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."

Yay for Tolkein Geeks Everywhere!

"Precious" News

NEW YORK (AP) -- Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema have reached agreement to make J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit, a planned prequel to the blockbuster trilogy The Lord of the Rings.

Peter Jackson is set to oversee the film adaptation of The Hobbit.

Jackson, who directed the Rings trilogy, will serve as executive producer for The Hobbit. A director for the prequel films has yet to be named.

Relations between Jackson and New Line had soured after Rings, despite a collective worldwide box office gross of nearly $3 billion -- an enormous success. The two sides nevertheless were able to reconcile, with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios (MGM) splitting The Hobbit 50/50, spokemen for both studios said Tuesday.

"I'm very pleased that we've been able to put our differences behind us, so that we may begin a new chapter with our old friends at New Line," Jackson said in a statement. "We are delighted to continue our journey through Middle Earth."

Two Hobbit films are scheduled to be shot simultaneously, similar to how the three Lord of the Rings films were made. Production is set to begin in 2009 with a released planned for 2010, with the sequel scheduled for a 2011 release.

Doug's Comments:

I'm a total LOTR geek. I loved the films. Jackson and New Line have been fighting for years over DVD profits from the trilogy and it seemed that their irreconcilable differences were going to de-rail The Hobbit. Apparently not! I hope Jackson decides to direct it himself. And I hope they get Andy Serkis to reprise his role as Gollum. Though I doubt they'll use Ian Holm as Bilbo Baggins as they did in LOTR. He'd be more than a bit too old to play Bilbo in this film. Can't freakin wait!

TV Review

Aliens in America

A few evenings ago, I was home. Nothing much was on TV and I was just flipping through channels. I stumbled on a show called Aliens in America on the CW (of all places) and decided to give it a shot. I'd heard of the show before, but just never had a chance to see it and was never interested enough to consider DVR-ing it. So I watched. And I laughed. A lot! I also had my heartstrings pulled a little bit.

Summary: A family in the midwest with a nerdy teenage son signs up for a foreign exchange student program so that the son would have an instant friend. They expected a handsome Norwegian. What they got was a Pakistani named Raja. Great concept, great cast, great writing. The cast features Dan Byrd as Justin, Amy Pietz as Franny (the mom), Scott patterson as Gary (the dad) and Adhir Kalyan as Raja. There's also a daughter, but I don't care about her.

It's easier if you just watch it and see what I mean. Here's a link to a youtube video trailer...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhODwtSimQ4

With there being seemingly no end to the writer's strike, try to catch the show on re-runs. I believe you can also watch full episodes online at the CW website.

My 2007 Theatre Season Retrospective

This is traditionally the time of year when we reflect on things...our lives, our careers and our overall experiences. When I reflect on my year in theatre, I am usually amazed. I'm amazed by the talented people I've gotten to work with and by the fact that I'm even able to fit all the projects into my schedule. Here's a summary of my projects from 2007, and a little about what they meant to me:

In January, I performed in an original musical entitled Familiar Strangers at MusicalFare Theatre. This show was very special for me in many ways. First of all it was conceived, written, directed and choreographed by one man, my bestest friend, Michael Walline. The story concerned a woman whose husband committed suicide. She subsequently had a breakdown of sorts and became psychologically unable to leave her home (agoraphobia). She lived her life vicariously through those she observed through her window. I played the dead husband and was seen in flashbacks or fantasy sequences. The cool thing about the show is that there was one vocalist (the sublime Loraine O'Donnell) who sang the entire show...all music of Joni Mitchell's. The rest of us danced the entire story. No ensemble singing, no dialogue (except for three lines at the very end of the show).

As an almost 40 year old man, it was a challenge to dance again. This wasn't "musical theatre" choreography. This was modern, interperetive, contemporary dance like I used to do back in my college dance company. Granted, I wasn't in a lot of numbers as my character was dead. But those I was in really challenged me and moved me when I performed them. And, when you do certain shows and everything fits together, it's a blessing. This show was like that not just because of the material and concept, but because of the cast. This is one of the those shows where the cast was very close and very special to one another. Every one of them is a good friend of mine. Some of them have been my friend for almost 20 years: Michael (of course), Kelly Cammarata (whom I went to college with) and Terrie George (who has been a part of my theatrical life ever since I can remember). Some of them are long-time friends whom I've known and worked with for years: Loraine, Bobby Cooke, Nicole Marrale, Kristy Schupp and my other bestest friend (and housemate), Marc Sacco (pictured above with me). And a new friend, who I love like a little brother, Christopher M. Howard. Familiar Strangers is truly one of those experiences I'll hold close to my heart, forever.

In April/May, I performed in another new work at MusicalFare entitled A Rainbow Journey: The Harold Arlen Story. It told the story of Buffalo-born composer Harold Arlen. New works are always fun because no one else has been able to put a stamp on a character you're playing. And the text can change day-to-day. The best part of this show for me was the fact that it was the first time I was able to perform with both John Fredo and Kathy Weese (the three of us pictured, above) at the same time in over ten years. That' s kinda bizarre as the three of us used to do shows together constantly. Throw Norm Sham and Todd Benzin in the mix, and that made the experience even better.

My summer was spent working in Amherst and Lewiston. First, I started rehearsals for Sisters of Swing: The Andrews Sisters Musical at MusicalFare, which was being re-mounted for a few weeks in the summer after having been a big success the previous fall. I directed and choreographed. My original dream cast (Kathy Weese, Debbie Pappas, Kelly Meg Brennan, Phil Farugia and Todd Benzin - all but Phil pictured above) were back. In certain ways, I was happier with the re-mount than the original production. Don't get me wrong: I was damn proud of the original. But I was able to tweak some things (like my sometimes awakward blocking) for the re-mount that made the show, I believe, better. The day Sisters... started prevues, I began rehearsal stage managing Aida up at Artpark in Lewiston, NY. It was a hoot-and-a-half! The cast was lovely and talented, and included Nikki Renee Daniels (from Broadway's Les Miserables) and the ridiculously talented Michael Hunsaker. It was directed by my MusicalFare boss, Randall Kramer (nicely done, btw) and choreographed by my longtime mentor and friend, the brilliant Lynne Kurdziel-Formato. I also met some new, fantastic people (Steven Baker, Ashlea Potts) and got closer to some I previously knew (Kevin Kennedy, Allan Paglia).

This fall, I performed in a play. I love doing plays. This one was a coup, in itself. It was the World Premiere since the New York production of Terrance McNally's Some Men, directed by Javier Bustillos. It was a really great experience and I got to work opposite some fantastic actors and wonderful friends. Jimmy Janowski and Bill Schmidt blew me away. And working opposite Chris Kelly, Matthew Hurley and Matthew Crehan Higgins was beyond fantastic. The biggest challenge to this show was that I had to appear fully nude...several times...for long stretches. I'd never had to do it before, but I'm glad I did it. None of my nudity was gratuitous; it was all necessary. I miss this show, as well. I thank Javier for the opportunity.

The rest of my autumn was spent choreographing Dear Edwina for Orchard Park Middle School. I've done ten shows there over a 14 year span. Next year will be the last for our production team. The kids are great and Syndi and Cindy make me smile every day I'm there. (If you do scholastic theatre, I highly recommend this show.)

Currently, I'm in rehearsal for 12 Angry Men (another play!) at the Kavinoky Theatre. It opens in January, so we're rehearsing through the holidays. Everyone's very talented and I'm looking forward to being directed by my old friend (and a superb lighting designer!), Brian Cavanagh.

As if that wasn't enough, those are only the shows in which I performed or which I directed, choreographed or stage managed. I also worked on Tick, Tick...Boom! (props), Altar Boyz (props, lighting board-op), A Brief History of White Music (co-rehearsal stage mgr, props) - all at MusicalFare; MusicalFare's Bat Boy at Studio Arena for which I did preliminary production coordination, and MusicalFare's Sophie Tucker: Last of the Red Hot Mamas at ICTC for which I ran sound. I'm also working on props for MusicalFare's upcoming Sweeney Todd and doing some basic production work for Charles Dickens Presents: A Christmas Carol.

That's 14 shows in 12 months. I'm not bragging. I'm just grateful. I love what I do and can't wait to do more! (Maybe not 14 shows this year, though. Some sleep would be good, too...)

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.