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.

Theatre Review

Tonight, for Valentine's Day, my friend Justin and I went to see Lucky Stiff at O'Connell & Company. My friend Bobby Cooke choreographed (well done!) and was in it (again, well done!) and offered me a couple of comps. Since Justin and I were already planning to go out for VD (lol) and considering we're the closest thing to "boyfriends" in each others' lives at the moment, I figured: "perfect Valentine's activity." And it was!

I hate to sound all "gushy," but I really liked it. Let me be frank - I don't often get to see much live theatre because I'm usually doing a show myself. And when I get time off, the last thing I want to do is go to theatre 'cause that's what I do all day. When I do go, it's hard to please me. I tend to be critical...sometimes overly so. I have to tell myself: "just enjoy yourself and stop analyzing every thing you see." Does it always work? No. But, I'm getting better at it.

Let me also say that this is my first Theatre Review on this blog. I refuse to review anything for the company I work for (MusicalFare) as that would be weird. And I obviously refuse to review anything I'm in...tacky and subjective. So that leaves shows I see at other theatres...which happens rarely. I've only seen one other thing this entire year (The Little Dog Laughed at BUA...and I saw it on closing night, so there wasn't much need for a review...though I did like it, for the record). The hardest part about reviewing local theatre is that I know just about everyone in town and I was afraid it would be awkward to write anything. I thought it might seem like I was "blowing smoke up my friends' asses" and praising them when I didn't mean it. Let me set the record straight: I won't write it if I don't mean it.

Lucky Stiff is an Ahrens/Flaherty musical. It's a cute story that I won't ruin by telling you the plot. Let's just say it's full of quirky characters, a lot of comedy, and some touching moments.

The cast was damn good. Let's start at the top: Andrew Kenneth Moss as Harry Witherspoon. I've known Andy for a few years now and I've seen him do some good work. But, I think, he's truly come into his own as an actor. It's a confident, quirky, funny performance. Utterly charming. And, lordy I could gaze at his handsome face forever.

Kelly Jakiel as Annabel Glick (I hope I'm spelling these right...) is wonderful. Kelly is fast becoming one of my favorite actresses in town. She does an amazing job in what could be a "typical" ingenue role. And the girl can sing. I truly adored her character and thought her chemistry with Andy Moss was spectacular. In my eyes, the two of them have graduated from "student actors" to "adult actors." They're both wonderful.

Pamela Rose Mangus, Jeffry Coyle (wait til you see him as a nun) and Michael Tosha do great work here, as does Josh Snyder in the role of "the dead guy" (a harder part than many people might think it is). My only criticism to Josh, and I don't know that it can be avoided, is that because of the seating in the theatre, audience members may often be looking at him from the side. We can see his eyes blinking and moving. Dead-on, he's behind sunglasses and we can't see that. But from the side, we see everything. Maybe close your eyes? Though, I'd fall asleep if I did that... Maybe there's no way around it.

Nicole Marrale Cimato, Eric Rawski and Wendy Hall all do some really fantastic character work. Nicole has found another scene-stealing role, complete with a song which she sounds great on. All of her characters are fun and funny (she had a majority of my laugh-out-loud moments in the show). Great job! Eric is a brilliant actor who always knows the "right" choice to make for the character. He can even make absurd moments seem completely normal - that's how good he is in this. Wendy really knocked me out because I've never seen her get to do a multiple-character role before. Every one of her characters is good and I swear to god, the woman changes costumes/characters around 7 times in the first 15 minutes of the show. I kept thinking, "there she is again!" yet every time she was unique.

Direction by Chris Kelly was appropriately absurd when necessary and genuinely real when necessary. It's a hard line to walk, but I think he did an awesome job. Chris usually directs plays, as opposed to musicals. He recently told me "directing musicals is hard." Yeah, it is. But ya'd never know it by what he's put up there. It looked effortless.

Bobby Cooke's choreography was pretty much exactly what the show called for! Clever when necessary and over-the-top when necessary. Never a "cringe-worthy" moment. And there were some truly (intentionally) funny choreographic moments. His character work is also a hoot! Some very funny stuff (love the waiter and bellboy!!!).

My only other criticism: it's hard to hear the singing sometimes during the tap number. But, all in all, a great show! I think I'll go back again at some point. Who wants to go?

Well, it is called "Smug Doug"...

Damn, I'm Good

One side note:

Below is a link to Tom O'Neil's "Gold Derby" column on the LA Times' "The Envelope."

Click it to read the article and then note the comments below it. The original article had an error which I pointed out, which changed the headline and text of the article...

I actually corrected the LA Times.

Smugness all around...

http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2008/01/mpse-sounds-off.html#comments

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.