Film Review

The Happening

I wish M. Night Shyamalan would branch out into another genre. I assume he feels that horror/suspense is his niche, and it has served him well enough. He probably feels that this type of movie is what audiences expect of him. The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs were all great, or at least reasonably good films. The Village was ok (I'm one of those freaks that figured out the "twist" of that movie in the first few seconds) and Lady in the Water is best left unspoken about. The Happening falls into the "ok" category.

I had high hopes for the film, actually. Elements of the trailer were creepy and visually arresting. Yet, ultimately, it was disappointing on many levels.

The film starts out with a bang and immediately peaks your interest. Without giving away any plot details, it then degenerates into a preachy lesson. Another point: a reviewer recently wrote that Shyamalan has a way of getting poor performances out of good actors. While I don't agree with that wholeheartedly, it is true of this movie. Mark Wahlberg speaks in a higher register than we're used to hearing. He comes across as whiny and condescending (his acting when he talks to his students - he's a teacher - is abominable). Zooey Deschanel, as his wife, is completely out of her element here. She usually plays quirky roles, but this is supposed to be fairly straightforward...and she still tries to imbue it with some sort of quirkiness to no avail. They're supposedly having marital issues...and ya know what?...no one cares. Here's the ultimate proof: I have no idea what either of their characters' names were. No freakin idea.

John Leguizamo is wasted in a small role. Betty Buckley overacts in another small role. Shyamalan uses his usual tricks (like the character we've never seen/heard of before popping up to offer a different perspective/theory...and then whom we never see again), but I have to admit there are some truly horrifying moments (in a good way) along with a few truly humorous ones. However, there also seem to be major holes in the scenario/plot which I can't discuss here. Aggravating.

I don't know why this film was Rated "R," either. Must have been some sort of publicity stunt because there was nothing in this film which was any more gory than in The Sixth Sense and there was no major profanity and no nudity.

Did I like the film overall? No. I only liked moments of it. Shyamalan should put his ego aside and do something completely different.

Film Review

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

George Lucas ruins everything.

When I say "everything," I mean "every sacred childhood/adolescent/young adult movie-going experience and memory."

When I think back to the original Star Wars trilogy, I have terribly fond memories. More so of The Empire Strikes Back (directed by Lawrence Kasdan, not Lucas) than the other two films, but still, there were many thrills and surprises and genuine moments of awe. When it came time to do the new trilogy, I was sooooo looking forward to seeing them. Sure, the special effects were cool in all three newer films and there were moments where I was thrilled or awed. But, overall I came away from that trilogy with the thought: "You can't go back again, and ya know what? Maybe you shouldn't."

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull left me with that same thought.

Don't get me wrong - the performances were all good. Harrison Ford was Indy. Cate Blanchett was mighty hysterical as the villainess. Shia LeBeouf's character was a great addition to the series, and it was super-extraordinary to see Karen Allen again.

My expectations weren't incredibly high going in. But my expectations were to experience something akin to the original films. There was something magical about the original Indiana Jones films. Seeing him run through a cave fleeing a giant rolling boulder in Raiders of the Lost Ark seemed somehow plausible. And it still does in re-viewing. Seeing him ride a mine car in Temple of Doom or take that "leap of faith" in The Last Crusade were the same way. Even though the series is somewhat modelled after 1950s serials and pulp adventure, there was a certain element of believability in the action sequences, through a tongue-in-cheek mentality. You knew it was implausible for Indy to get through some of these things the way he did. But you merely felt it was him heroicism and dumb luck that got him through.

In this latest film, that's all gone. Some of the situations are sooooooo (and now add 5,000 more o's to that) implausible that it ruined any feeling of "going home again" or revisiting my childhood. There were a few moments of humor, mostly due to Steven Spielberg's direction and there is definitely chemistry between all of the actors. This, despite some of the most truly awful, trite and beyond "pulp" dialogue I have ever heard in my life. You could actually see Ford wincing his way through some of those lines. (George Lucas had storyline credit, though many screenwriters waded through this morass).

There's also too many modern filmmaking techniques. There's way too much CGI and not enough good-old (style) special effects which helped make the original films feel so special and "period." My friend Michael also pointed out that the lighting was high-def. Way too modern a look for this film.

There were nice homages to Sean Connery and Denholm Elliott. There were occassional moments of magic due in large part to the actors. But overall, it was highly disappointing.

Look, I know you can't please everyone. And I know the die-hard fans are hardest to please. But when you take away the basic elements of the original films and replace them with technological advances that are supposedly "better" and throw such inane dialogue at actors and audience alike, you're bound to not please anyone.

Maybe it'll serve as a transition film - a passing of the torch from Harrison Ford to Shia LeBeouf. I wouldn't mind seeing Shia take the reins and give us more adventures with his character...minus Indy. It'd be much like the film Star Trek: Generations where both Patrick Stewart (as Picard) and William Shatner (as Kirk) fought side-by-side, until Kirk's demise...therefore handing over the reins of the Star Trek film franchise to The Next Generation cast. Generations was an inferior film...but set us up for some fantastic adventures with the "newer" crew of the Enterprise. If there's a God, that's what will happen with these films. Otherwise, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull will have been in vain.

Oh - and the Crystal Skull itself? It's supposed to be made of quartz, and it's very large. However, it looked like a hunk of plastic stuffed with aluminum foil...and was treated that way by the cast. It never seemed to have any weight to it. Much like the film itself.

Film Review

Sex and the City

Now that the WNY Theatre scene has calmed down for a while, I can get back to other realms of entertainment. I went to a movie for the first time in months to see Sex and the City.


I always enjoyed the HBO series. I was never a rabid fan. I was more like a "Oh, that's on tonight. Guess I'll watch" kind of fan. I always found the show, at the very least, engaging. I was happy in the series finale when Carrie ended up with Big. But was I ecstatic enough to hope for a movie? No. I wasn't sure how many more stories could be told about these women.


That being said, I really liked the movie a lot. I loved the fact that they didn't try to hide the actresses' ages. We saw the lines on their faces. They were real. The acting by the original cast was superb. Cynthia Nixon and Sarah Jessica Parker rocked my world. Kim Cattrall and Kristin Davis were very good in "less meaty" roles. The men in their lives all performed well.


The worst thing about the movie was Jennifer Hudson. When she had to be "sassy" or "silly," she was fine. But when she had to be "real" - not so much. You could see the inexperience. While I thought she was very good in Dreamgirls, I never felt she deserved the Oscar. She won that award based on a being a performer, not a actor. There is a difference between the two. You can be a great performer in a multitude of places...theme parks, cruise ships, cabaret acts, concert tours to name a few. But doing those things well does not make you an actor or actress.


I've had friends of mine tell me they weren't crazy about the movie. Their reasons mostly centered on Chris Noth's character of Mr. Big. They say things like "Big would never act that way," or "Big's been through this before. It wouldn't be a big deal for him." Without giving away plot-points, all I can say is - I agree and disagree. I agree in that I don't know why Big got sooooo flustered at one point. It doesn't seem to fit his backstory, exactly. But, you also have to take into consideration: several years have gone by since we last saw/knew these characters. People's mind-sets change. People's insecurities bloom under pressure. I can "buy" the events of the film, because of those issues.


The other talking-point is (again, trying not to give away plot-points) whether Carrie's decision at the end of the film is the one I, personally, would have made. I don't personally think I would have done what she did. But, Carrie's Carrie...and I'm me.


Overall, the movie was like an entire season of the show, presented in two and a half-ish hours. And like any full season of the TV series, I liked a majority of it enough to want to come back for more.

Film Review

4 On the Floor: Juno, Michael Clayton, Vantage Point and Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day

Well, it's been a few weeks since I've really posted. I just needed to take a breather after all the awards' season hoopla and "do nothing" for a while. I saw a few films, worked, slept, got the flu (which I'm still fighting) and slept some more. Monday, I start rehearsals for the next show I'm directing, so I'll update when possible, but it might be only once-a-week or once-every-10-days or so.

Here's some mini-reviews of several films I saw since Oscar(r) day:

Juno - I actually saw this on Oscar(r) day. I also rented Michael Clayton that day, as well. It was the "I have to see these two films - then I've seen all 5 Best Picture nominees syndrome." I loved Juno. Seriously loved it. I was so impressed with Jason Reitman's direction and every single actor's performance. Obvious kudos to Ellen Page, but literally everyone else was superb. Extra-special-smugness to Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman and Olivia Thirlby. We didn't hear enough about their work in this film. All spectacular. I didn't dislike anything about it really, except one thing...Rainn Wilson. I guess I'm the only person on the planet who doesn't find him funny. I find him to be...off-putting and distracting.

Maybe I liked the film so much because it was one of the few films this year that had heart. Some critics and folks found it treacly and TV movie-ish, but I thought it was very...true. And, yes, I do know girls that age who talk like that. To those critics who disagree: get out of the movie theatre and visit the real-world sometime. You'll be amazed at how things have changed over the years.

Michael Clayton - I liked it, but didn't love it. People kept saying how it was a return to old-style Hollywood. I didn't see it. I thought the acting was very good: George Clooney was wonderful, Tom Wilkinson was stunning and Tilda Swinton was great...even though I thought the "look" they gave her for the film was a copycat of Jodie Foster's in Silence of the Lambs (just look at the picture and tell me I'm wrong). I was also a little thrown by Ken Howard's appearance in the film. He's most remembered as the coach on the 70's TV show The White Shadow. I don't like my 70s heroes playing bad guys. He just took me out of the moment, I guess.

Vantage Point - Interesting concept, but this coulda been a TV movie - albeit with a great cast. I can't really talk too much about it without spoiling something for someone, but suffice it to say, that although the wrap-up at the end was very good, it was all a little too melodramatic and forced for my taste. And why the hell did Sigourney Weaver even take that role? She's barely in it and has no bearing on the story. Guess her Alien residuals are running low. Highpoints: Forrest Whitaker and William Hurt. Lowpoints: occassionally cliched dialogue and William Hurt (no, that's not a mistake).

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day - Damn, I LOVED this film. I loved everything about it: cast, direction, costumes, hair/makeup, art direction (superb!), cinematography, sound, score...name it. I haven't seen a movie this smooth yet not overly polished in years. For some reason it's not connecting with audiences (ie. no one's rushing to see it). I wish it would. It's just wonderful. Witty screenplay, pitch-perfect performances (love me some Frances McDormand and Amy Adams!), and...get this...it was romantic!!! I can't name the last movie I saw that was actually romantic. I can't say it enough: Go See It, Go See it, Go See It!

Film Review

Ratatouille and No End in Sight

I saw two films on DVD the other night: Ratatouille and the documentary, No End in Sight.

I don't have a hell of a lot to say about either of them, actually.

First: Ratatouille. Good movie. But did it live up to all the hype? Not in my book. Yes, the animation was stunning. Yes, there were some incredible cinematic moments - the ride on the cookbook through the sewer, Remy's tour of the apartment building in Paris, or my friend Michael's high-point (which I agree with): the moment when the critic (Ego) tasted the Ratatouille and immediately flashed back to his childhood. Brilliant.

I had a couple of BIG problems with it, though. (Spoilers ahead!) The biggest peeve I had was: why is the screenplay getting such raves? The basic story is a rat who wants to cook gets separated from his colony, helps an inept human, learns something about himself, and we're done. The contrived storyline of Linguini maybe being the bastard son of Remy's inspiration was straight out of The Young & the Ratless. "Oh my goodness! Is he his son? What if he finds out? Will everyone live happily ever after?" It was so...contrived...I wanted to throw up a little.

But, I wanted to throw up even more watching a bunch of rats cook meals for humans. I know it's a cartoon and they're cartoon rats, but it gave me shivers every time I saw it. The director (Brad Bird) tried to soften that a bit by having human characters almost vomit when they saw it, too. But self-referential humor like this basically screams: "I know this is wrong, but what else can we do? We started the movie and we have to finish it." Just because Bird knew it might make some viewers uncomfortable, doesn't make it "all better" by showing us he's aware of it. He was basically telling us to "get over it." Blech.

The voice characterizations were super, as was the art direction, cinematography and score. I just wish I wasn't so turned-off by a lot of the movie.

No End in Sight is a documentary about the mistakes the US has made in the war in Iraq. I can only say this: watch it. You'll get angry. You'll get aggravated. You'll be so sorry you ever voted for George Bush (if you did). It's amazing that this ineptitude was right in front of our noses and never reported by the mass media in such a clear, concise way. This film is Sicko's chief competition for the Oscar(r) this year. I'm willing to bet it wins.

Film Review

No Country for Old Men

I saw the film last night. I liked it a great deal...maybe more-so than There Will Be Blood - and you know I really liked that film. I don't necessarily know what it is about No Country for Old Men that makes it so absorbing. Yeah, it's essentially a "chase" movie, but there's something more to it. Maybe it's the way the Texas setting becomes its own character. Maybe it's the way that, while there's a lot of violence and death in the film, it doesn't feel gratuitous because almost every death hurts you a little. Maybe it's because you care about even the smallest of characters (not including henchmen/thugs). And maybe it's because you love-to-hate Javier Bardem's character.

The basic plot is this: Random drug deal goes wrong. Moss (Josh Brolin) finds the money. Anton Chigurh is a hit man/clean-up artist sent to get it back. Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) brings up the rear. Like I said...essentially a chase movie.

But, it's also a film with multiple themes. The most strident one of all is that it fleetingly shows us a "last stand" of honor, goodness and justice against all that is wrong with the world...evil, corruption, greed, violence, etc.

Each of the three characters above serves his purpose. Sheriff Bell is the good guy. Anton Chigurh is the (supremely) bad guy. Moss is the everyman with a dilemma created by his own actions/decisions. Josh Brolin actually said it best in an interview somewhere (paraphrasing): "it's like the three main characters are all one man split in 3." While I certainly agree with the notion, I must warn you that the Sheriff isn't exactly the type of Sheriff you might think he'd be. He's not your typical "movie cop." He's a good man, but disillusioned and disappointed by the lack of honor in modern (1980 is the time-frame of the film) crime. The Sheriff is the character least involved in the story, but is the character around whose emotions the film is based. He is the Old Man that this isn't a Country For.

Supporting characters played by Kelly MacDonald, Woody Harrelson, Tess Harper, and Stephen Root help round out the cast. Good performances by all.

One odd note: there's not much of a score to the film. I guess it re-enforces the bleakness of the setting. But, the odd thing is that when music does occur, it sounds like horror-movie-music. Weird.

I think it's a Best Picture lock, but I guess we'll see.

Film Review

There Will Be Blood

I'm a big fan of Paul Thomas Anderson. I've seen all of his films. Granted, he's only made five, but I've seen 'em!

One thing you can count on in a PT Anderson film is an element of surprise. Not shock. Not startling. Just something surprising. It might sneak up on you or come out of nowhere, but it's there. And it's always a revelation into the insight of the character or the scenario. Most often, it occurs near the end of the film...sometimes with a sense of irony, or merely a sense of humor. The ending of There Will Be Blood is one of those moments. The last line of dialogue ("I'm finished.") is so rich in multiple meanings, that it brings the film to its incredible conclusion with a true sense of feeling that you've just been on an adventure. It's probably the most "complete" film adventure I've been on in a long while.

The performances are marvelous. Daniel Day-Lewis is stunning. He carries the film on his shoulders, appearing in literally 99% of the scenes. A truly remarkable performance.

Paul Dano is an unsung hero. Not his character(s)...the actor. I commented to my friend Michael as we were talking after the film that I was so impressed by Dano's performance not just because of his talent, but because he stood toe-to-toe with Daniel Day-Lewis and blew me away. Kudos to him and to Mr. Anderson for him. Dano shoulda been nominated for an Oscar(r)...though I don't know who he would have replaced in the category. It's just "one of those years" for great supporting roles, I guess.

The Direction is close to sublime. The Cinematography is beautiful and uses light in a multitude of ways to convey so much. Bright sunshine, campfire light, twilight, moonlight, gas-wall-sconce light...you name it, it's there and brilliantly utilized.

The score is also a wonder. Too bad it was deemed ineligible by the Motion Picture Academy (because it contains some music that wasn't originally composed for the film, but for another project). Art Direction and Costume Design are appropriately period.

Ultimately, I think it's a fantastic film. It is long. Our 7:40pm showing let out at 10:30pm. But the ride is worth it. So, if you enjoyed PT Anderson's past work (Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, Magnolia & Punch-Drunk Love), see it. Even if you didn't - see this one. It's mesmerizing.

Film Review

Cloverfield

OK, I know it's awards season and I should be using my time to see potentially nominated (or actually nominated) films. But, I couldn't resist seeing Cloverfield. I loved the trailer and the hype surrounding the film was tangible. Plus, I wanted to see something "fun" and without awards hoopla.

Long story short: Something attacks Manhattan. People die. The end.

I liked it a lot.

The film is shot on hand-held cameras. More succinctly: A single hand-held camera. Think Blair Witch Project. The attacker (trying not to give too much away here, folks...) isn't seen in detail until the end of the movie. Its minions are super-scary, as well.

My friend Justin picked up the tickets for the group of us that went. When he purchased them, he was warned that the film "may cause motion sickness." Once the movie started, I understood why and actually had to look down or to the side of the screen for seconds at a time and kinda watch peripherally because the hand-held cam is almost always jostling/moving/focusing. It's damn effective! The movie is only around 90 minutes long, which is just as well. Any longer and it would have been overkill.

The deaths in the film aren't gory. And, most of the horror lies in what you're not seeing or in the confusion and chaos the characters go through.

I've read other blogs and several reviews. Some people said there was one big unanswered question: "Where did the attacker come from?" The question is answered! When you see the film, one of the last scenes is a moment at Coney Island. It shows a lovely panorama of the beach and the water, while people frolic. Watch the right side of the screen. Justin and I happened to see it while our friends, Michael and Lou, did not.

There's a LOT of tension, suspense and humor in the film. If you can stand the constantly-moving-camera, see it. It's worth the ride.

Another Note on a Film Review

Robinowitz says...

For a more, how shall I say it...strident review of Atonement, go to my review several posts down and read Robinowitz's comment on the film.

One of her gripes is that it's being compared to The English Patient in many advertisements. This is maddening because, in my opinion, the only things Atonement and The English Patient have in common is that both film titles begin with a vowel and end in "-ent."

Film Review

Atonement

I really don't know what to say.


I was looking forward to seeing this movie more than any other this awards season. I'm a sucker for a period epic. And James McEvoy is one of my all-time favorite actors. I think he's woefully underrated and brilliantly talented. I actually like Keira Knightley, as well. Combine those things with period costumes, fabulous art direction, the great buzz it's gotten and the overall experience of seeing it on the big screen and you'd think I'd be swooning.


In fact, Atonement is simply...ok.


It's beautifully shot.
The acting is great.
The score is wonderful...the use of the typewriter as a musical instrument is very cool.
I didn't really dislike any specific aspect of the film. All the pieces were perfect (or close to it). I just felt an overwhelming sense of "bleh" during and since my viewing of it.



I'll not give away any important plot points, but I'm gonna give a general overview. The first third of the film is very intimate. It takes place in one location and has a set number of characters. Then, through plot circumstances, McEvoy and Knightley (our romatic leads) are separated. The film then becomes a broad-sweeping story ignoring all but two (McEvoy & Knightley, again) of the characters we previously met. This middle third of the movie is what bugged me most, I think. The viewer has to "sit through" this section because the director wants you to somehow empathize with our leads - he wants you to feel their separation and longing. But I didn't. I was simply aggravated.


Suddenly, the final third brings back some of the characters from the first third...some of whom are played by different actors as they have aged from children to adults in that time. And the end of the film jumps to present-day and then a "fantasy sequence" of sorts. All the while, we're also getting certain scenes shown to us repeatedly from different characters' points of view, so you often wondered where you were, chronologically.


Don't get me wrong - the screenplay is actually pretty clever. I just never felt emotionally vested in any character in this film. Why? Here's an example: Yes, the several-minute-long-tracking-shot on the beach is impressive. But, it too took me out of the emotional track of the film...I kept thinking about how cool the shot was. I was constantly asking questions about the filmmaking as opposed to the film. And that's a problem.


Didn't love it, didn't hate it. It's just "ok."

Film Review

Zodiac

Back when I was approximately 12 years old, I saw a "special" on some cable TV show. Maybe it was WPIX out of NYC (remember when people played video games in a daily contest yelling "Pix!" to make someone at the station press the button?) or A&E in its early days. Anyway, the "special" was about the Zodiac Killer who terrorized California in the late 60s through mid 70s. He murdered people randomly and in different ways and sent cypher-codes (see pic to see an actual example of one of his cyphers) to the police and media to give them clues to his identity. It absolutely haunted me for years because they had the creepiest sounding guy reading the letters that the killer sent to area newspapers or the police. His voice-over stuck in my head. That, and the fact that they never caught Zodiac struck a chord on my impressionable young mind.

They say the best way to overcome your fear is to face it, so I read books about the case, magazine articles, and anything I could get my hands on. The entire time I did so, it was to reassure myself that they guy was in California and nowhere near Buffalo, NY. Eventually, I got over it.

Then, the internet came along and one day I stumbled on a site about the case...and spent weeks following links to others. Reading "new" theories about the case re-sparked my interest. At the same time, there had been rumors for well over a decade about a film being made, which never seemed to come to fruition.

Then came 2007 and David Fincher's marvelous film, Zodiac. When it was released, I wanted to go see it, but was too busy and figured I'd catch it on DVD. I bought the DVD a month or so ago, but never got around to watching it...partially because I also bought a PS3 and have been addicted to Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction for a while now...but I digress.

I watched the film and thoroughly enjoyed it. It's an amazing "history" of the case. It is meticulously filmed, edited and designed. And the interesting thing is that while ther performances are all very well done, no one is a stand-out among the others. It's a real ensemble piece.

It is long. A little more than 2 and a half hours. And you wonder where it's going at times. But it's all worth it in the end. You can't feel the frustration the investigators felt or the obsession that the reporters felt without almost literally re-living the entire investigation.

Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Robert Downey, Jr., and Anthony Edwards all do finely tuned, nuanced work, as do all (and I mean all) of the supporting actors and extras. The director's cut with a ton of extras comes out in 2008, and I'll be the first to buy it. It will give me one more moment of obsession about a 40 yr old serial killer case.

Chances are the Zodiac Killer is dead or in old-age obscurity at this point, because of the amount of time that has gone by, but the case still creeps me out. It's the "what if" factor. And this remarkable film only reinforces that. Zodiac is "unease" at its best.

Film Review

30 Days of Night

You're not gonna believe this...I freakin' loved this movie! It's not gonna win any awards or anything, but it's so damn stylized and crafted that ya can't help but be impressed.

The story is this...

The town of Barrow is far enough north that it's one of the locations in Alaska that ends up with 30 straight days without sunlight. A majority of the town leaves for elsewhere during this time because most of the locals can't deal with darkness for that long. Maybe 75-100 folks stay for the duration. And only a handful survive...because freaky-deaky vampires some to play! What better place for vampires to visit? No pesky sunlight to drive them into slumber. Just constant darkness. They don't feel cold - only hunger. So it's terror for the residents because they've got, basically, no chance.

The cinematography is very cool. Very unique. There's one overhead crane shot of the overall massacre of the town that is striking. Blood on snow. Makes a fantastic impression.

The tension builds throughout the film - basically along the lines of "who's gonna get bitten/savaged/axed/beheaded next?" I had a number of "jump out of my seat" moments.

It stars Josh Hartnett and Melissa George. Now, I usually hate Josh Hartnett. I think he's pretty much the blandest "actor" ever to appear on screen. Thank the heavens he doesn't have much to do here but look stressed, run around, and yell a lot, so he's tolerable. Oh, and he grows a beard over the course of the film. And the beard looks, appropriately for baby-faced Joshy, like that of a 12 year old boy.

Melissa George - dunno who the hell she is. Very Olivia D'Abo..though I don't know if that's necessarily a good thing.

I would say the best part of the movie is the fact that, while there are "special effects," it's mostly of the good, old fashioned splatter-fest makeup effects kind. There's barely any green-screening. Just lots of fake blood, fake snow, and real terror.

Go see it - you'll be pleasantly surprised.