacramento this week is literally just that – a relatively modest movie with a mouthful of a title: “Salmon Fishing in the Yemen.” It’s also a movie that many people will overlook, again because of the title, which sounds like a reject documentary from an outdoorsy cable network. However, it’s a delightful story and one of the best films of the year, so far (not that the bar is especially high).

Ewan McGregor plays an uber-geek civil servant in a fisheries department who is asked to give his opinion on the viability of an uber-wealthy Yemeni sheik’s dream of introducing salmon fishing to his home country. What seem on the surface to be a ridiculous idea takes on greater significance as the British government finds itself in desperate need of a good will story in the Middle East and, therefore, reason to facilitate the plan.

And this a key element of the film as it follows separate paths – the main angle of the dubious angling, and also a mild satire of the politics of cynically angled opportunism.

The third element of the story is essentially a romantic comedy, albeit more subtly handled than in movies that exist entirely within that genre, between McGregor’s scientist and Emily Blunt as the Sheik’s agent. There’s genuine warmth and chemistry between the two of them – as well as a wonderful awkwardness coming from McGregor. It’s a role he plays very well – much like last years “Beginners” – where you get a character study of a fairly ordinary, flawed person rather than some larger than life hero. In that sense, it’s reminiscent of George Clooney’s neat performance in “The Descendants” with both actors shining in roles that seem no larger than regular life.

The film also has some interesting exchanges on the topics of belief and faith, and the kinds of conflicts that arise within an Arab country when a western activity and related development is introduced.

That a film with such an odd premise works so well is not just a testament to its cast, but also to its accomplished director, Lasse Halstrom (“My Life as a Dog,” “What’s eating Gilbert Grape,” “The Cider House Rules”) and the screenplay by Simon Beaufoy (“127 Hours,” “Slumdog Millionaire”). That said, there are aspects of the direction that seemed heavy handed and even outdated – such as screenshots of text-messaging conversations that might have been innovative five years ago, although they do manage to convey the constant connectedness of politicians and their staff and the need to keep ahead of the news cycle.

I have to admit that when I saw this a few weeks ago I had high expectations because of that combination of personnel on the project – and that’s often a risk as it makes disappointment come more easily. But it works very well and manages to maintain a personal and intimate tone in the relationships, while also conveying both meaningful and comedic elements in the handling and spinning of the project.

I’d recommend skipping the big movies and seeing the little movie with the big name.

The Hunger Games

2012-03-23T10:38:36Z

The Hunger Games
Directed by Gary Ross

There’s no shortage of opportunities out there at the moment for some ‘last man standing’ vicarious voyeurism - whether it be “Celebrity Apprentice,” “The Voice,” any number of cable cooking shows, the NCAA finals, or the latest ‘vote them off the podium’ phenomenon: “Survivor: The Republican Primaries.” And given our species’ propensity for rubber-necking at freeway accidents, watching video clip shows that focus on hard crotch landings, and tuning in to assorted gameshows in which contestants endure pain and/or humiliation, it’s no wonder that we’re periodically given fictional contests in which the stakes are raised to life and death proportions.

These have come in multiple formats, from homeless people being hunted for sport (e.g. “The Game”), prisoners competing for freedom (e.g. “The Running Man,” “Death Race”), and groups of people thrown into obtuse deadly challenges (e.g. “Cube”). We’ve even had the premise before with kids as contestants (e.g. “Battle Royale”). But “The Hunger Games” raises the stakes in a new way, by taking ritualized game show death to the masses, especially young audiences, in unprecedented numbers (well, perhaps since the Roman Coliseum) – after three years on the bestselling book lists and with a movie opening that’s going to crush the competition (and which might even break records). Note: With a reported production budget of only $78million, it could be profitable on a worldwide basis by the end of the weekend – it’s like the anti-“John Carter.”

All of which practically forces one to view this and consider it not just as a movie or even an ‘event movie’ but on multiple other levels – including what it says about us that a story of this kind would be so appealing to so many people.

For starters, I can’t comment on the book, as I haven’t read it and, therefore, I can’t determine how good the adaptation is - although author Suzanne Collins’ presence as a producer would seem to be a good sign.

The basic story is set in a future society built on the rubble of North America and in which 12 “Districts” are controlled by “The Capitol,” in part by requiring them to send 2 young “tributes” to take part in the annual “Hunger Games” – a staged gladiatorial competition in which 23 of the 24 contestants are necessarily going to die. The film does little (virtually nothing) to explain why this system would diminish likely rebellions rather than encourage them, but it’s the premise so we’re expected to roll with it however hard to fathom.

Our focus is on the two tributes from District 12 – which looks remarkably like an Appalachian coal mining community in the past, as it’s apparently an Appalachian coal mining community in a post-apocalyptic future. Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is a reluctant volunteer who jumps in to take the place of her younger sister and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) is the local baker’s kid, chosen by the same lottery that selected Primrose Everdeen.

As one might expect from a film like this, the focus is on the competition and the opening scenes feel like content that we need to get through to get to that point. I’m guessing that the character development and relationships are explored more fully in the book – as perhaps are the characters of at least some of the other tributes – but not here.

That said, while Katniss and Peeta aren’t exactly looking forward to the Games, there are other tributes that are, with some Districts grooming children from birth to fight for local honor and reward. Interestingly, one of those kids is played by Jack Quaid, who as the son of Dennis Quaid and Meg Ryan may also have been groomed since birth for “The Hunger Games.”

This idea reminded me of two other novels – “Never Let Me Go” and Unwind.” Both involve, within their own contexts, the idea of farming young people for body parts (not quite the same as death bouts, but equally fatal). But whereas the film adaptation of “Never let Me Go” seemed bothersome to me for its relative lack of outrage, “Unwind” depicted both kids who had been raised to want to be harvested, with a religious conviction, and those who wanted to avoid it to the point of becoming renegades – a balance that seemed far more realistic and closer in tome to “The Hunger Games.”

Purely as a film, “The Hunger Games” actually works quite well – assuming you roll with the story. It’s well produced and well acted by cast members of all ages (and realize that the tributes can be as young as 12). It also feels tightly packaged, not feeling as long as its 142 minutes running time, with a substantial, authentic feel that’s missing in some of the competition (although that diminishes somewhat when we’re introduced to some redundant CGI critters). And the art direction team had fun with the relative freedom of creating a future society, with clothing, hair, and makeup that looks like they dropped acid backstage during Milan’s fashion week.

But it’s hard to get away from the fact that this is still a film about kids killing kids, intentionally, and often with great eagerness. It’s also hard to reconcile the timing, with “The Hunger Games” being out there in the widest of wide releases with a PG-13 rating while “Bully,” a film about real life kids hurting other real life kids, that might actually reduce violence, is being blocked from its intended audience by an R rating. In one it’s apparently fine to watch adolescents filled with blood lust as they dispatch one another with blades or their hands, but in the other it’s unacceptable to hear the “F” word seven times without upping the MPAA's rating to avoid tragically corrupting our impressionable young people.

This is the same rating system that tends to amaze Europeans by typically allowing teenagers to see bloody massacres featuring chainsaws and automatic weapons, but conservatively “protecting” them from visible genitalia or, god forbid, two people of the same gender kissing.

Meanwhile, whether or not it’s a stretch to think that we might ever get back to a point where as a society we might throw kids into the ‘ring’ – along with the cocks, dogs, bulls, and human adults that various members of various societies already like to watch bloody each other – it’s not such a stretch to imagine that people would watch. Our propensity for watching just about anything has already been parodied in such films as “The Truman Show” and “EdTV” – and mere rumors of filmed death can spike viewing numbers of controversial online videos – ratings be damned.

The other interesting aspect of all of this is the young adult fiction genre in general – as previously championed by the “Twilight” series. At some level it’s surprising that none of the tributes suddenly grow fangs or claws. But this is a boom segment of the market – typified by themes of lack of control, perceived futility in life, adults calling the shots, and young characters with chances or perhaps special powers that suddenly allow them to control their own destiny, or to at least offer a glimmer of hope. And it’s not just being embraced by young adults, which perhaps reflects how little control over their circumstances and opportunities even older adults perceive.

So I don’t think it’s just a factor of age that comes into play when I find some aspects of this film somewhat disturbing (in different ways than when I recently watched “Project X” and just saw it as multiple lawsuits waiting to happen). It’s worthwhile remembering that this isn’t a fantasy world like the “Harry Potter” and “Twilight” environments – the world of “The Hunger Games” is only separated from our own by time and future political constructs and treaties. And if we can live in a world with human and child labor and sex trafficking, and underage armies fighting adult wars, it sadly doesn’t seem like a complete fantasy that we could have 12 year old gladiators settling adult political conflicts – at least somewhere in the world. And, if nothing else, that makes for dubious children’s entertainment.

But it’s still going to make a killing, figuratively speaking. Perhaps if we put our political candidates into an arena, we could solve our economical problems.

The week in film(s)

2012-03-16T10:59:03Z

The week in film(s)

Timing your movie’s release is a strange combination of art, science, and simple luck. You obviously don’t want to go head to head with a blockbuster that appeals to the same audience, but counter-programming to a different demographic might work. You don’t want to find yourself opening in the week following some epic that generates stunning audience word of mouth and dominates as much in its second week as its first. And you’re also going to suffer if you open in the week before an equally dominant film sucks the air out of the room/box office as soon as it hits the screen.

This week’s crop of new films are caught between a rock and a soft place. On the one hand, next week’s “The Hunger Games” will probably outperform just about everything else in current release, combined. But on the other hand, they have several very easy acts to follow as last weekend was a collective exercise in film failure.

The big release last week was Disney’s “John Carter” – released exactly one hundred years after the eponymous hero first appeared in print. And that brings up one of its major problems – despite pre-dating most of the science fiction and fantasy novels and films you’ve ever heard of, it has taken longer to come to the big screen in this form and ends up feeling ironically derivative of just about everything else that probably borrowed heavily from Edgar Rice Burroughs, rather than the other way around.

That’s not the only problem – it also lacks a clear villain. John Carter is the obvious hero of the piece but he’s up against an odd assortment of characters, the worst of whom is (apparently) essentially a minion of an offscreen mastermind whose motives remain unclear. We know he/she/it has significant power and influence, we’re just not sure how or why he/she/it wields it as he/she/it does. And it’s equally unclear if we’ll ever find out as the film made only $30m in domestic release after costing $250m to make. There were 11 books but there might only be 1 movie, unless international sales and the video release can redeem it.

However, that’s not the low point of last week. Eddie Murphy’s “A Thousand Words” was finally released after four years on the shelf and managed the extraordinary accomplishment of receiving zero positive reviews out of 44 collected by online review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes. Meanwhile, “Silent House” managed what might be an even harder outcome by earning an “F” rating on CinemaScore from opening weekend audiences – i.e., from people who actually chose the movie for themselves.

So it seems fair to say that this week’s new movies have a relatively uncluttered window of opportunity to make their mark before next week’s severe beat down.

The splashiest new release is “21 Jump Street,” starring Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum. On the surface, it follows the basic premise of its TV predecessor in having youthful cops placed under cover in High School. But that’s about as far as the similarity goes. As with some other movies that have resurrected long dead TV franchises, like “Starsky & Hutch,” there’s little more than the brand equity and concept that survive. Indeed, “21 Jump Street” feels more like a junior sequel to a movie like “Police Academy” than a retread of the show that happens to bear the same title.

Some of those shows, including both mentioned, may seem cheesy in hindsight, but they were sincere in their own time and place. In contrast, this is a movie that is purely comedic in nature – even when it drags back actors from the original series (including an uncredited cameo from Johnny Depp that’s pleasantly ordinary compared to his recent filmography).

It’s not a terrible movie and there are certainly funny sequences, but it’s “21 Jump Street” in name only. Not that it will matter much given that most of the audience will be too young to have grown up on its namesake anyway.

A more intriguing and hard to classify film, this week, is “Jeff, Who Lives at Home” with Jason Segel (as Jeff), Ed Helms (as his brother Pat), Susan Sarandon (as their mother Sharon), and Judy Greer (as Pat’s wife Linda). Jeff, as the title suggests, still lives with his Mom: He’s 30 and lives in the basement, seemingly doing nothing productive. He’s also one of those people who reads too much into everything, focusing on what might be hidden messages and certain that there aren’t any coincidences in life.

He’s the protagonist of the story and it’s easy to watch it as though it’s a study or perhaps an indictment of that character and that outlook on life. Except that for all of Jeff’s scrutiny of improbable connections and details, Pat is even more of an extreme on the other end of the spectrum, unaware of even the most blatant truths that are staring him in the face. It’s as if the title is “Jeff, Who Lives at Home” because “Pat, Who Doesn’t Live at Home and Who Drives a Porsche that’s Ruining His Marriage” is a tad ungainly on a theater marquee.

Similarly, Sharon is stuck in a rut and misjudging signals and Linda is the long suffering wife who has seen and appreciated the problems around her without previously acting on them. All of which leaves Jeff as the relatively harmless and well-meaning misfit who might not be the family loser after all. And even if we know a Jeff, we probably know a lot more Pats, Sharons, and Lindas – and they are just as in need of help or change or a different outlook on life.

It’s an interesting film – not quite quirky enough to earn that label but ultimately quite thought-provoking in the midst of the laughter it also generates. It also has that slightly confused marketing tactic of opening in both art house and multiplex theaters, as if even the studio’s marketing team aren’t quite sure where it belongs. But I’d still recommend it for folks looking for more substance than “21 Jump Street.”

In complete contrast, “Addiction Incorporated” is neither funny nor attempting to be. Victor DeNoble was a poor student in High School who, after being diagnosed with dyslexia in college began to excel, earned his PhD., and ended up working for cigarette manufacturer Phillip Morris. There he was asked to find substances that were as appealing to the brain as nicotine without the harmful side effects, as the company already knew that their products were harmful. This research was highly secretive as it ran counter to the various claims that the company had made.

Along the way, DeNoble and his team discovered that the addictiveness of nicotine was increased enormously by the presence of another chemical present in cigarettes, acetaldehyde. At that point, the research focus shifted from reducing harm to increasing addiction. DeNoble wanted to publish their findings, which were groundbreaking, but the company blocked dissemination and stopped the research as it wasn’t in their best interest. However, it would become critical information years later when the FDA and Congress began investigating the tobacco industry and the various company bosses claimed to believe that cigarettes were not addictive.

Some of the animated imagery produced for the early parts of the film, to represent the rats used in animal testing, for example, is quite crude (or simply odd) but the message itself is so clear and blatant that it hardly matters. And the bulk of the movie details the investigation, blow by blow, followed by the subsequent lawsuits and legislation, without the need for any such elaboration.

It’s a powerful story that’s ultimately well told, especially given that much of it is already quite familiar and it would be easy to fall into the trap of seeming to be old news. It avoids this by peppering in multiple perspectives and recollections of the key players involved in every step of the development of the story, so we’re seeing it from the inside out rather than the outside in – which is different, even if you already watched it play out in real time.

In summary, this week brings us a fairly mixed crop of openings, all of which have relatively little holdover competition from last week. But their collective time in the sun will probably be short-lived as “The Hunger Games” is likely to overshadow virtually everything a week from now.

Note: One more film opening this week, Will Ferrell’s “Casa de mi Padre” wasn’t screened for critics in this market, but hasn’t been wowing them elsewhere.

"21 Jump Street" opens in wide release today, as does "Jeff, Who Live at Home." "Addiction Incorporated" opens at the Crest Theatre.

Sac Jewish Film Fest - Opening Night Lineup

2012-03-09T13:03:32Z

15th Annual Sacramento Jewish Film Festival
March 10-11, 2012

The Crest Theatre again plays host to the Sacramento Jewish Film Festival this weekend, with two feature films and one short film on Saturday evening and two features and two more shorts on Sunday afternoon. This year’s films are diverse in both subject matter and tone.

Opening Night Films

“Holy Land Hardball”

This feature length documentary (screened with a supporting short film) recounts the challenges associated with one man’s dream to introduce professional baseball to Israel. This might have been an easier task if it didn’t also involve introducing Israel to professional baseball, as it’s a sport that many Israelis simply aren’t familiar with. As the opening frame of the film points out, Israel has professional soccer, basketball, and hockey leagues – it isn’t a country devoid of sports. And while it might be tempting to compare this enterprise with the history of bringing soccer to the USA, it’s probably more akin to what might happen if one attempted to very suddenly introduce cricket on a national level in this country.

Larry Baras made his fortune manufacturing hole-less bagels, pre-impregnated with cream cheese – an idea that came to him after a messy encounter with a more normal bagel while driving his car. But after a particularly bad year, filled with family and business difficulties, he decided he needed a new venture and wanted to do something that might, in his perception, benefit Israel. And thus the plan for baseball in Israel was born.

However, building an entire professional sports league from the ground up is difficult – apparently considerably more difficult than Larry and his team expected. Assorted difficulties included, for example, recruiting a league’s worth of players who could compete professionally, yet who weren’t already engaged in pro-sports. Tryouts attracted both viable players, and dreamers who seemed more likely to pass out during speed trials. They also had to face the fact that Israel, at the time, had only two ball fields in the whole country, one of which was little more than a community softball field on a kibbutz. As is said by one of the organizers during the film “except for players, fields, and fans, we’ve got everything all set!”

They also encounter multiple cultural divides and misconceptions. At one point, while recruiting players in the Dominican Republic, it becomes clear than several of the athletes are convinced that everybody in Israel is a devout Christian. They have an American base camp with a cook who has never served kosher food and they encounter an Israeli press corps who seemingly have no reticence about expressing their skepticism about the league and its players, with one saying “I don’t want to be pessimistic but I’m a Jew and I have to be pessimistic.”

Overall it’s a fascinating portrayal of one man’s dream and the manner in which it coalesces with the dreams of others. This is a league made up of past managers enjoying a last hurrah, college players who never made the majors, and older guys living out the fantasies of their youth – plus a bunch of very talented Dominicans. But the commonality for most of them is the idea and the central mission, as it’s clear they’re not going to get rich from the experience – they might not even get air conditioning or ice - but they will have stories to tell their children and grandchildren.

“This is Sodom”

In a bold departure from their normal programming, “This is Sodom” takes the Jewish Film festival firmly into later night, risqué content. Billed as “for mature audiences only,” this is a film that takes an irreverent look at a city whose name itself has entered the lexicon in a manner that perhaps only Rick Santorum might fully appreciate.

It’s clear very early on that the story is going to play fast and loose with tradition, as God appears in the form of a traveling salesman who’s trying to sell Abraham on a neat, one stop shopping, packaged new religion. Skeptical about the deal, Abraham in turn negotiates a demonstration of the awesomeness of the power he’s about to buy into.

Meanwhile, the angels sent to deal with the Sodomites are portrayed as motorcycle cops, one of whom is intent on filming their experiences for his own deeply meaningful documentary. This helps make the film feel like the lovechild of Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” and something more like “Reno 911.” And if Kevin Johnson still has an interest in the “Strong Mayor” idea, he could learn a thing or three from the Mayor of Sodom, including decapitation techniques for dealing with uncooperative councilmembers.

It’s worth noting that, along with the lighthearted trampling of religious sensibilities, the film also throws in sexual paraphernalia, related sight gags, and at least one masturbation joke. But it also plays true to much of the original story – that Sodom’s crimes weren’t all associated with excess and debauchery, but also with a lack of traditionally expected hospitality. Beware the wedding guest who isn’t kept well fed.

The full festival schedule can be found online at www.sacjff.org including links to the film’s own homepages and descriptions. Information can also be found at the Crest's website here.

Disclosure: The author has supported the JFF for several years as a volunteer and the official artwork (seen above) is designed by the author's partner.

Charles and Ray Eames: Designers of more than just chairs

2012-03-04T08:13:34Z

Charles and Ray Eames: Designers of more than just chairs

That’s not the title of the documentary being shown on Tuesday at the Crest Theatre, but it very well could be. “Eames: The architect and the painter” will be screened at 7:30pm (doors open at 6:30pm) in a special event to benefit the Eames exhibit at the California Museum. The director of the film, Jason Cohn, will attend the screening and the evening is sponsored by Hot Italian, Sactown Magazine, Lumens, and The Bridge District.

I think it’s probably fair to say that for most people who are familiar with the work of Charles and Ray Eames, the primary examples of the prolific partnership that come to mind are their iconic chair designs. While we each might think of specific models, there were many very varied chairs and other pieces of furniture that they produced. And, as the film explains, the success of this aspect of their business and their association with the Herman Miller company allowed them to branch out into other endeavors, several of which were equally successful.

But that eagerness to tell us about other things, to some extent at least, seems to short change the furniture designs. After all, as we’re reminded, their legacy includes 40-50 designs that have been in production for five decades. We’re introduced to their early quest “to make the best for the most for the least” and to the fact that they perfected the difficult and unprecedented task of molding compound curves into plywood by manufacturing 150,000 splints for injured service members in WWII. Having established their success in that field, the film moves on to other topics without sharing much about how that side of the business progressed. (Another film perhaps…?)

So, while this is a must-see film for both casual Eames fans and serious aficionados alike, it’s not a film without shortcomings. We’re not, for example, told much about Charles’ beginnings, or what caused him either to be interested in architecture or to drop out of architecture school. As a character, he seems to enter the film almost fully formed – and he’s certainly interesting enough to warrant some context. There’s slightly more background provided for (Sacramento born) Ray, in terms of her painting for which she is independently recognized, but not much.

I’m not sure if it’s the intention or not, but it’s a film that asks as many questions as it answers. Perhaps the most knowledgeable viewers will already know many if not all of those answers, but the rest will likely summon Wikipedia upon arriving home. Not that that’s a bad thing – if the film inspires you to seek out more knowledge then it’s having a positive impact.

Much of the film references the Eames’ own filmmaking, both of the artistic and experimental kind, and also the commissioned, industrial genre. Charles and Ray became known for their ability to convey difficult messages in simple terms – like conveying the potentially threatening concept of the computer on behalf of IBM, or the American way of life in a cultural exchange between the USA and the USSR. (I was reminded of a current project sponsored by actor Alan Alda that challenges scientists to explain concepts in ways that an 11 year old could understand – to be judged by a panel of 11 year olds.)

However these projects raise another interesting question – whether or not the documentary itself is a film that Charles Eames would have appreciated. Not in the sense of whether or not he would have liked having his story told, but aesthetically. The documentary is extremely conventional, recounting events and developments through a series of ‘talking heads’ and in a very linear timeline. Clearly, in telling a story, one doesn’t have to make a film that the subjects of the film would make themselves, but it does make for some intriguing comparisons between linear and lateral thinking. Again, not a bad thing.

Those ‘talking heads’ in the film are many past-employees, associates, friends, and family members – not all of whom are exclusively positive in their recollections. There is, for example, some lingering sense of frustration about the way in which Charles and Ray were credited with all of the designs that came out of their studio, regardless of how many people may have had a hand in the process. A comparison is made with renaissance grand masters artists and it also reminded me of even earlier parallels, such as Greek academies. Just as we might never be sure whether Pythagoras actually penned the theory that bears his name, we do know that he created the place and the atmosphere for such work to be done – as did Charles and Ray Eames.

But just as the biblical gospels are generally pretty positive about Jesus, these are recollections that are overwhelmingly fond and approving, even when raising such concerns. We weren’t given gospels by disgruntled ex-apostles or accounts of rival cross-Jerusalem messiahs – and here we don’t have any significant opposing perspectives from challengers or competitors. The result being that we can’t know, directly from the film, if they were universally adored or if the film itself simply hasn’t delved into those issues.

Another topic covered throughout the film is the nature of Charles and Ray’s own relationship and the extent to which they complemented each others’ talents. This is also explored in the context of the periods in which much of their work was accomplished and how, for example, the idea that a wife might be just as integral to the success of the partnership, in such a direct manner, was difficult for many observers to come to terms with. In Charles’ own words “Anything I can do, she can do better.”

Design fans will likely find themselves comparing the atmosphere of the Eames’ Venice, CA studio with that of Palo Alto based IDEO – a company with a similarly diverse portfolio of iconic products and clients (including their own furniture designs for Steelcase and the first mouse for Apple). Both have been described as having chaotic workspaces - and the description in the film by somebody who says they walked into the Venice space and immediately wanted to work there exactly matched my own reaction when visiting IDEO.

I enjoyed the film although I have to admit to having been frustrated by it as well. I fit into the category of the compulsive Wikipedia reader following experiences like this. But there’s such a wealth of original material, interviews, and filmed content included in the documentary that anybody who has an interest in the subject matter would be remiss in missing it. And the screening supports further dissemination of their work, which is an added bonus.

Further screening details can be found here: http://thecrest.com/calendar/expand.cfm?EventID=3853

Film Reviews: An Inconvenient Seuss & "Pariah"

2012-03-02T11:49:35Z

An Inconvenient Seuss

Over forty years ago, “The Lorax” first appeared in book form and told the story of a commercial enterprise run amok, in which every bright and fluffily foliaged ‘truffula’ tree is harvested to make ‘thneeds’ – a strange convertible garment that in today’s day and age would have its own late night infomercial. It’s a classic tale that focuses on commercialism, corporate greed, and a complete lack of sustainability as the loss of the raw materials causes the venture to fail as quickly as it succeeded. Along the way we’re introduced to the Lorax, a diminutive orange creature with a soup-strainer mustache who appears as an advocate for the trees and wildlife. Think of the entire Sierra Club embodied in the love-child of Garfield and Wilfred Brimley. The villain in all of this is the 'Once-ler' – who doesn’t fully appear in the book but who is seen in the new movie adaptation.

The movie “Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax” expands significantly on the aftermath of the thneedcentric clear-cutting with an examination of local Thneedville, which sits behind high walls amid a hidden sea of truffula stumps. Meanwhile, the lack of any kind of natural vegetation and the propensity to consume voraciously leaves the city with an air quality problem that might make even Sacramento’s smog look desirable. And it’s given rise to a new magnate who trades in bottled air. This would seem like more of a stretch if we didn’t already live in a society that can’t seem to get enough bottled water, despite it being a product that’s often less tested and regulated than the water that’s already piped into virtually every building standing. And for all of our complaints about $4-5/gallon gas, we’re steadily consuming water at $1-2/pint (or considerably more at events and movies) – and burning fuel to bring it in from Fiji and the Swiss alps so that we can drink it in traffic in a gas-sipping Prius.

Obviously the story here isn’t new, but it stands up well in the context of newer movie adaptations for young audiences, many of which convey similar messages. Films like the “Happy Feet” franchise feel like they should be sending royalty checks to Al Gore, “Wall-E” was set in a global trash heap and a ship full of morbidly obese consumers, and “Cars 2” was an examination of alternative fuels and oil industry opposition. While kids movies with messages have been around for a long time (think “Ferngully” on the environment, “Iron Giant” on gun ownership and military intervention, and “Battle for Terra” depicting an alien civilization that chose to turn its back on technological dependence), I’m at the point now where I’m surprised when I watch a kids’ movie that doesn’t come pre-loaded with political content.

That said, “…The Lorax” is well made and, for the overlapping content, seems true to the imagery of the book. The voice talent is unnecessarily A-list heavy (as is the current norm) but also appealing. And the adaptation works well in a narrative sense – although Thneedville doesn’t look especially Seussy.

Overall, it’s a fun film that should keep the kids amused. But if you’re pro-logging (without limits or re-planting), anti-spotted owl, or generally opposed to controls on things like air quality, you might want to take the kids chainsaw shopping instead. Or find a pristine wilderness and do donuts in a fully gassed-up Ford Excursion. Somehow I don’t think the Lorax is choosing between Romney and Santorum.

"Dr. Seuss' The Lorax" opens in wide release today.

Pariah
Written and Directed by Dee Rees

We often see films in which girls change on the way to school, out of sight of their parents, in order to wear low cut tops and short skirts that would meet with disapproving stares at home. Here, Alike’s church-going mother would probably frown on such outfits too, although she might prefer them to the relatively maculine outfits and baseball caps that her daughter hides in her backpack.

“Pariah” is a modestly produced but powerful film about a 17 year old girl coming to terms with her sexuality. Or perhaps more about how those around her are coming to terms with it, especially her parents who seem to be in a state of denial on the topic. Written and directed by Dee Rees, “Pariah” is adapted from her own short, of the same name, from 2007.

The film has some themes and moments that seem somewhat unexplored and, at times, seems as though it was quite heavily edited in post-production. For example, Alike’s father is depicted as a police officer and it seems as though that might have a narrative purpose that doesn’t quite pan out. And a couple of scenes seem as though they’re played out of sequence, with a character seeming to see a location for the first time despite having been there before.

But these mild concerns don’t overtly detract from what remains a compelling story that feels very genuine. It may not be as slick as some of the films playing at the multiplexes, but this combined coming of age and coming out story has a lot more heart than most.

"Pariah" opens today at the Crest Theatre.

40th Anniversary Screenings: "The Godfather" - Thursday, March 1st

2012-02-29T18:40:31Z

Cinemark and Paramount Pictures Celebrate the 40th Anniversary of “The Godfather” with Exclusive Cinemark XD Events at Theatres Across the US - on Thursday, March 1st.

The film was meticulously restored using 5.1 digital surround sound and re-mastered using state-of-the-art technology, then transferred to files making it available to be seen on Cinemark XD screens.

"The Godfather,” Francis Ford Coppola's epic masterpiece features Marlon Brando in his Oscar©-winning role as the patriarch of the Corleone family. Director Coppola paints a chilling portrait of the Sicilian clan's rise and near fall from power in America, masterfully balancing the story between the Corleone's family life and the ugly crime business in which they are engaged. Based on Mario Puzo's best-selling novel and featuring career-making performances by Al Pacino, James Cann and Robert Duvall, this searing and brilliant film garnered eleven Academy Award® nominations, and won three including Best Picture in 1972. It is considered by many to be one of the greatest American films ever made. The film has been rated R by the MPAA.

The Coppola Restoration of “The Godfather” 40th Anniversary Edition as a project began in 2006 between Paramount Pictures and the director. Archivist Robert Harris joined the project, followed by the original cinematographer of the film Gordon Willis, to complete the team who worked arduously on the film for over a year going through the original prints, re-release prints, and negatives, shot by shot, foot by foot, frame by frame and even sprocket hole by sprocket hole.

Cinemark plans to also show “The Godfather Part II” on XD screens on April 19. A full list of participating Cinemark XD locations, advance ticket purchases and show time information can be found at www.cinemark.com.

Participating theatres in the Sacramento area:

Cinemark Blue Oaks Century 16 and XD, 6692 Lonetree Blvd, Rocklin

Century Roseville 14 XD, 1555 Eureka Rd, Roseville

Century Greenback 16 XD, 6233 Garfield Ave, Sacramento

Disclosure: The text is (edited) from a Cinemark/Paramount press release.

Films: War, politics, religion, and relationships

2012-02-24T11:15:02Z

"In the Land of Blood and Honey" and "A Separation"

Two movies open in Sacramento this week that offer glimpses into very different cultures and places, as two couples find themselves in desperate circumstances. In one, a Bosnian woman and a Serbian meet on the eve of the Bosnian war. In the other, an Iranian husband and wife struggle to come to terms with conflicting opportunities and duties.

“In the Land of Blood and Honey” tells the story of Alja and Danijel who first meet in a night club and then again later in a camp, commanded by Danijel, where Bosnian women are taken and used by Serbian soldiers. The basic premise is built around this relationship, one that might have been quite ordinary in a time of peace but which is anything but ordinary in a war defined by ethnicities and atrocities.

Despite the compelling concept, the film is garnering most of its attention for having been written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina Jolie, a global star who grew up around the film industry but who has never before taken the helm of a narrative feature of her own. What’s interesting is that despite a vast amount of related experience, the project still has some of the typical traits of a first film. While Jolie clearly has the ability to maintain a coherent, linear, narrative structure, she seems less able to trim the edges of her own work and, at 127 minutes, it seems unnecessarily long. It’s tough material and it’s not that it feels overtly slow, it’s just that it could have delivered the same story with the same punch with less material.

Aside from that, the majority of the movie is focused on the two leads, who are good in their respective parts. Both have family situations that further complicate their loyalties, in addition to their positions on two sides of a bitter and gruesome war. The odd thing is that we’re asked to ponder the relationship as it exists in these specific circumstances, which are clearly stacked against any hope of normalcy or stability. But it’s hard to decide if one would root for this relationship even if times were perfect – it’s almost impossible to determine who these people might have been if the world around them hadn’t blown up in their faces. Whatever your reaction is when the movie ends, ask yourself how else you might have written it had the story been yours.

In “A Separation,” a married couple are torn apart when they’re granted a visa that would permit them to emigrate from Iran, but they have differing opinions on the benefits of raising their 11 year old daughter elsewhere, versus staying to care for the husband’s ailing father. It’s a film that starts in domestic near-chaos, as the family begins a day with the wife packing to leave and the husband interviewing another woman who might possibly be able to watch over his father. From there, it slowly builds as multiple lives are affected by the core conflict.

“A Separation” is nominated for two Oscars, one in the Best Foreign language Film category and another, unusually for a foreign film, for Best Original Screenplay. And it’s a fascinating piece of writing as it blends family duties, religious observances, financial hardships, and the Iranian legal system into a multi-dimensional drama that, at its core, is still largely about parenting. For example, at one moment in the movie, the woman who finds herself somewhat reluctantly employed to care for the elderly parent, calls some kind of religious advice hotline to ask whether or not it would be a sin for her to see him in a state of undress while she cleans him after soiling himself.

It’s hard to describe much of this film without undermining the slowly escalating plot, but while the drama was initiated by the visa situation, it goes so far beyond that, that it would be easy to forget where it started. As with “In the land of Blood and Honey,” it’s also interesting to wonder how these lives might have been different without that defining change. Or whether the problems were simmering already and merely needed a catalyst to boil over.

Another intriguing aspect of “A Separation” is the depiction of Iranian life. For most of us, our exposure to stories from Iran are limited to concerns about the enrichment of nuclear materials and global political conflict. But here we see an Iran that in many ways is much like anywhere else, albeit with stricter religious overtones than in some places (although not more serious than in Bosnia). This is an Iran with two-car families, homes filled with books, musical instruments and appliances, working women, and a daughter whose stresses are coming from her parents’ separation, her grandfather’s health, and her ever-present schoolwork. In many respects, it’s a film that can play well across cultures because the central themes are relatively universal, more so at least than the extreme violence of “In the Land of Blood and Honey.” More of us have had to cope with family dysfunction than with genocide.

"In the Land of Blood and Honey" opens today at the Crest Theatre and "A Separation" opens at the Tower.

"Wanderlust"

In a strange contrast to these two, profound dramas, this week also sees the opening of what might be thought of as their “first world problems” comedic counterpoint. The conditions that are at the heart of “Wanderlust” - joblessness and the inability to pay for a “microloft” in Manhattan’s West Village - obviously pale in comparison, but they only serve as the setup for a high-concept, fish out of water comedy.

Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston inadvertently stumble into a sixties-ish hippie commune of free love and shared everything, which tests their relationship and their perceptions of what matters in life. It has the feel of a film that has scripted elements, especially those that drive the plot, alongside scenes that seem largely improvised. In my opinion, it’s the more structured scenes that work best here, and the contrast is a little jarring at times between moments that seem tight and finely tuned, and others that are allowed to ramble. It’s not that the looser scenes aren’t funny, it’s just an odd combination of styles at times, often determined by who’s onscreen.

That said, I was pleasantly surprised overall, and the film is far funnier than the preview gave me reason to hope for. I was expecting to groan inwardly far more than laughing outwardly, when in fact the level of laughter at the pre-screening was sufficient to compromise dialog. Many viewers may come away wishing that it had been the frontal nudity that was compromised, rather than the dialog. But again – first world problems.

Wanderlust opens today in wide release.

Oscar Documentary Shorts - Thursday, February 23rd at the Crest

2012-02-23T06:58:02Z

A couple of weeks ago I reviewed the five live action and five animated Academy Award nominated narrative shorts playing at the Crest Theatre. Those two programs are continuing for another week and the original article can be found here.

But on Thursday (Feb 23), for the first time in Sacramento, there's a chance to see the nominated documentary shorts. Well, four of the five films - as one is missing. This isn't that unusual, in fact it's more remarkable that the distributors of the shorts programs could corral the other 14 films into 3 programs, than it is that they couldn't get the 15th.

It's conjecture on my part, but I'd guess that there was a problem securing distribution rights to the fifth documentary. Sometimes, another contract with a pre-existing distributor will take precedence and on other occasions some content in a film may not have the necessary clearances for widespread distribution. For example, some rights to music are granted for distribution at film festivals only - so a film can be seen and garner great praise in those venues without being able to be screened outside of the festival circuit. I don't know the circumstances this year, but as a festival director I've seen both of these things happen and those would be my first two guesses.

The four films in the program are:

"Incident in New Baghdad" - 22 minutes (USA)

The killing of two Reuters journalists and several other people shocked the world when it was revealed by WikiLeaks. But for Ethan McCord it was far more personal - he was a witness to that event, during which he saved two children, and it contributed to his post traumatic stress disorder. The leaked video footage prompted him to speak out about his experiences and in support of fellow sufferers.

"Saving Face" - 40 minutes (Pakistan/USA)

In Pakistan, over 100 women each year are maimed in reported acid attacks, with an unknown additional number going unreported. The attackers are often men whose advances have been rejected, or the husbands of the victims. The film recounts several of the women's stories and focuses on the work of a Pakistani-British plastic surgeon who has tried to help some of them, as well as attempts to change the law as it applies to the perpetrators.

"The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement" - 25 minutes (USA)

At 85, James Armstrong has been teaching about civil rights and cutting hair in his Birmingham, Alabama barbershop for almost 60 years. He carried the American flag on the march from Selma to Montgomery and his sons were the first African Americans at an all white elementary school. In his words, "Dying isn’t the worst thing a man can do. The worst thing a man can do is nothing.”

"The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom" - 40 minutes (USA/Japan)

An account of the rebuilding efforts following the recent Tsunami "and the healing power of Japan's most beloved flower" (quoted from the film's official website). Director/co-producer Lucy Walker's previous film "Waste Land" was nominated last year in the documentary feature category.

The missing film is:

"God is the Bigger Elvis" - 37 minutes (USA)

In 1963, Dolores Hart was a successful 23 year old actress with 17 television and movie titles on her resume, including multiple lead roles. That career ended when she chose to become a Benedictine nun and the film documents her life before and after that decision.

The documentary shorts program screens one time only at 7pm on Thursday, February 23rd at the Crest Theatre.

Film Review: The Secret World of Arrietty

2012-02-17T09:04:14Z

The Secret World of Arrietty
Directed by Hiromasa Yonebayashi

2012 marks the 60th anniversary of Mary Norton’s classic children’s book “The Borrowers” and “The Secret World of Arrietty” is one of at least five television and film adaptations, although not the most recent (the latest being a 2011 British television production). First released in Japan in 2010, it opened around much of the world during 2011 and finally makes its US debut today, with an American cast of voice actors. The wide opening includes several Sacramento theaters.

This isn’t the only one of Norton’s stories to have made it to the big screen. Her first two novels were adapted into the beloved 1971 Disney production “Bedknobs and Broomsticks” – recognizable for its combination of live action and animation – from director Robert Stevenson, who also directed such titles as “Mary Poppins” (also utilizing both human and animated characters – including Dick Van Dyke dancing with penguins) and “The Love Bug.”

“The Secret World of Arrietty” is the directorial debut for Hiromasa Yonebayashi, previously an artist and animator in increasingly senior positions on several other animated features. Those films, from the famed Studio Ghibli, include co-founder Hiyao Miyazaki’s “Princess Mononoke,” “Spirited Away,” “Howl’s Moving Castle,” and “Ponyo.” The current film is produced by another Ghibli co-founder Toshio Suzuki. (The third co-founder being Isao Takahata, director of “Grave of the Fireflies.”)

For many serious fans of animation, criticizing the films from Studio Ghibli is tantamount to heresy and they are certainly successful and widely appreciated. “Spirited Away” is Japan’s highest grossing film and won the animated feature Academy Award. But they also elicit mixed reactions from some audiences. “Spirited Away” holds the record, in my own personal experience (and my own visual estimation), as being the film during which the highest percentage of the audience walked out during a screening I attended.

On a personal level, I find them quite varied in terms of appeal and, while I didn’t walk out, I didn’t much enjoy “Spirited Away” (and I know I’ll get hate mail for that admission). The problem I have with some of the Ghibli films is the wide variety of styles of character animation within a single project. “Spirited Away,” for example, has characters that don’t seem like they would exist in the same universe or even the same imagination. That lack of accommodation in my own appreciation of the work is clearly subjective, but I don’t think it’s unique.

By comparison, “The Secret World of Arrietty” has a cohesive and consistent style, looking less like it was drawn by committee. And it’s really quite delightful both in its storytelling and its visual imagery. (And I don’t recall anybody walking out.)

It tells the basic “Borrowers” story of a family of tiny people who live beneath the floorboards of a house, sneaking out only to “borrow” the items they need and which the owners of the house are unlikely to miss. Here, the setting is transplanted to Japan, with young Shawn having been sent off to stay in the house his mother and aunt grew up in, to rest and relax before undergoing heart surgery. But it’s understandably difficult to avoid all excitement when you discover such miniature inhabitants in the crawl space.

The artwork is beautiful, although sometimes a little inconsistent. While objects are clearly large or small relative to the equally large and small characters, they don’t always seem consistent in size relative to each other (in fairness, this is common in films about tiny folks). And while many of the items in the borrowers’ world are clearly out-sized for them, there are others that seem quite complex and perfectly proportioned. In the original book, some of the smaller items are sourced from a dollhouse and there is a similar structure in the film, although its original purpose is quite different and we’re given reason to think that those objects have not previously been borrowed.

That said, there are also wonderful details in the film that cause one to worry less about any perceived inconsistencies. Chief among these is the way that water and tea behave on the small scale, with just a couple of drops filling a tiny cup, for example. And it’s clearly a film aimed at a young audience who aren’t going to be waving tape measures across the screen, comparing objects and gauging the continuity.

I thoroughly enjoyed the film and I’m only offering the background on the studio to point out that this is a film that’s likely to appeal to many people, including those who haven’t enjoyed the entire Ghibli collection. It’s well written (co-written by Miyazaki), well drawn, engaging, and captures both the innocence and wonder of childhood. It’s essentially a double coming of age story for both the human “bean” Shawn and young borrower Arrietty, as both discover things about themselves and the world around them. And that world can be a large, scary, and often captivating place regardless of how big (or old) you are.

Sample images, clips, more information, and the trailer can be found here.

Valentine's Day procrastinators rejoice!

2012-02-14T22:39:44Z

If you've left things to the last minute, good luck trying to eat at a restaurant that's high enough up the culinary food chain to require a reservation. A quick check of the reservation aggregator OpenTable (opentable.com) shows that it's slim pickings in Sacramento unless you want to go for the early bird special at about 4pm.

But all is not lost as there's a special, sneak preview of the new film "This Means War" tonight at 7pm at the Century Stadium. And if you pick up tickets in advance, you can even make it look like you planned ahead.

It's a funny film with an inherently funny premise: Two high level CIA operatives (Chris Pine, Tom Hardy) realize they're dating the same woman (Reese Witherspoon). She's a researcher at a "Consumer Reports" type of company who's very prone towards in depth comparisons of alternative choices. They're best friends of the "we won't let a woman come between us" kind - but that doesn't last as they bring their assorted and prodigious agency assets into play to undermine each others' chances (think drone surveillance of your buddy's date).

Meanwhile, Witherspoon's character is taking relationship advice from her best friend (Chelsea Handler) who comes from the school of no boundaries in terms of what she's inclined to suggest. Handler steals the scenes she's in and may be the best female best friend since assorted performances by Joan Cusack. Only raunchier - and this isn't a child-friendly production.

It's a marketing win in terms of its potential appeal as a date movie, whether tonight or after it opens in wide release on Friday. Essentially it blends the elements of a romantic comedy with those of an action comedy, for an effective romantic action comedy - and it strikes a happy balance in that respect. It starts a little slowly but picks up the pace and stays frenetic for most of it's length.

Not a bad last minute solution.

Oscar Shorts 2012

2012-02-10T11:50:57Z

Oscar Shorts 2012

This week, the Crest Theatre continues its tradition of bringing the Academy Award nominated short films to Sacramento in time for eager Oscar-watchers to fill out their ballots. And watching them in these special screenings puts you on an even footing with Academy members who are required to watch them in the same manner in order to be qualified to vote in these categories.

In order to qualify for Oscar contention, short films (under 40 minutes) have to have had a run in theaters or to have won a top award in at least one Academy sanctioned film festival. The nominated films are packaged together by Magnolia Pictures and Shorts International to form theatrical packages so that the rest of us can enjoy them also.

This year, for the first time, in addition to the animated and live-action narrative shorts, Sacramento audiences will also have an opportunity to see the documentary shorts. These (the documentaries) will be screened on one night only, at 7pm on Thursday, February 23rd (and will be reviewed in a later article). The others open today in regular rotation at the Crest (note that the animated and live-action shorts are screened in two separate programs).

In past years, the five nominated films in each category have been augmented by additional films if the nominees have had a cumulative running time much less than approximately 80-90 minutes. For the purposes of this article, only the nominated films are reviewed.

Animated Shorts

“The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore”
USA: 15m
Following a storm so strong that it doesn’t just move objects and cause houses to tumble through the air, but also causes the words to be stripped off the pages of his books, our title character finds himself in a world where the books seem to have more life than the people. Unfortunately, the people’s lives seem devoid of books and the books are therefore missing the readers that give them meaning. Already whimsical in nature, there’s one flight of fancy that seems unnecessary here, but the film makes good use of color and black and white imagery in a manner perhaps most associated with “Pleasantville.”

“A Morning Stroll”
UK: 7m
Probably the oddest of the group, “A Morning Stroll” tells the same, initially very simple story three times in different eras. A man walks along a city street and is surprised to see a chicken casually walk the other way, knock on a door, and enter a building. To some extent it feels like an exercise in animation styles, as the three distinct eras allow for three equally distinct forms of animation.

“Dimanche/Sunday”
Canada: 10m
Utilizing the simplest, drawn approach, this Canadian film focuses on a Sunday in the life of a small boy. It has the feel of what might be the recollections of one of the filmmakers as the uninterested child is dragged off to church and to visit relatives. This results in uninteresting encounters, uninteresting foods, and uninteresting conversations for him, such that he has to find his own entertainment on the nearby train tracks.

“Wild Life”
Canada: 14m
Another Canadian film also focuses on train tracks, in this case the trans-continental railroad that opened up the countries interior to immigrants. Set in 1909 Alberta, it tells the story of an eccentric, to locals, Englishman who never quite belongs. A running analogy throughout the film describes the equally eccentric orbits of comets. My interest in “Wild Life” was based more on my own knowledge of the railroad as a centerpiece of Canadian history, and the way in which the train and shipping companies lured European settlers by promising them land that was more appealing on paper than in reality. Outside of that coincidental interest, the film would probably feel somewhat flat, albeit with some interesting visuals that tend more towards a painted than a drawn style.

“La Luna”
USA: 7m
The standout film that’s probably competing most closely with “…Flying Books…” for the grand prize is the Walt Disney/Pixar produced “La Luna,” which definitely feels like a ringer in this company. A small boy heads out to sea with his father and grandfather for what appears to be his first time accompanying them on their nightly task. It’s hard to describe what happens next without spoiling the delight, and it is a delightful concept as we find out whether the boy is up to the challenge or not. It also makes good use of near-dialog in a series of grunts and sighs that almost manage to feel like conversation without limiting itself to a single language.

Live-Action Shorts

“Pentecost”
Ireland: 12m
One of two films from Ireland, and one of four out of the five films that give the lineup a more comedic nature than in some years. “Pentecost” looks at the life of a reluctant altar boy who would far rather be watching or dreaming about his favorite soccer stars and teams. That is until a tragic incense-related event at mass puts both occupations in doubt. Genuinely funny and endearing, this is a lesson for adults in how not to bargain with children.

“Raju”
Germany/India: 25m
The only serious drama in the program, “Raju” follows a German couple as they travel to Calcutta to adopt an Indian boy from an orphanage. Normally when we hear stories like this, we focus more on the parents and their struggles to start a family and less so on the children and the lives they might be leaving behind. This time, the focus shifts as the smooth process hits a snag after the paperwork has been exchanged, leading to culture shock and reconsideration. It’s not the best film here but it does have some advantage in attracting votes by seeming both topical and meaningful.

“Time Freak”
USA: 11m
Probably the outright funniest of the five, here we essentially get posed the question of what we might do if we had access to a time machine. For all of our grand plans and desires to see moments in history or next month’s stock prices, at least some of us would probably dwell on our ability to go back in time and fix something trivial yet embarrassing. And when one friend finds another and the opportunity he has created for himself, he is more than a little surprised to find out how he’s been utilizing it. This might be the best use of the short format – very compact and efficient, without compromising the inherently appealing, “Groundhog Day”-esque story.

“Tuba Atlantic”
Norway: 26m
Where three of its companions are traditionally funny, the Norwegian film in the mix is more quirky. Told he has six days to live, Oskar is bothered by his long estrangement from his brother. But he also has a young helper who is determined to guide him through the five stages of grief, and a serious vendetta against the plentiful seagulls around his coastal home.

“The Shore”
Ireland: 31m
The second of the Irish films manages to remind us of Ireland’s strong film industry, via some recognizable faces (if there’s a live-action ringer, this would be it). Those might help give it the edge here, along with a feeling of substance to the story, backed up by strong comedic elements. It also has some beautiful cinematography, showcasing the coastal locations. In a test of the question of whether one can go home again, a man and his daughter travel back to the Irish town he left 25 years earlier, during “The Troubles.” Although not as tightly wrapped as Time Freak, the running length here is still put to good use, managing to convey multiple themes and tones without venturing into the bloated territory that can easily damage some longer shorts.

Overall, the two programs are must-see viewing for awardophiles and a valuable lesson in style and content for film fans, filmmakers, and students.

Both open today at the Crest Theatre: Details and showtimes at www.thecrest.com.

Film Review: Big Miracle

2012-02-03T07:41:41Z

Big Miracle
Directed by Ken Kwapis

One film this week has noteworthy political content and the most surprising thing is which film it is. From a casual distance, “Big Miracle” looks like a very generic animal rescue story, essentially “Free Willy” x2.5, as assorted people try to help two adults and one juvenile whale escape from behind an ice barrier in the Beaufort Sea. It’s based on a true story of an event that captured national attention in 1988, and the film makes use of news footage from that period, with every major network anchor commenting on the situation as it unfolds.

It also embellishes the story with various formulaic characters and circumstances, including a love story, a somewhat precocious local boy, and an evil “big oil” tycoon. The basic storytelling is no less unsubtle than the recent “The Muppets,” for example. However, what’s surprising, and where the movie manages to shine on some level, are the moments during which several of the major players’ motivations are explored.

It would have been very easy to show involvement from the White House as being a matter of national pride or jingoism, especially in a movie aimed mostly at kids, but it’s described as much more of a compromise of conflicting interests. This was the end of the Reagan administration and we’re given staff who want to send Reagan out with an episode that might help cover for a bad environmental record, while also boosting (the senior) Bush’s election chances, but only if it won’t go bad and cause an even larger stain on the legacy. Similarly, we’re shown conflicts involving the use of a Russian icebreaker ship (in reality there were two) and standoffs between the political interests and Greenpeace (as embodied by an activist played by Drew Barrymore).

Another episode depicts the oil company boss (Ted Danson) being manipulated by his wife into realizing that he can appear friendly to the environment in a way that will probably make it easier to rape it later. It’s a retrospective, narrative example of ‘greenwashing’ a company’s image at a point in time that’s almost as early as the phrase was coined.

This might actually be a good movie for kids, not just as predictable entertainment, but as a way of educating them about how the media and various political interests operate. We see rival television outlets and personalities more interested in ratings than the story, and clear conflicts between local and wider cultural perspectives, along with the other interests already outlined. The film also delivers little after-the-fact nuggets, like the quadrupling of Greenpeace's membership following the incident.

As a story, it offers relatively little that hasn’t been done multiple times before, although this time there might be a little nostalgia for those parents who remember the story. But as a surprisingly nuanced examination of questionable motives, especially for a children’s movie, it exceeds expectations.

Film Review: The Woman in Black

2012-02-03T07:36:20Z

The Woman in Black
Directed by James Watkins

Daniel Radcliffe has made nine theatrical movies in the last decade and eight of them have been episodes in the “Harry Potter” saga. So it’s hardly surprising that when he first appears onscreen in “The Woman in Black,” you find yourself expecting his Hogwarts sidekicks to show up, or a wand to appear in his hand (not helped by an early train journey). But that slight disorientation passes and he turns in a fairly solid performance as the young father who has been sent by his London firm to settle the paperwork of a dead woman who lived in a fabulously spooky house on the far side of a remote tidal causeway.

Outside of the “Potter” films, he’s proved himself to be a versatile performer, probably more lauded on stage than on the big screen, but also willing to throw himself into almost anything as demonstrated in a recent “Saturday Night Live” (including playing the part of Casey Anthony’s yorkie). In interviews, he has described “The Woman in Black” as simply being the best script he'd read at the time he chose to get involved. And it’s a very interesting project, not just for a prospective lead actor, his fans, and genre aficionados, but also for filmmakers and those who are intrigued by the way films are made.

This is a creepy film.

I’m not an easily scared person but there was no shortage of squeals and jumpiness among the audience at the press screening. Which is only to be expected from a film about disappearing children and a haunted house. But what’s noteworthy is how that level of creepiness is achieved. There are virtually no elaborate special effects – it’s almost exclusively an outcome of camera angles, makeup, and timing. This is a $17m production that, in the hands of a different production team could very easily have cost two or three times as much, without being any better at establishing an atmosphere. And that also makes it a good pick for Radcliffe, who gets to headline a film that doesn’t require him to stray far from his comfort zone, and which won’t need to measure success in hundreds of millions of dollars.

That’s not to say it doesn’t have any problems – it does. You can’t afford to think for more than a moment about almost any of the plot details. And much of the logic appears to have been sucked into the marshes on either side of that tidal causeway I mentioned earlier. It’s a brief film at 95 minutes and it doesn’t pause to explain very much: It’s not a complicated story but we’re never told how or why Radcliffe’s character decides what to do or, for example, why residents of the local village never seem to ponder the possibility of moving away despite it clearly being the worst possible location in which to raise a family.

But for the right audience, none of that will matter. It’s creepy and it stars Harry Potter…err, Daniel Radcliffe.

"The Grey" - Part 2: Interview

2012-01-27T09:23:33Z

INTERVIEW: DIRECTOR JOE CARNAHAN AND ACTOR FRANK GRILLO

[NOTE: THE INTERVIEW CONTAINS SOME MILD PLOT SPOILERS FOR “THE GREY”.]

Recently, in San Francisco, I had a chance to chat with co-writer and director Joe Carnahan and actor Frank Grillo about their new release “The Grey” which opens this week. The film, which is reviewed in a separate article, tells the story of a group of oil workers whose plane crashes in the Alaskan wilderness, where they find themselves stalked by a pack of almost mythically large wolves. Joe is a Sacramento native and we’ve known each other for several years through the local film community and the Sacramento Film and Music Festival.

As we were setting up for the interview, Joe happened to make a self-deprecatory joke about his own intelligence, which led to an interesting opening:

Tony: You see I would counter that right away. I watched “The Grey” a few weeks ago - I don’t like to read production notes before seeing a film and I knew virtually nothing going in – but I knew it wasn’t going to be “Alive” meets “Cujo”… [they both agree] … because I don’t think you’re capable of writing a script that’s that one dimensional.

Joe: Right. You may hate it for its other dimensions but it won’t be mono-dimensional.

Frank: [laughs]

Tony: The other things you’ve written – even a film like “Smokin’ Aces” which is a ‘shoot-em-up’ has a very intricate story.

Joe: “Smokin’ Aces” to me, the construct, was Iraq. I based the movie on Iraq. It starts with misinformation, it leads to this kind of heedless violence, a bunch of people who shouldn’t die do, they make a better deal at the end, and it’s over – that’s it.

Tony: Let’s come back to the war topic later. As I said, I watched “The Grey” knowing nothing about it and had to write my comment for the studio, and I said this isn’t a film about men and wolves, this is a film about life and death, and going out on your own terms.

Joe: Yes. 100%.

Tony: So, I was intrigued as to whether when you read the short story if it came out of nowhere and grabbed you or if you were already thinking of this as a subject you wanted to tackle.

Joe: No, you know what Tony, I responded to the short story because I was on “Mission Impossible 3” and I was going to quit before I was fired. I had run my course on that and here I was presented with this very simple, spare, kind of bare bones survival story - versus where I was at that moment which was a big star, big franchise, big studio, with a big budget at 33 years old and feeling I didn’t deserve any of that….

Frank: No, by the way you do.

Joe: …at the same time “The A-Team” represents me finishing that business on “MI3” – doing a big popcorn movie. So it [“The Grey”] appealed to me in every way that it could, because its simplicity was beautiful to me. But then Ian [Ian Mackenzie Jeffers who co-wrote the screenplay and wrote the short story “The Ghost Walker” on which it is based] did a draft of his own short story and I took that, and over the next 4-5 years rewrote it, fashioned it, and fine-tuned it.

[Joe continued by describing how, with the passage of time, topics which might not have developed quite so readily in a more rushed circumstance, including religion and spirituality, evolved as the story became more polished.]

Tony: So, you guys met on “Pride and Glory” [for which Joe co-wrote the screenplay]?

Frank: A little before that.

Tony: [To Frank] When this first came to you, did you see the script first or was it still an idea? How close was it to the final script?

Frank: I think it was fairly close to what we actually shot by the time I saw it.

Joe: Yes, I gave it to you in September and we were shooting in January.

Frank: Yeah. He had seen some of “Warrior” and I had said to him “I want to work with you, just whatever it is, find me something, I’ll do anything – I’m a huge fan” and he sent me this script. He said to me “January we’re shooting this movie and that’s the role!” And he could have had anybody he wanted for the role, obviously, and he said “It might take me some time but you’re doing the movie – January – don’t take a job!” And I said “Joe, I can’t…” He said “January, don’t take a job! Go gain some weight, beef up, this is what we have to do.” And there we were in January.

Tony: Although underneath something like three parkas…

Joe: Yeah – I had three parkas on but Frank didn’t!

Frank: [laughs]

Joe: You said you wanted the role pal!

Tony: It’s such a neat story and neat characters. I was interested in what drew you to it. The Ottway part [Liam Neeson’s character] is interesting – he’s watched somebody who didn’t have the opportunity to go out on her own terms and he respects that opportunity when it arises. There’s a scene in the wreckage where a guy is dying and the others are saying “You’ve got to do something” and he goes over and says [paraphrased] “You’re going to die – but that’s OK” You don’t see that often.

Joe: No. You see a lot of people killed but you don’t see a lot of people die.

Frank: In the original script – and at first I was kind of upset that we took it out – but when he says that to him, my character says “What are you doing?” But there was such a rhythm, there was such a gorgeous poetic rhythm to the connection that these two guys had that if I had interjected, interrupted, and taken it away from that, it would have destroyed the scene. And that’s my favorite scene in the movie.

Tony: It reminds me - and I don’t think this is a comparison you’ll dislike [to Joe] given that you say you don’t see people die very often - it reminds me of Giovanni Ribisi in “Saving Private Ryan.”

Joe: Which is a brilliant death scene.

Tony: It’s the best scene of the movie.

Joe: And he says “Tell me, tell me what’s wrong” and the blood is almost black and he’s asking for his mother.

Tony: And he basically instructs them to overdose him on morphine. He’s a medic….

Joe: Right, he’s a medic, he knows he going to die. But that’s … anytime there’s a Spielberg comparison, I am firmly in your camp.

Frank: I got a chance to work with him and he said when he saw that scene he actually went back and wrote more for Giovanni earlier in the movie, so there would be more of him in the movie.

Joe: Oh, wow!

[The three of us then went off on a tangent for a minute or two about Giovanni Ribisi’s career starting as a child actor in the sitcom “My Two Dads.”]

Tony: In “the Grey” it seems to me that there were at least quadruple threats: There’s the location that they’re in, there’s the lack of any kind of supplies they would need to survive in that location, the climate obviously, and the wolves. But this isn’t about the wolves, the wolves are just part of that.

Joe: Tony, you see that – but you’re literally one of the only people that has ever said that, right there.

Tony: It’s an obstacle, of which part just happens to be the wolves. They could have just been eyes in the distance and mysteriously, every now and then somebody dies and you never know how they die. It’s almost a MacGuffin.

Joe: Right – they’re as close to a MacGuffin as a traditional film like this would have. Because essentially it’s a plotless movie.

Tony: In fact, to some extent, the whole bundle of obstacles: location, supplies, climate, wolves altogether are a MacGuffin.

Joe: Absolutely

Tony: It’s just there to cause these people to think about the meaning of life.

Frank: Exactly. That’s an accurate reading of the script. You asked what attracted me to the film. As a middle-aged man – this is what I think about all day.

Joe: And also that the wolves are just a force of nature – like the cliff, like the blizzard, like the river.

Tony: Have you been following the news – the timing is really interesting.

Joe: Oh – OR7 – the wolf that’s crossed into California. Yeah, I invited him to the premiere. It’s a very elaborate joke, a very elaborate stunt when he shows up and around his neck he’s got a little pass, a VIP pass.

Frank: It’s a great story

Tony: You clearly wanted something more profound than an action film and you succeeded. But do you worry about the apparent dichotomy between what films are and how films are marketed?

Joe: You know what, Tony, I don’t because what I would like, in fairness to an audience, this is something where I’d like them to cast as wide a net as possible – to get people who are even casual genre fans, who are casual Liam Neeson fans into the theater. Because I swear to God it will become the water cooler talk for days to come. I really believe that. What I’ve said about this film, my ultimate goal, is that it plays for you for longer than the two hours it took to watch. That’s what I want – because I think so much of movies today are just disposable experiences.

Tony: I guess my question is that we’re sitting here saying this is a profound movie about life and death and the human experience….

Joe: Right.

Tony: …so do you worry that the people who do in fact want to see a profound movie about life and death and the human experience are not going to come and watch “The Grey” based on the trailer somebody’s cut of the film that makes it look like “Alive” meets “Cujo”?

Joe: No. Unfortunately, if those people you just described were in the majority, we wouldn’t all be about to speak Mandarin in the next ten years. You know what I mean? If we had that level of engagement or that level of high mindedness, without trying to sound snobbish or arrogant about it, if those kinds of people were in the majority then I think it would be a radically different marketing angle.

Tony: If you think of film classics like 1936’s “Modern Times” or 1957’s “12 Angry Men” – those were mainstream films because you didn’t have studios, indies, direct to cable, and all those kinds of things, so those were films people were going to watch. They were deep films – but they were either social satires or social commentaries. We’ve had this conversation before – now you see things like “Lions for Lambs” [written by Joe’s brother Matthew Michael Carnahan] which is a brilliant piece of writing and “In the Valley of Elah,” and films like “The Company Men” about unemployment and layoffs. I’ve heard it said that folks on the left don’t want to go and see these stories and be reminded of what they already know and folks on the right don’t want to go and get lectured by Hollywood.

Joe: Yes.

Tony: So, do you think there’s a political divide – is it that we’re telling the wrong stories or are we telling the right stories but telling them too soon?

Joe: Well listen, you mentioned “Lions for Lambs” and “In the Valley of Elah” – those are movie about hot button issues. My brother had written “The Kingdom” which in a lot of ways to me was a knock on the Saudis and the Saudi royal family. It was meant to be, not a condemnation but he was certainly taking a shot – it wasn’t just this kind of prosaic look at a different culture – he was going after them. But if you don’t mix in gunfights it becomes this almost geopolitical…whatever. I found, and I got this from my benefactor Ridley [Scott] – I loved the filmmaking in “Black Hawk Down” but it became very jingoistic. And the part about the Somalis and what they were dealing with … and I understand why that was jettisoned. I get it, but it was also a case of looking at how much more money that made than a film like “Lions for Lambs” which was more about talking points.

Tony: If you get me on “Black Hawk Down” we’ll be here all day. But “The Kingdom” and “Lions for Lambs” are an interesting comparison because they’re both good scripts and they both have a lot to say politically….

Joe: Yes.

Tony: ...and I don’t remember the box office….

Joe: “The Kingdom” made a lot more money.

Tony: “The Kingdom” has a lot of shooting and action and “Lions for Lambs” is more like a play

Joe: Yeah, it’s a three act play. It’s a play.

Tony: So if you want to have political content and you want to get something out there and you want to hit a mainstream audience….

Joe: Good luck

Tony: …do you have to disguise it as something else?

Frank: I think you do.

Joe: Oh, absolutely.

Frank: You have to, not sneak it in, but you have to….

Joe: It’s everything short of sneaking it in. It’s very difficult to come straight at somebody with that kind of argument being that political, spiritual, whatever it may be that you’re trying to tackle. In this country more so than any other in the world – we love to slap labels on as quickly possible. And if you’re doing that it’s a “specialized” kind of film.

Tony: [To Frank] In the film, you’re the tough guy’s tough guy. It reminded me of this kid I knew at summer camp who was tough and would never let his guard down – and then I saw him break down completely riding a roller coaster.

Frank: That’s a great analogy.

Tony: Did you know those guys growing up or were you that guy?

Frank: I wasn’t that guy – I was on the other end of it. But I did know those guys and I also spent some time visiting some jails around New York because I wanted to talk to some guys on the other side of that reality. And they all seemed to be the same – you’re right – it’s the big bully who goes on the roller coaster and that was my jump off point. It’s such a cool journey that this guy makes and we all know those people. And how did I get to the point where my hands are always up and I’m threatened all the time. When you’re afraid you get angry and Diaz [his character in the film] is angry all the time. Why? Because he’s afraid all the time. And it was a gift to me as an actor to get to explore this character.

Tony: The amazing thing about “The Grey” is that I don’t think there’s a weak link in the film. The problem with an ensemble movie is that there’s often a character that you want to get eaten by a wolf early on in the movie just so that you don’t get to see him for the next hour. And this movie doesn’t have that.

Joe: I think you really do come to fall for those guys and you appreciate those guys and you pull for them. And that’s as it should be.

[At this point we discussed several characters and their unusual paths in the movie, including specific outcomes for some of them.]

Joe: But there’s bravery and heroism that isn’t always obvious and that you don’t see coming from a mile away

Frank: But we can talk about this all day – this guy [his character] finally got a chance to be part of something. That’s the beauty of it.

Joe: Yeah – absolutely man

Tony: What’s next for you Joe?

Joe: If I get any real run off the Grey, if it allows me to do something else, I’d like to put all those chips toward “Killing Pablo.” For me that particular project is like this vastly undernourished orphan and I need to get this kid a meal.

Tony: That’s Pablo Escobar?

Joe: Yes. I’ve been to Colombia three times, I’ve been to Medellin three times and I love it – as attrition goes it getting pretty close. Somebody asked me why do you want to make that project so badly and I was interviewing this 78 year old man who was there at the time it happened, and I asked him if he remembered anything that day, when they got Pablo. And he said “I was sitting in my house and I thought it was an early winter thunder storm” because the level of gunfire was such that the guy couldn’t discern individual shots and I thought “I’m ****ing making this movie!”

Tony: And anything back in Sacramento – are we going to see you back in town?

Joe: Tony if I could just get, and I’ve said this before – what you need is a full time film commissioner and we need to quit dicking around. And in that City which is one of the great untapped shooting locations – in two hours you can be in the snow, you can be on the river….

Tony: And the neighborhoods can be anywhere.

Joe: Dude, the Fabulous 40’s – all you have to do is switch the cars out and you could be in the 1950’s. I would love to do it. I think the City has to get a lot more aggressive about what it wants to do. You know Kevin Johnson kept the Kings – and that would not have happened with Heather Fargo, they would have been gone. So if he can apply that kind of determination to getting movies shot there….

Tony: You know the “For Arts Sake” manager just left, this week.

Joe: Really? Well you know I’m looking for a job!

Disclosure: The author is co-director of the Sacramento Film & Music Festival and Joe Carnahan is a former special guest of that event.

"The Grey" - Part 1: Review

2012-01-27T09:22:47Z

The Grey
Directed by Joe Carnahan

The promotional materials for “The Grey” would probably cause you to believe that this is a “Jaws”-like adventure, with sharks replaced by wolves. And that’s certainly an easy way to sell a movie – but the truth is somewhat more complicated and worthy of greater respect.

This isn’t just a movie about men and wolves, and the conflict between them after a plane of oil industry workers crashes in the Alaskan wilderness. Underneath that surface, it’s more about life and death and our ability to determine our own fate. Liam Neeson plays Ottway, a man whose job is to shoot wolves and remove other threats to the men who work in this desolate place. But he’s also a man with tragedy in his past and consequently empty eyes. When the plane goes down, it triggers in him the need to survive – not so much because he has things to live for, but because he isn’t willing to let anybody or anything else dictate his fate.

It’s an interesting and quite profound premise for what might otherwise seem like a shallow action adventure. But it’s also in keeping for co-writer and director (and Sacramentan) Joe Carnahan, who tends to favor stories that are more complex than they appear.

Some detractors have complained that the behavior of the wolves in “The Grey” is unrealistic, but this isn’t a nature documentary. And the wolves themselves are not the only complication in the men’s lives, existing as they do alongside the extreme cold, remote location, and lack of supplies that they're faced with. As such, the wolves are simply a part of a bundled obstacle, and no more or less a force of nature than the blizzards and low temperatures. They exist as a test within the context of the movie, increased to almost mythical size and actions. They're simply something to be overcome - and they might just as easily have been bears, ghouls, or invisible beings.

Within this premise are some of the best on-film encounters with death – not simply in the sense of the staged violent ends that we've come to expect from the action genre, but philosophical contemplations of what it means to recognize and sometimes accept death, even when it isn’t sought out. And these are genuinely thought-provoking moments: As Carnahan himself said during a recent interview, “...it will become the water cooler talk for days to come. I really believe that. My ultimate goal is that it plays for you for longer than the two hours it took to watch. That’s what I want – because I think so much of movies today are just disposable experiences.” And it succeeds.

The outcome is quite remarkable in that he’s made a film that can satisfy those who are simply looking for a solid roller coaster action adventure, but also those who like to ponder the deeper meaning of a film and the lessons it might evoke, over dinner afterwards, or the next day. It might even cure a dysfunctional family’s inability to choose a movie that appeals to both the parents and the teenagers.

Disclosure: The author is co-director of the Sacramento Film & Music Festival and Joe Carnahan is a former special guest of that event.

Review: Conan O'Brien Can't Stop

2011-06-23T09:44:12Z

by Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

Conan O’Brien Can’t Stop
Directed by Rodman Flender

Last summer, Sacramento’s Memorial Auditorium was one of the venues for Conan O’Brien’s “The Legally Prohibited From Being Funny on Television Tour.” That tour is now the focus of the behind the scenes documentary “Conan O’Brien Can’t Stop” – a somewhat unflinching look at an attempt to make show business lemonade from a deluge of unwanted lemons (or perhaps, in some opinions, a single unwanted Leno).

For those who live in caves, go to bed at 9pm, or go to bed at 9pm in caves, last year saw messy contract negotiations over late night programming at NBC. Years earlier, O’Brien had been promised the holy grail of talk shows, “The Tonight Show” at 11:35pm. However, when the moment arrived, incumbent host Jay Leno made it clear that he wasn’t ready or willing to retire. Rather than risk the possibility of having Leno end up with a competitive show on another network, NBC created an earlier 10pm talk show for Leno, and simultaneously attempted to cash in on the fact that shows of this nature also happen to be cheaper to produce than hour-long dramas, traditional favorites in that time period.

But the experiment failed. Leno fans, and other fans of “The Tonight Show” who preferred to get to bed sooner, now had a favorable option 95 minutes earlier in the evening. Meanwhile later night audiences and O’Brien fans watched the traditional timeslot, with both shows generating what were considered by the network to be disappointing ratings. Leno was still reluctant to walk away and NBC pitched a desperate attempt to solve the problem by suggesting that Leno return to 11:35pm, but in a truncated 30 minute format. O’Brien would then follow at 12:05am, with Jimmy Fallon’s later show being pushed back from a 12:35am start to 1:05am, and Carson Daly going even later.

O’Brien rejected this plan, saying at the time that he didn’t want to be the host who took “The Tonight Show” into a timeslot that meant it was no longer “tonight.” He also clearly felt that his contract was being breached and that there was a lack of good faith in both the way that he was being treated as well as the ripple effects that would impact the hosts of the later shows. And so he walked away from the prize franchise, leaving himself out of work, contractually prohibited from appearing on television, heavily compensated, but also overwhelmingly angry. And the short term result of channeling that anger was the aforementioned tour.

The film goes behind the scenes as the tour is planned and executed, and examines the dynamics of life on the road – in this case for someone unused to that schedule. Fans of O’Brien get to see a side normally hidden from view, as he works with his creative team, not always entirely positively – and he doesn’t attempt to hide his feelings about the situation. Non-fans will likely find it a fascinating examination of celebrity, including the difficulty of remaining upbeat in front of adoring fans. It’s not unusual to hear fans of certain artists complaining about abrupt or inhospitable encounters with their idols. What this film illustrates is how remarkable it can be that any celebrities ever manage to avoid that kind of behavior in the face of constant demands for their time, regardless of what else is happening. At times, O’Brien seems like he won’t make it, not because of the already grueling schedule of the shows themselves, but because of the endless extra commitments: Meet-and-greets, private parties, extra shows, hordes of adoring fans, and even his own college reunion at Harvard.

The title of the film is taken from an exchange in which it becomes apparent that O’Brien can’t imagine not working and, as was reported at the time, some of his motivation also came from trying to keep at least some of his production team employed. The end result is a neat film about a funny guy dealing with a difficult period in his career in what appears to be the only way he knows how – by laughing about it, and hoping others will too. It’s insightful, personal, and well worth checking out.

Conan O'Brien Can't Stop opens on Friday, June 24th at the Crest Theatre. Information and showtimes can be found at www.thecrest.com.

The film's official website, including the trailer, can be found at www.conanobriencantstop.com.

Original "Survivor" Richard Hatch in Sacramento this weekend

2011-01-12T21:52:15Z

Richard Hatch is one of the featured interviewees in the locally produced documentary "Death or Taxes: The Sad Truth About Our American Taxation System" that will be screened as part of the Sacramento Film & Music Festival's WinterFEST this weekend. Mr. Hatch will be attending the screening in support of the film and a question and answer session with the filmmakers will follow the screening.

About the film - from the producers:
With a run time of 78 minutes, Death or Taxes takes a hard look at the horrifying realities faced by the millions of taxpayers who owe back taxes, many of whom are forced to make life-changing decisions. Should they pay their rent or pay their back taxes? Put food on the table or pay the often exorbitant fines issued by IRS agents in the name of Uncle Sam? Death or Taxes tells the story of the good, honest people who get caught in IRS quicksand—some of whom are pushed beyond hope into the last decision they’ll ever make.

About Mr. Hatch:
Richard Hatch is best known for winning the first ever season of Survivor. Following his success on the reality television show and his $1,000,000 prize, Richard worked with attorneys and accountants to determine his tax obligations for the prize money. In spite of his best efforts, Richard was accused and convicted of tax evasion. Richard served 52 months in federal prison, 4 months spent in solitary confinement, without ever having been assessed a tax debt. Richard’s ongoing battle with the tax and legal systems continue today, as Richard works to clear his name, and come to a settlement with the IRS.

Death or Taxes screens at 1:30pm on Sunday, January 16th at the Crest Theatre.

The Sacramento Film & Music Festival WinterFEST is at the Crest Theatre from Saturday, January 15th - Monday, January 17th and the full schedule, with ticketing links and links to individual film pages can be found online at www.sacfilm.com/schedule.html

See also the overview Sacramento Press article about the Festival: LINK

Disclosure: Tony Shepppard is a Festival Co-Director.

Film Industry "Boot Camp" with award-winning Producer

2010-10-12T04:28:01Z

Film studio heads rarely make general public appearances, let alone teach. Larry Meistrich, head of Nehst Studios and producer of the Oscar winner Sling Blade, turns that concept on its head!

Coming to Sacramento October 15,16 & 17, Meistrich presents the acclaimed, weekend-long Aspiring Filmmakers Boot Camp so those interested in film careers can get the rare opportunity of educatation and interaction with a film industry leader who is running a film financing, production and distribution company in today’s entertainment world. At the boot camp Meistrich shares a lifetime of insights, knowledge and powerful tips to help successfully navigate the film business – whether as a writer, director, producer, actor or other interest. Attendees will emerge changed and ready to tackle the film world, armed with the know-how, motivation and tactics to succeed.

Film Boot Camp attendees will:
* Learn the necessary steps and secrets to successfully produce a feature film or series.
* Understand the business side of filmmaking - including financing, packaging, marketing & distribution.
* Get an unprecedented opportunity to learn to pitch scripts & ideas, with an opportunity to make a deal.
* Have an open forum of communication to an industry leader for 3 days.

Filmmakers can learn the skills of their craft in a variety of places - but the only way to learn to enter and navigate the business is from someone who has done it successfully – and who continues to do it. Larry, known for his no-bull, take-no-prisoners approach to teaching, will equip you to swim with the sharks, dive for treasure, and come back alive to talk about it. At the same time, attendees receive valuable access and personal interaction with Larry for the entire 3 days in a comfortable and casual atmosphere – so all questions can be asked and nothing is off the table. Attendees will come out of this camp changed and ready to tackle a variety of film careers, armed with the know-how, motivation and tactics to succeed. Spending an intensive weekend with Larry, learning the thinking process and tools you need to succeed in the complex and competitive film business – attendees will learn to produce a feature film or TV series from beginning to end - securing the script to financing to distribution, and the highlight of the weekend is a pitch session on Sunday where attendees will learn how to pitch scripts, ideas and TV show concepts, and then have a chance to pitch ideas in a safe, comfortable environment - where there is an actual opportunity to make a deal with Meistrich’s company.

Boot camps have already been the source of successful talent ‘finds’. Michael and Daniel Carberry, 19, attended a recent boot camp, showed their reel, and were hired to direct Nehst's national series for Mountain Dew. Kevin Kerwin and Kate O'Neil were‘discovered’ at a recent boot camp and Nehst hired them to direct and produce the feature length documentary "Running America", now in distribution.

Larry Meistrich launched Nehst Studios at Cannes in 2007, creating a cutting-edge film financing, production and distribution company that integrates entertainment with today’s technology. Nehst has offices across the country and a production studio in Cleveland, Ohio - with several films in various stages of development, production and distribution and is always looking for the next great idea or talent! Current films in production include “Lilith”, “Strangeland II: Disciple”, “The Kid Who Only Hit Homers” and more.

In addition:
* Meistrich has produced more than 100 films, commercials and music videos including the Academy Award® winning Sling Blade, the Academy Award® nominated You Can Count on Me, Henry Fool - winner of the Best Screenplay award at the 1998 Cannes Film Festival, Croupier, and New Jersey Drive.
* His pictures have won the gamut of international awards including Golden Globes, SAG and DGA Awards, Top Five category awards at Cannes, Sundance and Berlin.
* Meistrich has taught master classes at Harvard, Johns Hopkins, University of Miami, Syracuse University – Newhouse School, and University of Austin; and has been a guest speaker at the Cannes, Sundance, Toronto, Berlin and New York Film Festivals, as well as Sacramento's own Film and Music Festival.

Details: The Aspiring Filmmakers Boot Camp is co-sponsored by The Art Institute of Sacramento and the Capital Film Arts Alliance, and will be held in Sacramento on October 15-17, 2010 at the Art Institute campus, located at 2850 Gateway Oaks Dr., Sacramento CA 95833. The cost to attend the 3-day film boot camp seminar is $395 for general public, $300 for CFAA or other film organization members, or only $150 for students or military active or veterans (contact us by phone at 916-600-6477 or email info@nehst.com for specific discount codes). Because of the small group format, seating is limited – so reserve your seat today. For more information or to register, visit: www.filmboot.com

AND – Friday Oct 15th is the opening night for the boot camp and is open to the public at no charge, featuring a discussion on the state of the film industry with Larry Meistrich. All are welcome as Meistrich presents ‘Successful Filmmaking in the 21st Century’ - at the Art Institute of Sacramento. So for all who want to know more about this exciting industry and how to position themselves for success, this is the chance you’ve been waiting for.

Photos:
1) Larry Meistrich, Tony Sheppard, Joe Carnahan at the last Sacramento Aspiring Filmmakers Boot Camp
2) Larry Meistrich takes questions from Jonathan Kieffer at the 8th Annual Sacramento Film and Music Festival, at the Crest Theatre, August 2007.

Immigration and Native Americans in Film - Tuesday Evening at the Crest

2010-07-27T07:53:49Z

Immigration is obviously both a hot button topic and the hot potato of American politics. It's also the focus of three short documentaries that play at the Crest Theatre on Tuesday evening on the fifth day (of ten) of the 11th Annual Sacramento Film & Music Festival. Coincidentally, all three films were made by students at either Berkeley or Stanford and they complement each other to form a fascinating program.

"Iraq in the US" has a unique Sacramento connection, focusing on the lives of Iraqi refugees who have been relocated here to build new lives. "New American Soldier" tells the stories of several green card holders who joined the US military to become eligible for citizenship - complete with all of the hazards that entails. "Arpaio's America" investigates the policies of Sheriff Arpaio in Arizona who interpreted that state's Human Smuggling law to target the immigrants rather than the human traffickers. It also features Russel Pearce who authored the recent and highly controversial Arizona immigration law.

The three immigration documentaries are followed by an exclusive Sacramento screening of "Reel Injun" - a feature length documentary that examines how the Hollywood film industry has depicted Native Americans through the decades, including interviews with Jim Jarmusch, Adam Beach, Clint Eastwood and others.

The evening begins at 5pm with a complimentary dinner served by Rubios and the screenings begin at 6pm and 8pm. The double program of film, as well as the dinner, are covered by a single $10 ticket.

The full Festival schedule can be found at www.sacfilm.com/schedule.html.

26 Films in Production for the 10x10 Filmmaker Challenge

2010-07-09T20:24:06Z

If you happen to see people filming around town, and if they also seem to be in a hurry, there's a good chance they're making a film for this year's 10x10 Filmmaker Challenge, a program of the 11th Annual Sacramento Film & Music Festival. Now in its 7th year, the 10x10 challenges filmmakers to make a 10 minute film in 10 days, on an assigned theme and using assigned elements such as quirky props and the Festival's mini-poster.

Last night, filmmakers and prospective cast and crew members arrived at the Art Institute of California, Sacramento (a Festival sponsor) in enough numbers to require a move to a larger room. In fact, the 26 teams that signed up to participate caused the maximum running time of each film to be truncated to 8 minutes for only the second time in the program's history.

After hearing the rules (make it quickly and make it clean!), teams used a pre-assigned number from 1-26 to select their props. They were also assigned two quotes from a well known movie which they are required to work into their scripts or otherwise include in the finished film, with each team's assigned movie being different. Props came in mismatched pairs and included such items as a teeny-tiny tea service and a lug nut wrench, a pair of foam swords, and a 54" inflatable shark and glittery apple. Quotes came from movies as diverse as Twilight and Gone With the Wind.

This year's 10x10 theme is "Lines" - chosen for its wide variety of potential interpretations, including such dissimilar contexts as ticket lines, airlines, electrical lines, family lines, political party lines, and stem cell lines. A quick search in wikipedia reveals approximately 50 different interpretations of the theme. Additionally, this is the Festival's eleventh year and the poster is designed around the parallel lines of the number 11.

Teams have until 7pm on Sunday, July 18th to complete their projects and the finished films will be screened at 5pm on Sunday, August 1st at the Crest Theatre, as the closing screening of the 10-day Sacramento Film & Music Festival. Films are judged on overall quality, and best use of theme, props, and quotes. And, for the first time this year, films will also be judged in several acting categories, thanks to the help of the Festival's newest partner Studio24, a full-service talent management company located in midtown.

The Festival runs from Friday, July 23rd to Sunday, August 1st, with 25 ticketed events and, at last count, over 140 films. The Festival is also hosting the world premiere of a new documentary about the work of Sacramento artist David Garibaldi, followed by a live performance and an auction of his work on Thursday, July 29th. Tickets and Screening Passes are available at the Crest box office and through tickets.com.

More Festival information and the complete schedule can be found at www.sacfilm.com.

Disclaimer: Tony Sheppard is Co-Director of the Sacramento Film & Music Festival

Photos 1-5 by Paul Le:

1: The Art Institute of California, Sacramento

2. A moment of shock as the Festival Directors realize how many teams there are

3. Filmmaker Jared Martin of Davis displays his props

4. Pre-numbered movie quotes wait to be claimed

5. One pair of props

6. Sacramento Artist David Garibaldi, who will perform at the Festival on Thursday, July 29th

7. Festival poster - designed by Paul Le of midtown's Sol Design

Multiple Award Winning Actor Hal Holbrook in Sacramento

2010-03-05T03:16:20Z

Hal Holbrook has over 120 film and television credits stretching back to 1954. In addition to his Tony Award for portraying Mark Twain and four Emmy Awards (with six additional nominations), he became the oldest male actor nominated for an Academy Award for his performance in 2007's "into the Wild."

His new film "That Evening Sun," a co-presentation of the Crest Theatre and the Sacramento Film & Music Festival, opens at the Crest on Friday, March 5th. Holbrook plays an aging farmer who escapes a nursing home only to have to fight to regain his family farm.

"That Evening Sun" has won at least 15 film festival honors, including two Special Jury Awards from South by Southwest. Joe Leydon of Variety describes it as "An exceptionally fine, richly atmospheric film. Holbrook is at the absolute top of his game. A career highlight star turn."

Mr. Holbrook will conduct a question and answer session following the 5pm screening on Friday, March 5th and will introduce the 7:50pm screening. Advance tickets for the special screenings are available at tickets.com and the Crest box office.

For further information visit: http://www.thecrest.com/calendar/expand.cfm?EventID=3349

Review: The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus

2010-01-16T00:16:04Z

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus
Directed by Terry Gilliam

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

This is a movie that will be seen for two reasons: The movie itself and morbid curiosity associated with the death of its star, Heath Ledger. Ledger had completed “The Dark Knight” and was shooting this when he died of an accidental drug overdose, leaving Director Terry Gilliam with half a movie, no lead actor, and an uncertain future for the project.

Gilliam is still best known by some of us as the wacky animator for the original Monty Python shows. But he’s also an accomplished director of not just Python movies, but also “Brazil,” “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,” and “Twelve Monkeys,” amongst others. He’s also been trying to film “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote” (currently back in production with Johnny Depp involved) for years, with a truly disastrous earlier attempt chronicled in the noteworthy documentary “Lost in La Mancha.” So he’s no stranger to adversity in production.

But a dead lead actor is extreme adversity. Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell all stepped up and agreed to fill in for Ledger. Gilliam was able to make that work in a manner that is far more successful than it might sound. The story revolves around the ancient and mystical Dr. Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) who, we discover, has spent a great deal of time making questionable wagers and agreements with the Devil (Tom Waits). He currently drags a ragtag group around in an amazing horse-drawn sideshow in which audience members are able to pass through a magical mirror into imaginary worlds. This is where the heart of the film lies, in Gilliam’s extraordinary view of a fantasy world – one that makes you want to peak under the rocks and into the crevices of his very weird mind.

Into this arrives Tony Sheppard—played mainly by Ledger and, yes, that’s really the character’s name!—a mysterious stranger who falls in with this odd group and possibly has an agenda of his own.

This is a very cool movie – both for the crazy visuals (Gilliam at his best) and for the extraordinarily effective writing that pulled such a winning outcome out of such tragic circumstances. It might be the morbid curiosity that drives you to see it, but the movie can capably take it from there.

Review: A Single Man

2010-01-08T09:30:12Z

A Single Man
Directed by Tom Ford

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

Colin Firth plays George Falconer, a professor in 1962 Los Angeles who loses his long time partner in a distant car wreck and struggles through the lonely aftermath, trying to get through each day without him. There’s nothing unique about losing a loved one but Falconer, as a gay man in that period, has only one person he can share his feelings with, his best friend Charley (Julianne Moore) with whom he also shares a complicated past. At work and in his daily life, he maintains a stoicism that hides the lost romance that was always hidden.

“A Single Man” is based on the novel by Christopher Isherwood – the Chris of “Chris and Don” and the writer of the source material for “Cabaret.” The film is directed by fashion designer Tom Ford. There are some directorial choices that are a little too self-conscious at times, but the result is still powerful and one of the top picks of the year (it’s a 2009 film opening slightly late in Sacramento). Firth is excellent in the lead role [side note: Firth himself is the child of two college educators] and is supported well by Moore and by Matthew Goode as lost love Jim (seen in flashbacks – and also seen in another release this week: “Leap Year”). All grown up since 2002’s “About a Boy,” Nicholas Hoult plays a concerned student in one of George’s classes and rounds out the cast nicely.

It’s perhaps too easy to look at “A Single Man” in the context of the era depicted and sympathize with George for the time in which he lived. This was California a decade before Harvey Milk moved from New York City to San Francisco and a period when ‘moral turpitude’ was still very much an issue, especially for educators. But, almost 50 years later, and despite much greater acceptance of gays in society, many individuals still live in fear of adverse family reactions and even the loss of employment for simply being themselves. One of the complications for George is that he isn’t welcome at Jim’s funeral—and is only even aware of it because of the kindness of a single sympathetic family member. This is not something that will be hard to appreciate for gay members of the audience, especially those who have had to cope with similar inhospitality and homophobia. And the fictional George and Jim, as well as the real life Chris and Don, would still not be able to marry in today’s California.

But, politics aside, the movie is excellent and reminiscent of both “Lost in Translation” and “The Visitor” in terms of capturing a mood and a moment in the life of a middle aged man who no longer expects to form the type of personal connections he has previously. It would make an interesting double-header with the character study of middle-aged isolation, albeit more self-inflicted, depicted by George Clooney in the similarly excellent “Up in the Air.”

"A Single Man" opens at the Crest Theatre, January 8th.
For showtimes and other details visit www.thecrest.com.

Review: The Messenger

2009-11-27T09:26:35Z

The Messenger
Directed by Oren Moverman

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

Ben Foster and Woody Harrelson are an Army Casualty Notification Detail, tasked with informing the N.O.K. (next of kin) when their loved ones have been killed in action. It’s a soul-destroying assignment and, as explained by the older man (Harrelson) to his younger colleague (Foster), it’s not one that can be made easier by staged shows of understanding. But it’s a necessary function in a time of webcams and cable news shows. They race to get to the N.O.K. before they hear the news from anybody else.

Foster has been on the edge of stardom for a decade and may be best recognized recently as Angel in “X-Men: The Last Stand” or as Charlie Prince in “3:10 to Yuma.” As staff sergeant Will Montgomery, Foster turns in a gritty and realistic performance that’s similar to Ryan Gosling’s career-altering “Half Nelson.” This is also Harrelson at his best in the supporting role, with the mentorship between the two men reminiscent of Ned Beatty and Liev Schreiber in the woefully under-appreciated “Spring Forward.”

“The Messenger” is also a timely reminder of loss during a war in which we weren’t allowed to see flag-draped coffins and funerals. Harrelson’s captain Stone remarks that every funeral should be on live TV and laments: “…and then bullets fly and soldiers die and it’s such a shock – what did they think it was going to be like, ‘Fear Factor’?”

But the strength of the film is in its notion of what it means to be a casualty during wartime as the notification process produces even more casualties of war in the families of those who are lost. The notification detail themselves are also victims of time served in situations the rest of us will remain blissfully ignorant of. One wife explains that it’s hard to mourn the man who died during a third tour of duty in Iraq when you’re already mourning the man he was before tours one and two. They’re all casualties of lost lives, loves, and innocence and the movie is a remarkable portrayal of that harsh reality. “The Messenger” is vying with “The Hurt Locker” for this year’s top war film honors.

The Messenger was an official selection of the Sundance Film Festival and won both the Best Screenplay Award and the Peace Film Award at the Berlin Film Festival. For more information visit www.themessengermovie.com

The Messenger opens Friday, November 27th exclusively at The Crest Theatre. Opening weekend screenings will be on the historic main screen and validated parking is available in the 10th and L Street garage. For showtimes visit www.thecrest.com

Review: The Cove

2009-09-08T02:44:25Z

There’s something about the title “The Cove” that makes me think of a teen horror movie. But “The Cove” is a horror movie of an entirely different kind – a documentary about routine dolphin slaughters in Taiji, a small coastal town in Japan, and the degree of cover up and misinformation that keeps the practice from becoming common knowledge. This is a tough movie to watch, with brutal and graphic footage, but that’s also a large part of why the film exists – to capture on video what the local industry has tried to keep hidden.

This is a message movie, made to get the word out. It’s the kind of movie that demands that a reviewer actually divulge the content.

This is unusual for me and if you intend to watch the film, you might want to stop reading this column. But most of you won’t watch it (judging by the fact that I was the only viewer at a recent screening) and the message is too important to skirt around.

The film makes its central point, that there is a hidden cove where thousands of dolphins are captured or killed, in the opening minutes. The rest of the project is an unveiling of the background to this issue and essentially a “making of” film documenting the team of assorted experts who stealthily infiltrate the barricaded area around the cove to videotape the killing.

This team coalesces around Ric O’Barry, one of the most prominent dolphin activists in the world. Ironically, he’s famous for being the guy who captured and trained all five of the dolphins used in the “Flipper” TV series – the show credited for making everybody dolphin-crazy in the first place. But as he himself says, he spent 10 years buying a new Porsche every year off the dorsal fins of dolphins, and has spent the last 35 trying to free dolphins from captivity. He was arrested for attempting to free his first dolphin the day after Kathy, the lead “Flipper” dolphin, died in his arms – or as he describes it, committed suicide. There is a earnestness to O’Barry and his cause that isn’t present when Michael Vick condemns dog-fighting or when Bristol Palin promotes abstinence.

Taiji is the world’s largest source of dolphins for aquariums and dolphinariums around the world. A healthy trained female bottlenose dolphin (just like the ones in “Flipper”) can bring in $150,000. But all the others, herded by fleets of boats into Taiji, are sold for whatever their meat is worth (approx. $6,000 apiece). Japan is the world’s holdout nation when it comes to whaling in general, a trade supposedly controlled by the International Whaling Commission (IWC), but the IWC exempts dolphins and porpoises from regulation.

The film details how the Japanese have managed to manipulate the IWC not only with dubious data and reports (“we have to kill the dolphins because they’re eating all the fish”) but also by essentially buying the votes of small countries that wouldn’t otherwise care about whaling or even be members of the IWC. The film shows IWC delegates who can’t name a whale species and, for example, several Eastern Caribbean island nations who have expensive Japanese-funded fishing centers that aren’t even used.

Additionally, as apex predators in a food chain, dolphins are now illustrating our own worst fears regarding fish consumption and mercury poisoning. The US Food and Drug Administration allows 1 part per million (ppm) of mercury contamination in seafood and the Japanese allow 4 ppm. In the film, a Japanese University Professor finds 2000 ppm in a sample of dolphin meat from Taiji. Mercury poisoning is a tricky subject in Japan, where there is a history of death and birth defects, most notably in the case of Minimata disease in the 1950’s, where methyl mercury was released in industrial wastewater and poisoned the local fish and seafood around the city of Minimata.

While whale meat is somewhat accepted in Japan, dolphin meat is not - at least not as much and not outside of these smaller communities. In Taiji itself, at the whaling museum that also controls the dolphin trade, one can actually watch a dolphin show while eating dolphin. Elsewhere, as the film shows, dolphin meat from Taiji is sold and packaged as other species of whale – not only inaccurately labeled but also masking the contamination risk to consumers. In another attempt to get rid of the excess dolphin meat, local officials actually proposed supplying the school lunch program.

The assembled team is comprised of an odd mix of adventurers, free divers, and special effects and tech experts – the kinds of people who can hide video cameras in fake rocks. Amid close scrutiny from the local ‘fishing’ community and town officials, they proceed to document the slaughter in the cove that runs red from the blood of dolphins who are repeatedly stabbed until they drown. At one point, both a local official and the IWC delegate are seen proclaiming the newly adopted humane killing techniques as they are each confronted by video taken by the team.

This is a powerful and shocking film and a topic that is sadly under-exposed. For more information about the film and the problem visit www.takepart.com/thecove.

Update: For the first time, sufficient media gathered in Taiji on Sept 1st to delay or stop the start of the dolphin season.

Review: District 9

2009-08-22T19:04:17Z

District 9
Directed by Neill Blomkamp

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

Sitting at the Number 1 spot in this week’s box office rankings and modestly masquerading as a relatively low-budget creature feature, “District 9” is brought to you in a hands-off way by producer Peter Jackson (the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy).

I say masquerading, as it’s really quite an insightful commentary on politics and international power-brokering, both past and current. The story has aliens arriving over Johannesburg, complete with their clearly superior technology and weaponry but also with a broken spaceship and apparently no intergalactic towing service. This results in two outcomes – a giant refugee camp for the stranded “prawns, “as they become known, and a great desire to crack the potentially lucrative mystery of their guns, which don’t operate in human hands. The film unfolds in the style of a news story or reality TV show, as we watch a mid-level manager undertake the manipulative relocation of 1.8 million refugees from their longstanding slum environment to a new purpose-built tent city.

But what is most noteworthy is the effective way that the film reflects our treatment of not just refugees, but people who we deem unworthy of integration. Being set in South Africa, it’s impossible to watch the movie and not think of Apartheid. But it also looks like a cross between Gaza and any number of shanty towns worldwide, with a trapped population driven to desperation in the face of a complete lack of opportunity. It’s also uncomfortably believable to watch the policing of this fictional environment being performed not by the quasi-UN-type organization depicted, but by a multi-national company of mercenaries and arms manufacturing who clearly have a greater vested interest in the hidden arsenal than in the well-being of the prawns.

Like the best of the genre, this is science fiction against a backdrop of our political and social vulnerabilities and shortcomings. The aliens and their city-sized cosmic-utility-vehicle may be hard to believe, but the humans and their actions are all too real. “District 9” is the best sci-fi of the year, with more thought-provoking content than four years at Starfleet Academy—and without all the financial aid.

An Unlikely Double-Header: Funny People & The Hurt Locker

2009-08-08T07:52:54Z

Funny People
Directed by Judd Apatow
&
The Hurt Locker
Directed by Kathryn Bigelow

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

At first sight, these two movies seem to have little in common, but watching them back-to-back while trying to catch up with the summer’s offerings reveals interesting similarities. “Funny People” is the latest from the Judd Apatow machine (‘The 40 Year SuperKnocked Dewey Zohan Step Talladega Express’ or something like that) while “The Hurt Locker” is from Kathryn Bigelow, a dudette who makes movies for dudes (“K-19: The Widowmaker” & “Point Break”). While I’m on the topic of “Point Break” does anybody know what the dudest of dudes Keanu Reeves was doing in town last week?

Anyway, “Funny People” tells the story of comedian George Simmons, played by Adam Sandler, as a character who could easily be Sandler himself in terms of both the success and choice of projects. George appears to outsiders to have everything in life – a ridiculously large house, assorted expensive cars, and flights on private jets – but he also has a blood disease and a 92% chance of imminent death. Feeling unfunny in his malaise, he hires the younger Ira (Seth Rogan), who idolizes him, to write jokes and to be his assistant.

Part of the appeal of watching “Funny People” is the insider feel as the characters encounter a significant stream of celebrities playing themselves, along with the easy onscreen friendship between Rogan, Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzmann, who play three roommates in varying stages of show business success. Not only do the relationships feel real, but the circumstances feel like those I’ve seen with friends breaking into the industry.

The Hurt Locker” focuses on a team of bomb disposal experts in Iraq five years ago, facing the constant threat of improvised explosive devices in every unexplored piece of garbage on the trash-lined streets of war-torn Baghdad. The powerful performances are helped by the lack of stellar celebrity of the recognizable but relatively less well known lead actors (Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, and Brian Geraghty). This feels more like a character study than it might if one were watching Tom Cruise or Tobey Maguire (both minor punchlines in “Funny People”) defusing bombs.

Like “Funny People,” “The Hurt Locker” works in its depictions of both friendships and acquaintanceships because of the genuineness of the awkward and ugly moments. The verbal sparring is often more harsh than fond, even between buddies. While war is often depicted onscreen as a heroic endeavor, or at least as a series of tense but heroic moments, that’s not the focus here. Instead we see decisions made for many of the wrong reasons. Respect and trust are hard-won victories, not automatic outcomes of shared uniforms and roles.

What both movies have in common are individuals driven by needs so innate they obscure or destroy other pursuits. Most notable among these are personal relationships, both platonic and romantic. Sandler’s character is an inherently lonely man, who has squandered real connections in favor of shallow encounters. He is surrounded by fans and household staff, but nobody who he cares for or who cares about him. Renner’s character has become so good at what he does in the war zone that it makes more sense to him than the normal world. Their decisions and relationships are both driven by adrenaline rushes, whether in the face of high explosives or the explosive highs of fame and fortune.

There’s an addictive nature to what the movies show us. While the circumstances are extreme in both instances, the phenomena of choosing between career and relationships, or personal satisfaction versus the needs of others are more commonplace. I don’t immediately identify with either profession, but I can identify with the choices involved. I’m sure I’m not alone in that regard.

I enjoyed both movies at both surface and deeper levels, although both switch gears significantly along the way. “The Hurt Locker” has one or two scenes that seem somewhat inconsistent, although to some extent that fits the depiction of the inconsistency of combat.

“Funny People” switches between comedy and drama in a manner that some may find unappealing, especially those who are looking for one but not the other, but it also seems true to life in that regard. Both are journeys of self-discovery that take their central characters through painful introspection and not especially flattering or desirable realizations.

Both movies clock in at well over two hours and I wouldn’t recommend the double-header for any but the most ardent of movieholics, but I would recommend each to people who enjoy movies that package mood swings with a dose of soul-searching. Neither is especially surprising in their outcomes, but they are less about eventful surprises than about their respective character arcs.

Review: (500) Days of Summer

2009-08-08T07:45:44Z

(500) Days of Summer
Directed by Marc Webb

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

The Summer of the title is a girl and not the season and the movie tells the story of Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and 500 days during his relationship with her (Zooey Deschanel). This could be a fairly mundane story, with few significant surprises, except for the way in which it’s told. And that telling will appeal to some audience members and drive others completely crazy as to some extent the movie becomes more about the form than simply about the tale, a phenomenon that often leaves me on the crazy side of the fence but which this time around I found really appealing.

As the story unfolds, the audience is presented with an onscreen counter that tells us which day of the relationship we are on and the story itself is completely non-linear. Such stories are sometimes frustrating, depending on the effectiveness of the direction, as they jump from one point in time to another without immediate clarity in the chronology. In this movie, we always know exactly what moment we’re experiencing and it rapidly becomes both a roadmap and a running inside joke.

This is just one visual trick in a movie that employs several, perhaps one or two too many, which on balance I enjoyed. Mainstream feature films are often very formulaic in nature, whereas short films and music videos are often more visually innovative. “(500) Days…” is a debut feature from a director, Marc Webb, who has previously made shorter projects and seems to have carried that innovation forward, in my opinion successfully.

Certainly to the advantage of the overall outcome, Gordon-Levitt and Deschanel are both appealing and believable in most moments of their respective roles as the hopeful and smitten young man and the girl who is skeptical about the existence of true love. This is a story that could fail purely on an absence of chemistry and audience sympathy with other actors in these roles, but they are well matched and effective during both the highs and the lows of their relationship. Additionally, the movie has one of the best pairs of opening and closing scenes I’ve seen in a while, contributing to my overall positive response.

Interview: Trash Film Orgy's Co-Producer Christy Savage

2009-07-10T21:36:26Z

Trash Film Orgy
Saturdays, Midnight (doors open at 11:30pm), July 8th – August 15th
Crest Theatre

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

As well known to the veteran loyal fans (many of whom routinely wear zombie makeup) as it is completely unknown to more formal film festival goers, the Trash Film Orgy (TFO) opens its 9th season this Saturday, at midnight at the Crest. Every week of the season, TFO showcases a cult or B-movie offering with audience participation, in the form of competitive loud witty banter during the movie, not just permitted but encouraged. I asked TFO Co-Producer Christy Savage a few questions about the concept and this season’s lineup:

Tony: Could you explain the basic concept behind TFO?
Christy: The Trash Film Orgy is really all about fun. We embrace the sensationalism of the old Grindhouse movie shows, the fun of the Drive-In experience and the no-holds barred attitude of the Midnight Movie. We strive to give our audiences a truly unique, enjoyable theatre experience, while presenting the best in 35mm cult and exploitation cinema.

Tony: You’ve clearly had a taste for Trash Films for a long time, how did that first translate to the TFO festival idea?
Christy: Back in the late 90’s, our buddy Keith Lowell Jensen was doing a movie show, the Thursday Night Grindhouse, at the Colonial Theatre, and we were doing a similar sort of thing on Cable Access TV: Deth’s Oogly Hed. When Keith lost his partners in the Grindhouse, he suggested we team up to do a show at the Crest and well...the rest is history.

Tony: The screenings are a little unique in their audience participation, are there any guidelines and rules for audience members?
Christy: Once again, the key word for TFO is FUN! We strongly encourage folks to play along and have fun at our shows, but of course we do expect our audience to also be respectful of others and show normal common decency. For instance, we’re fine with heckling, but please don’t just yell non-stop obscenities...that’s not fun for anyone, just annoying. Practicing common sense wherever you are can really go a long way...after all, we’re all adults here.

Tony: For non-TFO regulars, could you describe a few of the other things someone might expect to find at TFO?
Christy: You would be wise to expect the unexpected! You never know what you might find at TFO - that’s part of the fun! But some ‘normal’ TFO things would include: Lots of folks in costumes; lots of zombies; lots of beautiful, scantily clad ladies; ridiculously silly stage shows; interactive games and contests; original and vintage shorts; and the finest in late-night cinema fun!

Tony: What are some of this year’s highlights?
Christy: Besides an awesome sampling of the best in cult cinema, we will also be welcoming back our original host-Francois Fly! We will be transforming the Crest Lobby into the seedy spectacle that is Trashville - an interactive shanty town full of fun and surprises. We will also be welcoming legendary director Jim Wynorski when we screen “Chopping Mall” on July 25th and hosting a Vampire Prom when we show “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” on August 1st. And so much, much more.... [Note: These two screenings coincide with the Sacramento Film & Music Festival, July 24th - August 2nd at the Crest Theatre, and Festival Passes are also honored at TFO]

Tony: Not satisfied with just screening Trash, you’re now making Trash - what’s next for TFO Productions?
Christy: Our last film “Monster from Bikini Beach” managed to gain us quite a bit of attention and excellent reviews, so our big focus now has indeed become making our own feature films. This year, we are making a brand new and exciting film: “Planet of the Vampire Women.” It’s an action-packed sci-fi adventure of the galaxy’s sexiest space pirates who pull off the ultimate heist only to crash into an unknown world. Finding themselves trapped on a storm-shrouded planet overrun with monsters, the intergalactic outlaws unknowingly awaken an unspeakable horror that causes the dead to walk...with an insatiable lust for blood!

TFO schedules and archives are available online at www.trashfilmorgy.com

Review: Public Enemies

2009-07-04T00:15:19Z

Public Enemies
Directed by Michael Mann

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

“Public Enemies” tells the story of bank robber John Dillinger (Johnny Depp), who became both the nemesis and the inspiration for J. Edgar Hoover as he was expanding the FBI. It’s a film that I would expect to enjoy, despite not being a big Depp fan, as it has numerous other cast members and the fact that I usually like cops-and-gangsters themes. But there are aspects of the project that took me out of the moment and left the whole experience feeling flat.

I’ve enjoyed the work of Christian Bale (Special Agent Melvin Purvis) and Stephen Dorff since they were both child actors, albeit with some misses, and I especially liked the appearance here of some other favorites in smaller supporting roles: Billy Crudup (as J. Edgar Hoover), Rory Cochrane, and Giovanni Ribisi. But the film takes a somewhat stand-offish tone with the characters. After initially introducing the major protagonists, we don’t seem to be encouraged to sympathize with either side. It’s hard to tell if this is an attempt at being non-partisan or an avoidance of the inherent risk of having an audience side with a doomed character. But the outcome made me feel detached, not really caring too much about anybody’s ultimate fates. And there is a lot of ugly fate at work. In recent years police have lamented the advanced fire power of criminals, but there are enough bullets flying around in “Public Enemies” to destroy vehicles and buildings, as well as human bodies.

My larger problem with the film, and this may have been very personal, was in the manner in which it was shot. There was a turning point in the movie for me, during a scene at the Little Bohemia Lodge, in the woods of Wisconsin (and a historic location in the Dillinger story), when the nature of the action and cinematography suddenly made me acutely aware that I was watching video and not film. I’m not sure why it hadn’t occurred to me sooner than that, but it then bothered me for the rest of the movie. Film and video, depending on quite how the video is shot and what cameras are used, have a different appearance and at times “Public Enemies” felt like an extremely high budget home movie, or at least something that seemed sub-par for a production of this type, more like the video standards of a few years ago.

The story itself seems sound, and the problems I perceived may not bother others. But I came away from it in a strangely ambivalent mood, wondering if I would have liked it even less with a different cast or liked it better with different cameras.

Review: Transformers - Revenge of the Fallen

2009-06-26T17:50:27Z

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Directed by Michael Bay

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

Describing this movie is an almost pointless exercise. It’s not going to be seen—or not seen—because of what critics think, or based on minor details like logical storytelling and plot coherence (or the lack thereof). It’s a movie that will be raved about by fanboys and by those who just dig 150 minutes of sequentially coordinated but also oddly disjointed special effects. In that regard, it’s a visual orgy of arbitrary excess.

That arbitrariness often comes in the form of clashes between the signature “alien robots” with no real sense of logic as to who is likely to win in any such encounter. That the Autobots win more on balance than the Decepticons seems to have very little foundation other than the old movie phenomenon that suggests that good guys are stronger and shoot straighter than bad guys. We are somewhat reliably informed that Optimus Prime (a juggernaut of a good guy) is going to win any reasonably fair fight, which makes one wonder if it’s really that fair, but you could reverse the outcome of almost any other clash without really affecting much or noticing the difference.

You’d have to watch the movie at about quarter speed to actually pay close attention to the robots as they make their extraordinarily complicated transformations from vehicles or appliances to hyper-articulated fighting machines. There isn’t an ounce of subtlety in the movie – not that any is expected from either the material or the director. The first sight of Megan Fox, for example, is in short shorts, from behind, as she stretches across a custom motorcycle. If she’s the objectified object of lust, and she is, then most of the other characters are just as broadly painted archetypes.

This is a movie that stalls in the midst of a headlong quest for the ultimate weapon for an unlikely romantic interlude, and which can somehow take us through the back wall of the Air and Space Museum directly into an airplane graveyard somewhere in the desert. It’s clearly more of a commercial for the US military and Chevrolet than for Mapquest or MENSA. But Shia gets sweaty, Megan gets skimpy, his parents provide moderately comic relief, robots share b-movie witticisms as they pound on each other, and many, many, many things explode. And those are what will ultimately matter as it takes the box office crown for a week or two.

Review: The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

2009-06-14T04:37:20Z

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3
Directed by Tony Scott

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

In the early-mid 70’s, my father subscribed to the Reader’s Digest Condensed Book series. This was my introduction to “The Taking of Pelham One Two Three,” “Jaws” and assorted other titles. I remember liking the story and, later, I enjoyed the 1974 film adaptation starring Walther Matthau and Robert Shaw. I don’t recall watching the 1998 TV remake, which, based on web comments, may have been a good thing, but it’s fair to say that this 2009 adaptation had to fill some pretty big shoes from my adolescence.

It’s a different film for a different time – there’s more blatant violence than I remember. John Travolta, as the lead subway hijacker, is unsympathetic and coarse. Denzel Washington, as the subway controller who takes the initial call (changed from a traffic cop in the original), is an overworked civil servant in the wrong seat at the wrong time. And a lot has changed in over three decades. You can’t realistically tell a story about a subway hijacking in New York City, or perhaps anywhere, without the subject of terrorism entering the screenplay, even if only as a source of fear.

But despite the differences and updates, the movie still works. It’s well-acted and tautly directed in real time, with neat action and solid secondary characters, including John Turturro as a hostage negotiator and James Gandolfini as the mayor. The basic plot elements remain the same, with the complexity and fears associated with the capture of a subway train under busy city streets being as compelling now as ever. Thirty-plus years later, “Jaws” still scares me when I’m swimming, and “Pelham” still entertains me.

Review: My Life in Ruins

2009-06-06T06:10:11Z

My Life In Ruins
Directed by Donald Petrie

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

“My Life In Ruins” is a little how I felt about my morning after watching this film. This is the follow up to “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” with several of the same production team (including Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson, who also has a small role) and lead actress Nia Vardalos (who wrote the earlier movie but simply acts, or acts simply, in this one). “My Big Fat Greek Tour Guide Job” would be a more honest title.

I’m not being a snobby film elitist here, knocking the lightweight romantic comedy genre. I enjoyed the first movie, and often dig even very formulaic offerings of this kind. But this is heavy in execution and featherweight in outcome. It plods along with stereotypical characters who are poorly cast, moderately offensive themes (ha ha ha, gay men are funny!), and virtually nothing that can’t be seen coming a mile away through a dirty bus window.

Put simply, it’s bad. It’s stiff and so broad in its portrayals that it resembles children’s theater or British pantomime. Vardalos often seems to be projecting her performance towards the back row - of the theater across the street. Her character, Georgia, is a laid off professor working as a tour guide. And not a very good one for the average package holiday participant who, we are told wants fun, shopping and sex, not anything resembling facts or history. The movie would have us believe she has lost her mojo, Austin Powers style, or “kefi” as the Greeks apparently call it. Her quest to regain it is championed by Richard Dreyfuss, as an aging tourist who’s lost his wife but not his own rambunctious kefi.

All of which would play better with a laugh track. Not because it’s funny, but because it needs some laughter coming from somewhere. I can’t remember a movie that seemed to be trying so hard at every step, yet stumbled so consistently. If you thought it was hard to maintain continuity in scenes with burning cigarettes of different lengths or wine glasses with levels that go up and down, watch out for the scoop of ice cream that changes size, shape, and lick patterns.At least in the movie, the bus tour gets better. Sadly, the movie itself doesn’t.

Review: Night at the Museum - Battle of the Smithsonian

2009-05-23T07:03:23Z

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian
Directed by Shawn Levy

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

I was pleasantly surprised by “NatM:BotS” and it may be one of those rare sequels that manages to surpass the original, albeit by taking a slightly different tack.

Ben Stiller returns as Larry Daley, erstwhile museum night guard and now successful inventor and infomercial pitch man (supported in his commercial enterprises by another pitch man, George Forman). His old work place, New York’s Museum of Natural History, is undergoing renovations and updates, and the exhibits are scheduled to be archived in Washington. This of course is problematic, given the presence of an ancient Egyptian artifact that re-animates those exhibits at night. Suffice to say that the move is not entirely smooth, and fighting breaks out amongst the new residents and their incumbent neighbors.

Where the original movie was driven by the basic concept of museum exhibits that come to life, the sequel succeeds by going beyond that. This one is more character-driven, with greater time dedicated to appreciating the new historical figures involved, including Amelia Earhart (another delightful performance by Amy Adams), Kahmunrah (the older brother of the owner of the magic artifact – played by Hank Azaria, who also gives voice to two other characters), and Napoleon Bonaparte (in a scene stealing performance by Alain Chabat). Azaria in particular is given a lot of time and opportunity to engage Stiller, and “wins” most of the shared time on screen. Much of this novelty is at the expense, however, of the relatively under-utilized returning characters who are given very little to do—most notably Robin Williams.

One nice additional touch is the animation of the paintings on the walls of the Smithsonian, but it’s offset by some flaws in the internal logic of the film. At one point, Larry and Amelia get to fly the Wright Brothers’ first plane, the Wright Flyer. The real plane made a historic but very short and straight flight before falling victim to a stray gust of wind. But they fly it like it’s an air show stunt plane, crop duster and an X-Wing fighter all rolled into one. Later, they put a suspiciously heavy load in a Lockheed Vega.

The film also makes no suggestion of there being a range of effect for the magical reanimating artifact, whether above or below ground. It might actually be more fun—and plot-helpful—for characters to lose their mojo as the artifact moves out of some pre-determined range.

All of which is not really the kind of analysis that may seem appropriate for a kid’s movie. But a film like this should also be somewhat respectful of actual historic characters and objects, in my opinion. You could come away from this thinking the Wright Brothers were simply bad pilots of an awesomely capable plane, for example. That said, I had a far better time than I expected. I recommend it.

Review: Terminator Salvation

2009-05-23T06:59:26Z

Terminator Salvation
Directed by McG

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

If the recent “Star Trek” was a total system reboot of an aging franchise, then “Terminator Salvation” is more like a welcome software upgrade, complete with flashier graphics and increased memory.

Set in 2018, it follows John Connor (Christian Bale) as he exhibits inspiring leadership in the battle against Skynet and the machines. If all of this seems a bit familiar, with outposts of humans battling overwhelming odds against hard to kill opponents led by a crusty Bale, it may not be the previous “Terminator” movies that you’re thinking of. At times it’s a little reminiscent of “Reign of Fire” only with bullet-spewing robots instead of fire-spewing dragons. And slimmed down bat-bikes.

All of which works pretty well. There’s nothing especially groundbreaking here, but it hums along quite nicely in a manner that ably jump-starts the series. “Terminator Salvation” is directed by McG, a former music video director who helmed the two big screen adaptations of the “Charlie’s Angels” franchise, and who manages here to interrupt the early scenes of this movie with one of the most gratuitous and redundant onscreen director’s credits I can recall.

One of the most interesting aspects of the movie, for industry watchers, is the second half of the sudden rise to ascendancy of Anton Yelchin, as Kyle Reese, John Connor’s time traveling teenaged father. Just a week ago, he was hitting the big screens as Pavel Chekov in the aforementioned “Star Trek.” In other interesting casting notes: Both Helena Bonham Carter and Jane Alexander have small roles that seem undemanding with respect to their talents; much of the movie is carried by Sam Worthington, not Bale; and a secondary but pivotal character is played by Moon Bloodgood, who seems destined to be the best ever use of a single vowel purchase on a future episode of “Wheel of Fortune.”

At some early screenings, there are gimmicky little movie-related gifts. At the end of “Terminator Salvation” I was expecting a network cable or an organ donor card. Instead I had to settle for a modest sense of contentment regarding a series that will be back. Probably starring Anton Yelchin.

Review: Angels and Demons

2009-05-16T07:10:56Z

Angels and Demons
Directed by Ron Howard

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

“Angels and Demons” is the second movie made from a Dan Brown book featuring the character of Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks). The other is “The Da Vinci Code” and while the “Angels and Demons” novel appeared first, the films are being presented to audiences in the reverse order, with the implication in the film that the stories are sequentially switched. This works in the sense that the events of the two novels are independent of each other and the sequence is unimportant, so there’s no real point in selling the second film as a prequel just to preserve the original publication order. But it also presents some problems of another kind, both in the production and the marketing of the film.

“The Da Vinci Code” is canonically offensive to many Christians, especially the Catholic Church, and the Vatican was not supportive of the new film production, even obstructive, according to director Ron Howard. The other problem with the notoriety of the first film is that the stories are extremely different in both tone and content. “Angels and Demons” is a fairly straightforward murder mystery that happens to be set in the context of the Vatican during the time of the selection of a new Pope. If people are expecting another story that challenges basic church teachings then they will either be surprised (pleasantly or otherwise) or disappointed. If it’s offensive at all, it’s simply in treating the church and its traditions as a backdrop to murder and intrigue, which some may find crass, but it doesn’t contradict doctrine as “The Da Vinci Code” does. The film is actually quite respectful towards faith and people of faith.

Hanks reprises the role of Langdon, a Harvard professor and expert in religious symbols, who is called in by the Vatican (irony: common usage) to help solve a threat. He’s joined this time around by the always reliable Ewan MacGregor (as the Pope’s assistant, or ‘Camerlengo’), Stellan Skarsgard (as the Commander of the Swiss Guard), and Armin Mueller-Stahl (as a senior cardinal). The outcome is another film that is as slick in its presentation as one might expect from Howard, Hanks, and colleagues, and it’s entertaining in a shallow ‘whodunnit’ kind of way, but the story itself is really quite mundane and even somewhat flawed.

Without getting too deep into the film’s plot, there’s a threat against the lives of several cardinals, with a series of hourly deadlines that determine their safety. This ought to be the story’s strongest asset, as it should represent a plot that never lets up, progressing at a breakneck pace throughout. However the film preserves the book’s tendency to pause between events. This is a story in which you’d expect Hanks’ character to end the day wearing the same shirt he got blood on several hours earlier, not to give him time between deadlines to stop, clean up, and change into fresh clothes, with enough extra time for MacGregor’s Camerlengo to compliment his appearance. Isn’t there a cardinal somewhere that needs saving!?

In short, if you’re looking for a well-produced but routine murder mystery with a Vatican setting, then “Angels and Demons” is a satisfying holy rollercoaster, albeit also a fairly graphically violent one. If you’re expecting religion-redefining content and related controversy like that of “The Da Vinci Code” then it’s likely to make you question your faith in Hollywood’s ability to make people question their faith.

Review: Star Trek

2009-05-09T03:03:31Z

Star Trek
Directed by J.J. Abrams

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

I’ll open by cutting to the chase and saying that this is a neat movie, firing on all dilithium chambers and achieving everything I had hoped it would achieve, despite a host of hurdles to overcome. So what about those hurdles…

Star Trek has a back story that’s intimidating to say the least. One has to decide whether to stick to the original canon or branch off in a new direction and enrage a generation of fans. Or, in the case of Trekkies, a generation and a next generation of fans.

It’s now 40 years since the first TV series ended, and there have been six series, including an animated version, and 10 movies. Some of those projects have leapt off in different directions (“Star Trek: Voyager”) or gone back in time (“Star Trek: Enterprise”) in order to avoid conflicts with the mythology. So it was an ambitious plan to not only work within the existing setting, but to also with the original characters.

“Star Trek” tells the story of how those original characters came together as the crew of the Starship Enterprise. A lot of publicity has surrounded the choice of a fresh young cast to play the familiar names: James T. Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), Leonard “Bones” McCoy (Karl Urban), Montgomery “Scotty” Scott (Simon Pegg), Uhuru (Zoe Soldana), Hikaru Sulu (John Cho), and Pavel Checkov (Anton Yelchin – whose accent impressed my Russian friend). The whole lineup is well chosen and successful, with each actor given the opportunity to pay homage to their respective predecessor and shine in their own right. It would be a neat pick for a Screen Actors Guild cast award.

This is a movie on the grand scale of summery blockbusters – with great special effects and all the pizzazz one might expect. But what makes it work as well as it does is that it’s a great exercise in writing. Without giving away the plot, the filmmakers have managed to respect the origins of the series, update it and give it a refreshing new lease on life, and also leave the door wide open to more films that still protect that history.

I mildly enjoyed “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” a week ago, but “Star Trek” is like an object lesson in how to tell a back story in a manner that pleases fans, old and new. George Lucas could learn a lesson or two from this one. The rest of us can just have a blast watching it. Set phasers—and opinions—to stun!

Review: Battle for Terra

2009-05-02T06:01:29Z

Battle for Terra
Directed by Aristomenis Tsirbas

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

“Battle for Terra” is the latest politically-charged kids’ movie. It’s also the latest to come to the screen—where available—in ‘Real D’ 3D. Thankfully, it didn’t seem quite so overt in its pandering to the 3D technique and, as such, I think I enjoyed the effect more than when I feel like I’m being played by having things cinematically thrown at me.

Alternatively titled as just “Terra” the story expands on an idea that director Aristomenis Tsirbas explored in a seven minute animated short of the same name in 2003. We’re first introduced to an alien world of seemingly near-idyllic bliss, with a capable but seemingly low-tech species who fly and float around their planet in harmony with their neighbors and surroundings. This setting is disturbed by the appearance of an object in the sky, initially prompting religious questioning, but resulting in an attack by humans. We are told that in our future, humans have exhausted the limits of Earth and have terra-formed both Mars and Venus, with a subsequent war of independence between the planets resulting in disaster and a group of survivors on a quest for a suitable new planet to colonize.

For starters, the resource-centered themes are as heavy here as in any kids movie. But there’s also the even deeper question of the morality of invasion, conquest, and dominance. The story happens to focus on humans and aliens, but the message might just as easily be directed at perceptions of ethnic/religious superiority or the disregard towards native populations portrayed throughout our own history by assorted waves of expansion. Interestingly, the film also shares with “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” a strong message of questioning authority and not following orders that seem contrary to societal lessons about right and wrong. It’s certainly well matched to the resurgent torture debate.

The imagery is designed to appeal to children. Though there is too much death and destruction for the youngest among them, and the material is certainly not lightweight and could prompt some pretty heavy discussions in the minivan/crossover/SUV on the way home from the theater. There’s also a resemblance to “The Village,” in the idea of a group of elders sheltering their people from reality, in a manner they believe to be for their benefit. It’s probably better than “The Village” in that regard, but then that bar is Shyamalanningly low.

I enjoyed “Battle for Terra” more than I expected to. It’s a modern day futuristic parable, and it’s worth knowing a little of what to expect before walking in with the kids. It’s also probably not the film to have your kids watch with other parents who don’t share your political ideals, as it has the potential to cause a few sparks to fly.

Review: X-Men Origins: Wolverine

2009-05-02T05:56:25Z

X-Men Origins: Wolverine
Directed by Gavin Hood

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

At the end of this movie, one of my reviewer colleagues remarked about superhero back stories and their generally downbeat nature. He was right: After all, one doesn’t get a grudge, a revenge motive, or a haunted, dark personality from a childhood full of happy picnics in the park and adorable puppies. You start to feel bad for anybody who encounters these characters early on. It’s like watching TV’s “Seventh Heaven” and sympathizing with anybody who had the misfortune of encountering the Camden children – only more violent.

However, in all of its dark moodiness, “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” is a fairly fun ride. After seeing the previews, I was expecting to spend more of my time in that eye-rolling “oh please” mode, watching endlessly ridiculous stunts and fight sequences. But there were only a couple (watch out for the helicopter and fire escape sequences) that really reached that ‘Legolas riding a shield down a Helm’s Deeps staircase’ level – the film equivalent of the ‘Fonz’ jumping the shark on “Happy Days.”

Hugh Jackman continues to play the Wolverine role well. He’s joined here by Liev Schreiber as his even moodier but equally likely to snag a sweater older brother, Sabretooth. They’re both recruited into a secretive military unit headed by William Stryker (played by Danny Huston – previously played by Brian Cox in X2). But when things don’t go quite according to plan, the not-so-happy gang go their not-so-happy ways – until, of course, their not-so-happy paths cross again. Not so happily.

I’m not qualified to judge whether “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” is faithful to the comic book origins of the story and characters. But it does a good job of providing a background for our hero while fitting quite nicely into the established sequence of the previous X-Men movies. There’s also a timely lesson in doing the right thing, or at least not doing the worst thing simply because one is told to do so by a superior officer. It should appeal to fans of the genre and subject matter and is fun enough to keep their friends and significant others pleasantly amused at the same time.

Note: Not only is there a scene after the beginning of the credits, but there’s also an extra scene after the end of the credits – so stick around until the very end.

Film Reviews/Discussion: State of Play & Sin Nombre

2009-04-24T23:27:36Z

State of Play
Directed by Kevin Macdonald

and

Sin Nombre
Written and Directed by Cary Fukunaga

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

The news media get a bad rap for assorted reasons. Every major outlet is either too liberal or too conservative, depending on whose eyes are doing the beholding – and regardless of how much one goldilocks (see urbandictionary.com) one’s way around the news channels, the commentators never seem to find one that’s just right. If it’s not perceived bias, then it’s the perception that stories are avoided in order to appease corporate overlords with corporately overlordish ties to the subjects of scandal.

This topic of avoidance surfaces briefly in “State of Play,” in which the Washington Globe’s crack reporter, Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe) is chasing down a story that is suitably full of suspicion, politicians, infidelity, and murder. The lead researcher for Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck) falls (or was she pushed!?) under a train while prepping for hearings that Collins’ committee is holding. McAffrey and Collins just happen to have been college roommates, and they lead us on classic whodunit with plenty of interest and a side helping of conflict.

The action also includes Helen Mirren as McAffrey’s long-suffering editor (“long suffering” being a job requirement for movie newspaper editors), Rachel McAdams as the newspaper’s online blogger, Robin Wright Penn as Collins’ wife, Jeff Daniels as Collins’ party whip, and Jason Bateman as a rather colorful co-conspirator. The cast is as solid as one might expect and if the story suffers, it does so as a result of an apparently obligatory but rather unsuccessful attempt to trick the audience.

“Sin Nombre” is written and directed by Student Academy Award winner Cary Fukunaga, who also won directing honors at Sundance for this film. It tells the powerful story of two young people who are brought together by the worst of circumstances. Sayra (Paulina Gaitan) is traveling from Honduras to the U.S. with her father and uncle. It’s the first time she has seen her father in years. He is leading the family towards an illegal border crossing after his own prior deportation. Willy (Edgar Flores) is a member of a violent Mexican street gang who is targeted by his former gang-mates after a deadly fall from grace. They meet on the roof of a freight train, amidst countless other aspiring undocumented workers.

But both “State of Play” and “Sin Nombre” are intriguing for other news-oriented reasons. Each tells timely stories in a manner that seems to beat the CNN’s and Fox’s at their own game – and they aren’t alone in doing so. Some of the best coverage of immigration issues in the last year has been in movie theaters (and covered extensively in this column: “The Visitor” and “Under the Same Moon” for example). Topics related to war and resources in the Middle East have also had ample recent screen time from 2007’s documentary of incompetent occupation “No End in Sight” to the surprisingly meaningful “Stop Loss” (2008) from MTV Films.

The critical force behind the circumstances in “State of Play” is the Blackwater-esque private military contracting firm PointCorp. The parallels are profound, from no-bid/yes-shoot government contracts in warzones, to a massive U.S. training facility, and post-Katrina “security” involvement. This is a story from a powerhouse writing team with all the right subject matter experience: Matthew Michael Carnahan (writer of “Lions for Lambs” and “Kingdom”), Tony Gilroy (writer/director of “Duplicity” and “Michael Clayton” and writer of the Bourne screenplays), and Billy Ray (writer of “Breach” and “Shattered Glass”). The extent of the power, reach and financial stakes in the contracting world are, not surprisingly, very well articulated.

“Sin Nombre” illustrates at least two current affairs topics remarkably well: The hardships and danger that people are willing to undertake for their chance at an illegal American dream, and the extent and nature of gang culture in Mexico. This is not a neighborhood group of thugs that Willy (or El Casper as he is known on the streets) can escape by running away. This is networked organization that can call ahead hits across vast distances and international borders. It’s as if two great American traditions have been studied, adopted, and combined – gun violence and corporate franchising.

I’ve watched and read many stories about government security contractors and, especially recently, the rise in Mexican gang violence. But we’re a nation in which many people get their news from comedy monologs, movie scripts, and crime shows that play out like last week’s headlines. That may seem like a sad state of affairs. It is reassuring at times to find stories that carry such interesting and powerful messages, whether it be the (very) thinly veiled corporate interests of “State of Play” or the blunt brutality of “Sin Nombre.”

They will, of course, still be filtered through our own political biases, but either way, it’s an interesting week at the movies.

Davis in last minute race to host "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" world premiere...!

2009-04-18T01:38:39Z

We often hear about internet competitions to name things, host things, win things, etc. Well, a couple of weeks ago, Hugh Jackman announced that he would travel to whichever town raised the highest number of votes, to host the wolrd premiere of the new "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" movie, complete with all the trappings and stars of a Holywood premiere.

Amazingly, as the clock ticks down to today's deadline, Davis is in the running to host the event!

Here's the original youtube video press release with Jackman making the announcement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-drLdnk-g24

To vote and help influence the outcome and maybe have a little Hollywood glamour and blitz in our own backyard, log-in and vote:

www.x-menorigins.com/premiere to VOTE FOR DAVIS (95616).

Review: Che - Parts One and Two

2009-04-13T21:12:35Z

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

Che: Parts One and Two
Directed by Steven Soderbergh

History, it is said, is written by the winners. But that's an over-simplification, or perhaps an over-complication: It's written by whoever write histories, from their own perspective. Japanese textbooks probably don't look like ours when it comes to WW II. Was George Washington a hero in a noble and justified War of Independence, or was Benedict Arnold a tragic hero in a traitorous Revolutionary War in the Colonies - that probably depends if you grew up in the US or the UK. I've also lived in the US South, where you still occasionally hear about the War of Northern Aggression.

I'm not a historian and certainly not an expert in the life of Dr. Ernesto Che Guevara. So I can't comment directly on where the accuracy lies or who might or might not approve of this account. But it feels like a fairly non-partisan depiction, as though the audience got to tag along with the man and the action that surrounded him. And, whether or not you admire or agree with his politics and policies, you do get the impression that he was a true believer of his own message, not a partisan hack or an opportunist. The film is epic in proportion, with two parts and a total running time of 4h 17m (plus an intermission). The toughest aspect of this isn't so much the sheer length but the relaxed pacing that makes it seem, if anything, even longer.

The first film tells the story of the Cuban revolution, from dinner table plotting to addresses at the UN years after the fact. It is interestingly non-linear, as it jumps from later speeches and appearances, to and from the jungles and mountains of Cuba. To some extent, if there's a hero or a tactical genius depicted here, it's Fidel Castro, who is seen calling most of the shots with Che (Benicio del Toro) following those instructions (something that is missing in the later Bolivian campaign). But it also demonstrates the concept of an insurgency that has the hearts and minds of an oppressed people behind it.

Watching the two halves back to back is interesting for multiple reasons. It doesn't just compare and contrast the events, but it also demonstrates what we are often told about Iraq and Afghanistan - that the same tactics won't necessarily work in different places and with different people. In the second film we see Che as he attempts to repeat the success of the Cuban experience in Bolivia. This is a very different account, entirely linear in presentation, and as different in outcome as is possible. Here we see the insurgency failing among a people who have no reason to trust either side. With peasants who are unimpressed with money, for example, because they have nowhere to spend it, and with a counter-insurgency that's playing from the insurgent's handbook.

While slow, the overall effect is also compelling, and one gets an impression of the hardships, victories, and losses that would be lost in a lesser telling. And the two halves play somewhat successfully independently of each other, especially the first as a stand-alone telling of the Cuban chapter. If you have an interest in this subject and you get a chance to catch this before it disappears, I would recommend seeing at least Part I - otherwise make a note to see it on DVD when it arrives. It's a another powerful and significant collaboration between Soderbergh and Del Toro, who both won Oscars for "Traffic" in 2000.

"Che" plays at the Crest Theatre through Thursday April 16th - see www.thecrest.com for showtimes and ticket information.

Brief Interview: Deon Taylor

2009-04-12T01:09:52Z

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

The Judges judge and the waiting line waits!

A little Hollywood-style excitement came to the Downtown Plaza on Saturday, April 4th. The event was an open casting call for the planned late night show “Up All Nite” from Deon Taylor Enterprises. Deon is a champion of local indie production, with a studio facility and multiple feature films and shows about to be released and productions that have remained in Sacramento despite the siren call of multiple, cumulative production incentives from other states and cities. I asked Deon a few questions in a quiet moment:

CW: Could you tell me a little about the concept behind “Up All Nite?”
DT: Basically the concept is to bring a live entertainment show here locally that highlights people that are in the entertainment space: writers, producers, directors, actors – whatever it is that you do – dancing! And to really highlight that because I feel there’s a lot of talent here locally and a lot of people who don’t really understand how to get into LA. Hopefully this show would let people see other people do their things and become an aid to help them get out.

CW: You’re producing a lot of material for TV and film here in Sacramento. Why Sacramento and why now?
DT: I think Sacramento now because I live here. I enjoy the area, I enjoy the place. Even though I’m in LA two or three days out of the week, I still come right back here. And like I said before, I think it’s a a growing market and I think there’s a lot of talent here and so I like to call myself one of the pioneers trying to bring entertainment into the space. Just like you man, you should be writing for Vibe or Entertainment Weekly very soon! [I laugh]

CW: So is this easier to do here because there aren’t 100 people on every street corner doing the same thing or would this be easier to do in LA?
DT: Yes and no. I think it would be received more easily in LA, but I think you have different battles. I think here the battle is trying to conform or change people’s mindsets to accept something like this here. Everyone wants to cheer when you fail and everyone wants to cheer when you win and you’ve got to make it work. Like I said, its different battles. In LA it would be accepted, but there’s 100 people doing it. Here it’s like will they accept it on top of them trying to accept it - can you keep their attention span long enough for them to want to have it more.

CW: What else else can people expect from Deon Taylor Enterprises?
DT: Everything man, everything. I’m working really hard to try to create a brand that speaks to all audiences from comedy, to horror, to cartoons, it doesn’t really matter. I have a lot of things in development. I think my next venture outside of shooting the film “Terminated” this summer is a cartoon I’m doing, called “Snappy the Lion” which is pretty funny and really cool. Snappy, like people are real snappy when they wake up or argumentative. Snappy!

One of the roles they were auditioning for was a cynical movie reviewer – so, naturally, I tried out. While in line I bumped into local actor and comedian Mikhail Chernyavsky, who seemed like a strong contender for the show’s host:

Mikhail Chernyavsky auditions for Up All Nite

CW: So why come down today?
MC: They had an audition for a TV show and as a standup comic that’s the natural transition for me. I want to do TV and I’ve always wanted to host a show and I’ve had fun hosting other [events] and I thought this would be a fun way to explore the Sacramento community!

Review: Adventureland

2009-04-05T00:53:45Z

Adventureland
Written and directed by Greg Mottola

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

“Adventureland” is a movie I almost loved but instead had to settle for really liking. Imagine a story about a man who gives up on the idea that chance will ever favor him or that he could ever be lucky again. In the end, he regains his faith in good fortune and buys a lottery ticket. That act demonstrates his change of heart. We don’t need to see whether he wins or not.

James (Jesse Eisenberg – drama’s counterpart to comedy’s Micheal Cera) had planned a post-college summer exploring Europe, but his hopes are dashed when his father’s demotion results in the loss of his cash graduation gift. With no marketable skills, he finds himself working the games booths at the local amusement park alongside an assortment of equally unenthusiastic colleagues. The outcome is an amusing and touching summer of life lessons and romantic missteps involving the love interest (Kristen Stewart), the dorky colleague and mentor (Martin Starr), and the quasi-legendary older dude (Ryan Reynolds).

“Adventureland” manages to capture a sense of time, place, and experience that is somewhat reminiscent of films like “Dazed and Confused” and “Almost Famous.” But it’s a slightly-removed sense of authenticity in that it feels more like the reminiscence of a memorable summer than merely an observance of one. Certain key characters (for example, the park’s owners, played by Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig) seem genuine, yet also slightly undeveloped in the manner in which one might recount their existence to others many years later (“I remember this time when…”). This is James’ story, and we only know the others to the extent that he did (or that writer/director Greg Mottola did).

I left “Adventureland” with an uneasy feeling that it had progressed one scene too far and I might have preferred it if it had stopped five minutes earlier. That said, I’d still recommend it, especially to those who had formative but menial seasonal jobs. It’s an easy sell for me – as somebody who teaches about the business side of recreation, I enjoyed the setting of the movie. I’m also a fan of well-executed coming of age movies—not necessarily “first sexual experience” movies, but movies in which characters reach a moment of significant realization regarding the human experience, at any point in life. After all, one “can come of age” at any age.

Review: Crossing Over

2009-04-05T00:50:40Z

Crossing Over
Written and directed by Wayne Kramer

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

Thirteen years after making a short film of the same name, writer/director Wayne Kramer (“The Cooler,” “Running Scared”) has revisited the topic for a feature that feels like three or four shorts spliced together. Unfortunately the outcome makes me wish they could be separated again and shown one after the other, with their respective overlaps encountered sequentially.

“Crossing Over” is the latest film to tell a story that weaves multiple lives, with a common theme that connects them. It’s successful on some levels, but it also suffers the fate of other similarly-structured films in that some of those connections have a small-worldiness that is almost distracting (I’m reminded of 1998’s “Dog Park,” which connected people in Los Angeles as though they lived in a village of 20).

The theme this time is immigration. “Crossing Over” attempts to be for immigration what “Crash” (2004) was for racism, which is a shame given that “Crash” played like an after-school special (“I’ve been a racist my whole life but my maid helped me when I fell and now I’m cured!”). To some extent it’s actually more successful than “Crash” because it isn’t preaching on content that’s quite so well established. Yet it trips over itself by trying to inject too many angles beyond the fundamental immigrant experience.

It’s often said that certain minority experiences can only be fully understood and appreciated by others with shared backgrounds. Perhaps the most interesting outcome of “Crossing Over” is the suggestion that the illegal alien experience is one of these shared-circumstances. I’ve seen this happen with a roomful of military “brats” watching a documentary about growing up in service families. As an immigrant myself, I can relate to the sense of powerlessness and vulnerability it entails, just as I recognized my Royal Air Force upbringing in the earlier screening.

However, at the narrative level, the twisted stories have been told better, separately, in multiple films over the past year or so: “Under the Same Moon” (a mother and son separated by the Mexican border), the excellent “The Visitor” (the vulnerability of the undocumented and legal callous disregard), “Towelhead” (cultural suspicions and fear), and “Gran Torino” (youth alienation and gang influences). A talented cast (including Harrison Ford, Ray Liotta, Ashley Judd, and Jim Sturgess) make “Crossing Over” pleasantly watchable, but can’t ultimately save it. “Crossing Over” is a much better starting point for a conversation about immigration than it is an inherently worthwhile movie-watching experience. But a trip to the video store with a copy of this paragraph would be far better.

Moviebrief: The Haunting in Connecticut

2009-03-31T10:54:40Z

The Haunting in Connecticut
Directed by Peter Cornwell

The only thing haunting about The Haunting in Connecticut is its haunting mediocrity. If you jumped during this movie, then most likely the ear-bleeding ambient soundtrack level overcame the the Ambien®-narrative slumber. And on we go to find true experiences of horror result in horribly found experiences of true ennui. B-list--ness is no excuse for being listless.

Lo! I expect I have lowered expectations. Enough? Enjoy.

Review: Sunshine Cleaning

2009-03-28T19:19:10Z

Sunshine Cleaning
Directed by Christine Jeffs

by Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

“Sunshine Cleaning” is another intriguing opening this week. When it opened in very limited release a couple of weeks ago, it generated the highest per-screen averages of any movie so far this year. And it’s easy to appreciate why when you see one of the most perfectly assembled film casts.

Rose (Amy Adams) is a single mother struggling to raise her son on her house-cleaning income. Her adulterous detective lover and ex-high school sweetheart Mac (Steve Zahn) happens to mention how lucrative the messy crime scene and death cleanup business seems, and a new startup is born. Rose enlists her less ambitious sister Norah (Emily Blunt) and leaves her son with their cranky father (Alan Arkin) as they head off to mop up blood and assorted other body fluids in a series of pungent venues.

What’s especially neat in all of this for those of us who like comparing faces and appearances, is the remarkable casting of Adams and Blunt as sisters – not just because they are such appealing and talented actresses, but because they look like they could fit into the same genes. And it works beyond just the two of them, as the rest of the family is unveiled. Zahn and Arkin are as appealing as ever. They are complemented by a wonderfully understated and physically impressive performance by Clifton Collins Jr. as Winston, the one-armed proprietor of a janitorial supply company.

Like the recent “Wendy and Lucy,” “Sunshine Cleaning” gains by the timing of its release. There’s something especially poignant in the current economic climate about a young mother juggling bills and trying to start a small business to make ends meet. And while the premise of the movie may seem conveniently contrived at first, it’s also an industry that is depressingly steady in its opportunities, and an equally steady source of both morbid comedy and genuinely touching moments – both of which provide an excellent return on investment.

“Sunshine Cleaning” is produced by the same folks who made Little Miss Sunshine, the delightful and under-appreciated “Everything is Illuminated,” and the upcoming “Is There Anybody There?” (with Michael Caine). They also have projects on the way from Sam Mendes (“American Beauty,” “Revolutionary Road”) and Philip Seymour Hoffman (in his directorial debut). That’s a pretty interesting and impressive list of projects. “Sunshine Cleaning” is a worthy and neat entry into the growing collection.

Review: Monsters vs. Aliens

2009-03-28T19:16:17Z

Monsters vs. Aliens
Directed by Rob Letterman and Conrad Vernon

by Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

This is an interesting release for Sacramento, for a couple of reasons. For starters, it’s set in California, with the initial action taking place in the Central Valley and the climax in San Francisco. But it’s also a bit of a departure from the established norm in this market, in that it’s being released in 3D on the giant IMAX screen on the same day as it hits the multiplexes – so you can pick your format without having to wait.

Susan (voiced by Reese Witherspoon) lives in Modesto, where she’s about to marry the local TV weatherman Derek (Paul Rudd). Derek is waiting to expand his horizons with a move to an anchor position in the larger Fresno market, but he isn’t quite ready for Susan’s expansion into giant womanhood, brought on by a direct meteor strike on their wedding day. Naturally, the newly enormous Susan is captured by the military, who house her with an odd assortment of previously found monsters, including a genius man/cockroach, an amorphous blue blob, an evolutionary missing link (Link), and a giant insect larva. The last of these is the least well developed, but also the subject of a cute running joke that has it guided around by a bright light suspended from a helicopter.

The monsters seem destined for a life of containment until a megalomaniacal alien arrives, intent on recovering the powerful substance from the meteor that has given Susan her strength and size. The basic story is very much geared towards children, with an interesting mix of animation that includes realistic objects such as chairs, tables, and machinery, but also very generically cartoony vehicles (unlike the perfect rendition of a VW Beetle in the recent “Coraline”).

Hidden within the kids’ storyline are a few small nuggets of humor for the adults, including stabs at San Francisco’s Tenderloin district and outsourcing to India. At one point, Link ponders whether the earth has become warmer and refers to what he perceives to be a desirable warming trend as a “convenient truth.” The movie also offers some appeal to older siblings by having the President voiced by Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert – who is also in the news this week for winning the popular vote in the bid to name a room on the international space station.

“Monsters vs. Aliens” is a fun ride for younger kids, and is just amusing enough to keep the rest of the family entertained. There are several scenes that are set up to benefit from the 3D effects, but the basic appeal of the movie would be preserved in 2D. That said, some of the multiplexes have a surcharge for 3D screenings that cut the price differential compared to the IMAX – so it’s mostly a matter of taste and magnitude.

Review: The Class

2009-03-21T06:42:42Z

The Class ("Entre les murs")
Director: Laurent Cantent

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

Set in Paris, "The Class" follows a year in the life of teacher Francois Marin as he tackles assorted challenges with students in his inner city high school. "Entre les murs" which is also the title of the adapted book, translates as "between the walls" and this may have been a better English title for the film also, as it conveys a better sense of the film being about a place and a dynamic as much as people that inhabit it. Much of the film takes place in one classroom. The director has described his approach to the film's style in part like that of a tennis match, with the majority of the perspective being from the side as the volleys of conversation are fired back and forth.

This is a multi-cultural classroom of diverse experiences, where Francois is teacher, referee, diplomat, sparring partner, and occasionally as much of an inadvertent instigator as his students are, as the ambiguity of language is examined. At one point, for example, he is accused by the students of being culturally insensitive by always using "whitey" names in his vocabulary examples. As is often the case, the faculty is significantly less diverse than the student body.

While many stories set in schools initially focus on a new student entering the school and encountering new classmates and situations, "The Class" starts with a scene in which the old and new faculty introduce themselves to each other and compare class assignments. The result is an almost Altman-esque film that has more to do with characters than plot, in a bureaucratic setting where faculty discussions of punishment and perceived impunity devolve into complaints about the price of coffee in the vending machine because the topic is less divisive.

Interestingly, Francois is played by Francois Bégaudeau, a teacher who wrote the book on which the film is based. The characters in the film are almost all played by their real-life counterparts: teachers play teachers, students play students, and film parents are played by the real parents. Much of the dialog was improvised on set to fit the constructed situations. Given this approach, it is especially noteworthy to point out that the film won the best adapted screenplay at the César Awards, along with four other César nominations, a best foreign language Academy Award nomination, and a win in that category at the Independent Spirit Awards.

"The Class" is compelling filmmaking, working as both the story of the classroom experience as well as a microcosm of a diverse society. Although set in Paris, this is a story that could take in any urban center. The themes translate better than the title.

Review: The Great Buck Howard

2009-03-21T06:39:23Z

The Great Buck Howard
Director: Sean McGinley

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

Based on the Amazing Kreskin, known for his appearances on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, “The Great Buck Howard” tells the story of a mentalist (not a magician!) with a similar Carson track record (“Johnny Carson, not that nitwit who’s on there now!”). Buck has long since faded from the A-list of talk show talent and now tours the country, performing his never-changing act in never-filled venues.

Soon to be put-upon road manager Troy drops out of law school, which was more his father’s dream than his own, and stumbles into working with Buck Howard as a day job in support of his desire to be a writer. It soon becomes apparent that while Buck has faded in the public eye, his own mind’s eye view of himself seems as clear and star-spangled as ever, and he still exhibits diva-like behavior and expectations. Meanwhile, he continues to consistently entertain, especially with regard to his signature trick.

The most noteworthy aspect of the movie is the cast, including John Malkovich as Buck Howard, Colin Hanks as Troy, Tom Hanks as Troy’s father (type cast!), and Emily Blunt (who may become this year’s most-seen actress, with as many as six movies slated for release) as a PR coordinator retained to publicize Buck’s attempt at a comeback. Malkovich in particular is wonderful in the role of the faded celebrity. Colin Hanks has his father’s talent for the natural “everyman” performance. Additional self-referential cameo appearances include Conan O’Brian, Martha Stewart, Jon Stewart, Tom Arnold, Gary Coleman, and George Takei.

Unfortunately, the story itself is little unfulfilling and bland in its resolution. This despite being amusing and engaging in the first half, with such neat touches as look-alike theater owners and Buck’s propensity to assume somebody is about to walk the other way despite his alleged mentalist abilities. On balance, “The Great Buck Howard” is probably worthwhile for fans of Malkovich or either Hanks, for those who enjoy anything pertaining to magic, and for anybody who appreciates insider jokes about the nature of celebrity and/or the logistics and experiences of touring acts. But even they may feel that it somewhat ironically fades in the third act, failing to maintain its earlier gloss.

Moviebrief: I Love You Man

2009-03-20T06:44:30Z

For a word-of-mouth pre-screening of “I Love You Man,” the studio challenged any guys in the audience to coordinate their clothing and make it a man date to remember, in return for preferential seating. The only two at the Downtown Century tonight who were up for it were Sac State students Ryan Johnson (left) and Alan Badarou (right). (With apologies for the poor quality photograph, courtesy of my cell phone!)

The film itself is a true bromantic comedy, taking all the cues of the typical rom-com and translating them into a platonic, man-man bromance. The outcome is remarkably funny and endearing, largely as a result of the performances of leading men Paul Rudd and Jason Segal. Rudd in particular is almost pitch perfect throughout as a guy who has never really had any male friends and who is trying just a little too hard to fit in and be cool. OK, a lot too hard.

But it also works as a result of a neat cast of secondary characters, all of whom fit and play well against each other. It’s hard to fault a project that finds a reason to put J.K. Simmons, Jane Curtin, Jon Favreau, and Lou Ferrigno together on screen.

"Sunshine Cleaning," which I haven’t seen yet and which opens in Sacramento next week, has had an exceptionally strong opening in other cities (the best per-theater averages of the year so far) – but for now at least, the funniest movie I’ve seen so far this year is “I Love You Man.”

Review: Race to Witch Mountain

2009-03-19T05:57:31Z

Race to Witch Mountain
Directed by Andy Fickman

“Race to Witch Mountain” is an interesting and ultimately successful retread of a franchise that goes back over 30 years to 1975’s “Escape to Witch Mountain” (and assorted theatrical and TV sequels and remakes). It’s very much a movie for kids, tweens, and the less cynical or gore-hungry teens, but it has themes and details that are designed to be appreciated by the adults in the audience, albeit probably the more left-leaning adults.

While many family movies pander to adults with mild (or worse) sexual innuendos or raunchy sight gags, “Race to Witch Mountain” is refreshingly free of any content that requires awkward explanations in the car on the way home. Instead, adults get lightweight cameos from the likes of Cheech Marin and Garry Marshall, neither of which is likely to be recognized by the movie’s primary target demographic. Additionally, the story is geared towards our current times and political climate and is notably different than the originals.

To the best of my recollection, in the original movies, the villains were scheming megalomaniacs of that generic kids’ movie bad guy type. It’s a product of our time that a movie like this gets remade with a mysterious government agency, armed with black helicopters and the Patriot Act, as the villain. Even the alien homeworld is depicted as having a short-sighted government and military, and the problem that has caused the visit to earth is related to rampant climate change. This probably isn’t a movie outing of choice for the local chapter of the young Republicans.

At its core, it’s still about a couple of aliens who look like human teenagers and who have powers that include telekinesis, telepathy, and the ability to pass through solid objects. After crashing near Las Vegas, the Disney-perfect duo, played by AnnaSophia Robb ("Bridge to Terabithia") and Alexander Ludwig ("The Seeker: The Dark is Rising"), pick the cab of Jack Bruno (Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson). Bruno is skeptical about these unsupervised kids carrying large sums of money, but he’s the ex-con cabbie with a heart of gold, and he gets dragged into their circumstances largely because he’s a nice guy.

The story is surprisingly well set up, with Bruno’s own backstory involving a group of generic thugs who, from a distance, are conveniently confused with the government agents who are tracking the kids, so Bruno initially thinks it’s him that’s being followed and not them. Las Vegas is also the coincidental venue for a marvelously geeky sci-fi convention (there’s some redundancy there) that acts as a neat background and plot point for a story about actual alien visitors. (Apparently the sci-fi crowd hasn’t received a government financial bailout and then been spanked for running off to Vegas for a meeting!)

“Race to Witch Mountain” is a perfect vehicle for Dwayne Johnson, who has been at his best so far with light and fun material that benefits from his apparent easy-going nature. He’s an actor who recognizes the source of his fame (as a professional wrestler) and doesn’t seem to have image hang-ups – as evidenced by his very loose appearances on “Saturday Night Live.” The two young actors in the movie are better than they might appear at first sight, required to play very awkward roles as characters who are not familiar with local language and customs, with the resultant stiffness being part of the act. Robb, in particular, already has an impressive resume and is a noteworthy actor in her age range.

Add an appealing dog, a Terminator/Predator-lite-like assassin, amusing tertiary characters, fun chases and loud but gore-free action, in addition to a storyline that already has appeal for kids of both genders, and you have a solid entry in the pantheon of family entertainment. This isn’t high-brow or an action film for fans more likely to enjoy the current “Watchmen” release, but it isn’t intended to be either and it works extremely well in the context of what it’s attempting to be.

Pop-Up Pop

2009-02-27T12:12:18Z

I started my Thursday evening at the opening night of the 2nd Annual Sacramento All Sketch Comedy Festival (www.AllSketch.com) which put me in the mood for more humor. This, added to the Sacramento Press readership’s love of music, fine artistry, and great depth, led me to end my evening at the midnight screening of Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience (!).

My first impression was that it was the least crowded midnight screening I can recall attending, with approximately 30 of the less curfew-challenged fans making little more than a slight dent in the capacity of one of the Century Stadium’s main dome auditoriums/auditoria (take your pick). My second impression was that 3D is apparently taking hold, for a while at least, given five previews for upcoming attractions in the format.

However there’s an odd irony in this project, given such a medium. 3D cinema is an attempt to take a traditionally two dimensional artform and enable it to better represent a three dimensional world. (Of course it always tends to do this by filming people thrusting and throwing things towards the camera for added effect, in a manner almost but not quite entirely unlike the way that people actually behave in that three dimensional world.) However, the three brothers Jonas have previously been converted from actual three dimensionality into a two dimensional market sensation by the folks at the house that Walt built and so it seems additionally artificial, like rehydrating a dehydrated food product.

Although not without significant talent, the Jonaseses are merely one of the latest commercially packaged music sensations, having risen to fame largely through their association with Miley “Hannah Montana” Cyrus, the achy breaky cash cow daughter of daddy Billy Ray. So these newest kids on the block follow assorted acts from the Monkees to the manufactured boy bands of the 90’s, although they may have most in common with Hanson, another brotherly threesome who had the audacity and skills to actually write, play, and perform their own material (and who grew to be far better than most media ever acknowledged) rather than simply line dance their way through somebody else’s tunes.

That said, the concert footage in the film is quite well done, proving that one doesn’t need Scorsese to make a decent concert film (take that Rolling Stones!). It’s hard to tell how many takes might have been employed and the clips seem fairly heavily edited from the overall show given a few wardrobe changes along the way. But it’s an energetic and showy performance, supplemented by both acrobatics and pyrotechnics, and a strange performance on the top of three tall columns that played out like a 1,550 year anniversary celebration of the death of Saint Simeon Stylites (take that Dennis Miller!).

The concert clips are the primary 3D material and they are interspersed with mostly 2D coverage of behind the scenes activities and tightly scheduled appearances, including a remarkably pointless-seeming occasion in which Times Square ground to halt while thousands of fans watched the Jonaseseses arrive in a motorcade, buy three freshly available CD’s in a publicist’s moist dream trip to the Virgin Megastore, and then leave. But the lowest low point of the movie is a self-contained music video shot in and around Central Park, in 3D, that plays almost like a parody of obviously lip-synced and staged performance video over studio audio. And it seems entirely out of place and poorly conceived in a film that otherwise clings to a slight semblance of authenticity.

By comparison, the high point is probably an appealingly edited sequence of clips over the closing credits. Either that or the weird auxiliary surround sound associated with singing audience members. After watching it with the midnight audience of just 30 or so, I would suggest earplugs and Xanax for a primetime screening.

This is a film that fans will hail as celluloid gold and non-fans will either avoid like the plague or respond to as if infected by the plague. Watching the brothers display their assorted talents also primes one for future Jonas trivia, like which Jonas fathers a child with Miley Cyrus in the lukewarm summer of 2012 and names it Bristol Palin Cyrus Jonas in honor of that other champion of abstinence education. If the Jonaseseseses are the spinoff of that other spinoff offspring, then Nick seems most likely to spinspinspinoff, perhaps with Kevin as his road manager and session guitarist, while Joe seems most likely to chase his dreamboat youth on a VH1 reality show for capsized dreamboats. That may be overly harsh and it’s based on nothing but totally unjustifiable conjecture, but I hope for their sake they have a good financial manager.