Mud

The last time I spent time around the backwaters of the Mississippi River, in a Southern Fried cultural slice of life picture, I suffered through the headache inducing "Beasts of the Southern Wild".  So it was with some trepidation that I approached this movie. Much of it seems centered around a backwoods river culture that is not really that appealing as a setting to me.  I respect traditions and the hard work that it can take for a person to make it under those conditions, but it also seems to breed, at least in movies, a suspicion of outsiders and a tendency to be insulated. Fortunately, this film while having many of the characteristics I was worried about, also has some very sympathetic characters and the traditions seem to be respected for the values they impart, not just for the differences they evoke.

This is a coming of age story that centers around the relationship of two fairly normal, rural river kids and a mysterious stranger. The man enters their lives, seeps into their consciousness, and drives their ultimate development, and maybe not always in the right ways. Matthew McConaughey plays the dangerous refugee named Mud. The character turns out to be just as familiar with the ways and people of the small town and surrounding areas as the two boys are. It turns out that while he is a stranger to them, he is not a stranger to their world. McConaughey gives a fantastic performance. His body language suggests confidence and superiority. At one point another character points out to the boys that they probably see him as a badass. While most of his physical demeanor might suggest that, his voice sometimes gives way to a sadness that allows us to see through the cracks. He is not always as certain of himself as he seems to suggest. His honey coated voice and corn pone manner of speaking are a disguise. One that is meant to convey power but often comes across like a kid embellishing the truth to make himself look a little better. McConaughey has always been trapped by his accent in his other roles. That may have masked the fact that his is a very competent actor. Here the accent fits the location and the character to a tee, and we get to focus on his performing gifts in an appropriate context. He runs with this part and makes Mud a compelling character that is maybe dangerously psychotic or achingly unfulfilled and yearning. Right now there are two names I am thinking about for Awards Season next winter, along with Harrison Ford in 42, McConaughey's name will probably be whispered by some and shouted by others. 

The two kids are played by young men who are both perfectly cast and, at least at this point, show promise of a whole bunch of talent. Tye Sheridan has some acting experience, at least if you would call appearing in "The Tree of Life" acting. I don't remember enough about him from that film, I do know he was not the main actor playing Sean Penn as a kid. In this movie he has a perfect mixture of guts, naivete, and sweetness to make him believable. The scenes where he woes an older girl with some success and failure are very honest and easy to identify with. His motivations are pure, even if his actions are not always well thought out. When his character Ellis, interacts with his parents it is with the awkward love that a young teen would have, complicated by the uncertainty that his family situation presents. We can understand completely why he would believe the things Mud tells him, and dream of making life's wishes come true. His buddy Neckbone, is played by newcomer Jacob Lofland, and he is just a natural in the role. There may not be much technique in his acting because he basically plays a smart kid in a tough situation, who is making the best of it that he can. He plays the best friend like a real friend would act, and maybe that is the secret to casting child actors. Find a kid who really is the character they are playing. 

Everyone else in the movie gets some moments to shine as well. Michael Shannon has some great comic moments but also infuses the situation with a serious tone when he speaks to Ellis as the protective Uncle of his best friend. There may not be much subtlety to the metaphor that he presents to Ellis, but it sounds sincere and properly concerned. Ellis' parents are both solid characters, living out an unpleasant reality while trying to keep their son on the straight and narrow path. Although they seem to approach the process in completely different directions, they are each trying to achieve the same goal. There are three other characters that figure prominently in the story. Sam Shepard gets a chance to shine as a neighbor who may know more about the events going on than anyone else. He looks much older in this part but his distinctive, flat voice carries the same authority it did in "The Right Stuff" thirty years ago. Joe Don Baker has made a living out of playing menacing big guys for nearly forty years. From good guys like the sheriff Buford Pusser in the original "Walking Tall"  to the mob hit man tracking down "Charlie Varrick", he has always been effective. When he shows up, you know that trouble has come to town. He doesn't have much screen time but he makes the most of it. Also without a lot of screen time but showing herself to be the quality actress she is supposed to be is Reese Witherspoon. She is the trigger point for much of what happens on the screen, and she conveys the dangerously indifferent lover as world-weary and soft hearted at the same time. The echo of her behavior in Ellis' life is again a little obvious, but it needs to be for him to learn from the events that unfold.

The less said about the story the better. Not because it is bad but because it works so well and it will be more enjoyable if you experience it as it is revealed. There are some surprises but mostly we get an honest outcome of the dangerous relationship these boys have with the title character. Sure there are a couple of lucky coincidences, that is true in all stories. We see people living lives that seem so obviously wrong headed at times, but they just are these people's lives and so it is normal for folks to miss the big picture at times. There is a morality in all of the lead characters that seems to come into conflict, so that it is not easy to say who is acting in the best way. We can clearly see however, that we want things to work out a certain way. That some of them do and some of them don't is life. I am willing to say that at this moment, this is the best picture I have seen that has been released this year. It isn't going to break the Memorial Day Box Office Record, it won't win a dozen awards at the end of the year, but it will satisfy you as you watch it. You will thank me if you take my advise and go see this movie. If you were going to see it anyway, you may not thank me, but I bet you will agree with me.

Star Trek Into Darkness

If anything in the following commentary makes any sense it will be something of a miracle. I'm writing this after seeing the film at an 11 pm screening, I did not get to bed until 2 am, and I woke up at my usual start time, 5:15 am. Basically, I'm cruising on left over adrenaline from the film, and that is a pretty good thing because the movie did get the juices going. The fuzziness will melt away as the day goes on, or else there will be a lot of confused people for the next 12 hours. The easiest way to put this is that the movie is very entertaing, and there are enough plot spoilers that I will have to be careful what I discuss. I deeply loved and admired the J.J. Abrams reboot of Star Trek from 2009. In my opinion it was the best film of that year. "Star Trek Into Darkness" will probably not earn that moniker by the end of 2013, but it is a nearly great film, and so far the most entertaining film of the year.

The renewed crew of the Enterprise is sent on a secret mission to destroy a terrorist named John Harrison. The film begins with a completely unrelated action sequence, but it does set up some of the capabilities of the crew and reminds us of what an amazing ship the Enterprise is. There are two dramatic attacks by Harrison that set up the goal. In one of those attacks, Captain Kirk thwarts Harrison's objective and he develops a strong motivation to see the terrorist brought to justice. The original Star Trek was a show about ideas first and action was a sideline. The new films recognize that deep philosophical discussions by the principles are not going to bring in an audience every few years for a movie. So the ethical and moral stakes that are behind the actions are often hidden or hinted at. There is only one scene where there is an outright focus on those kinds of moral judgments, and when it happens, you will be proud of the stubbornness of a certain Scottish engineer. It turns out that if he did not choose the path he travels, the rest of the plot and the crew of the Enterprise would not be making it out of this film. 

The relationship between Kirk and Spock is a more complex one in this new story dimension. Remember, this is a tentative friendship based on a limited amount of time. The jocular teasing that Shatner's Kirk gave to Spock is repeated here, but the bonds of the friendship have not been tested much. This movie, despite all the action, and the political intrigue, and the plot line featuring the villain, is really about the nature of Kirk and Spock's friendship. Each has expectations of the other and each is going to be disappointed early on in the story. Ultimately, the relationship is tested in a reversal of roles from the original Star Trek films plot lines. The way this is visualized and the touchstone nods to the original cast and past epic events is very well managed. Long time trekkers like me are going to laugh and cry over the spin that Abrams and the screen writing team have put together to entertain us. Those who are new to Trek may miss the echos from the other time line of stories, but they will still enjoy the resolution of those plot threads. And while all of that is happening, stuff crashes into the Earth, battles rage, fistfights against intimidating opponents and love stories, all wash over us. It takes a little while for the movie to get it's sea legs, but once the action moves to the Klingon home world of Kronos, the film hits it's stride and the dramatic events feel a lot more synchronized than they do in the first third of the film.

Benedict Cumberbatch plays the mysterious and extremely dangerous Harrison.  This character turns out to be a lot more complex than we are originally lead to believe, although the fan community probably feels they have everything figured out ahead of time. When I was younger I sought out every piece of information I could find on upcoming films, I wanted to be an insider. These days I try to keep the spoiler information to a minimum, because I want the movie experience to be what seeing the film is all about. There will definitely be expectations about what takes place if too much is revealed about Cumberbatch's character. He has a passive but menacing face that suggests indifference to human concerns. His voice operates in a very controlled range but with enough inflection to convey ideas and feelings. At the end of the year, it is that voice that will largely determine how i feel about the second Hobbit film, because he is the voice of Smaug, the dragon. Peter Weller brings his talents to the film as well. He plays a politically astute Admiral in Star fleet, who sends Kirk on his mission, and he has an agenda as mystifying as Harrisons. The parallel universe in this Star Trek series means that characters from the other timeline will be a part of the story but that their paths may not always play out in the same ways. I was happy to see a new character introduced to this timeline, and she may be a key figure in future Star Trek stories. 

If you hated J.J. Abrams predilection for camera flare before, get ready to have your head explode because he goes overboard on those shots in this film. The camera is very active in the action scenes but I did not experience any of the nausea that usually comes with "shaky cam" techniques. The scenes of gravity induced panic and upheaval are well staged and the camera manages to follow events pretty well. Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine play their big scene just right toward the climax of the film. It carries the emotional wallop that you want a Star Trek film to contain. All of the usual characters get a moment or two to shine. Simon Pegg especially as Scotty, since his plot elements end up turning the tables at a key moment. I do feel that some elements don't quite gel in the first hour. There are some scenes that go on a while longer than necessary and the comradeship between the characters on the Enterprise is still taking it's time to develop, but i really want to get to the next movie to see how all of that is going to happen. Star Trek Into Darkness feels like the first act in a play that you want to move forward in so you can see what happens next.

Screening of The Adventures of Robin Hood

This is my favorite film of all time and I am planning a long post on it in the near future. I just wanted to say for the moment how wonderful it looked on the Big Screen at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood. There were a couple of hundred people there to see a classic film in a classic setting. I am so spoiled, within eight days I got to see my two favorite films in their natural surroundings, a movie theater. This is Mother's Day and so we have been occupied with other events, but I have a thought that I want to share with any other bloggers out there who might be interested.

Tuesday marks the 75th Anniversary of this treasure from the Golden Age of Hollywood. I'd like to do a blog bomb on the film this month. If I could get a dozen bloggers willing to commit to a date  sometime before June, I thought it might be fun for all of us to post on our sites the same day. I have a few loyal readers but not as many active blog writers as I might like to have for this project. If you could share this with anyone on your site who might be interested, I would appreciate it. I will make some requests at sites I frequent but maybe others of you could find someone that loves "The Adventures of Robin Hood" and would like to participate. Ask them to contact me at kirkham007@gmail.com . When I have a dozen ready to launch, I'll set a date and we can all enjoy the results. I will be happy to post links to all blog posts submitted here on my site and I hope everyone else will do so as well.

I hope to hear from some of you soon. Thanks.

In the year of Our Lord 1191 when Richard, the Lion-Heart, set forth to drive the infidels from the Holy Land, he gave the Regency of his Kingdom to his trusted friend, Longchamps, instead of to his treacherous brother, Prince John. 

Bitterly resentful, John hoped for some disaster to befall Richard so that he, with the help of the Norman barons, might seize the throne for himself. And then on a luckless day for the Saxons...

The Great Gatsby

This movie is going to drive two different groups of critics and bloggers wild. Half of them will be fighting the battle of Baz Luhrman, is his hyper-stylized approach romantic or headache inducing? The other half will be digging out the papers they wrote on the book in high school, anxious to defend or attack the source material depending of the reaction they had to a book most did not choose to read but were forced to read. Going in, I was not sure of which side on the first point I would take, but I was pretty confident that on the later, I knew where I stood. I read Gatsby twice, once in high school like everyone else and then once just after college. I remember it was one of the few books that I was required to read for an English class that I enjoyed and admired. I don't recall the paper that I inevitably wrote on it's themes and language but it was probably pretty average although enthusiastic. It has been more than thirty years since I read it the second time, but I did so because it was one of those books that haunts you and that seems relevant time after time.

My writing skills have probably atrophied since then, despite my work on this blog. Here I write for my pleasure and say what I want. I don't often go back and rethink my words, I let them spill out onto the internet and hope I am clear and don't embarrass myself too much. It is a terrible approach to developing as a writer, but it is liberating as a viewer of films. I often express my opinion as if I am having a lengthy monologue with a friend on the movie I just saw. Ideas sometimes come out in a jumble and words might get mangled as much as punctuation does in these posts. I mention all of this because I am going to approach this review the same way I do most movies, despite having thought about the source material in more depth. If you want a literary analysis there will be plenty out there to satisfy. This is a movie blog and Baz Luhrman is a visual artist. The story telling techniques he uses depend on performance and visual images. I thought it was interesting how much he resorted to the narration of Tobey Maguire's Nick to get a point of view across. This was especially true when he was showing those internal thoughts in pretty obvious ways on screen. It sometimes feels like overkill. While this may sound like a negative comment, in the end, it works quite well and this will be a definative version of the story on screen for a long time to come.

There is a framing device used in the film to justify Nick writing down all of his thoughts and impressions. This seems to me an invention of the director and screen writer. I have no recall of a sanitarium in the original book. This device almost directly copies the technique he used in "Moulin  Rouge". In that film, a lead character is writing a play, here, our third lead is composing notes for therapy that apparently serve as the basis of a novel. Nick Carraway is going to morph into F. Scott Fitzgerald after his treatment. It works quite well in justifying Maguire's mono-tonal voice to fill in blank spots or highlight ideas that might not be clear. As I wrote earlier however, they use it several times when it is also unnecessary. Nick is much less a cypher of a character as a result, and the feelings he expresses near the end of the story are more meaningful because we hear that inner voice. For the first half an hour of the movie, it is vital to have that voice because the movie is frenetically out of control. The desire to show the jazz age is overwhelming, and the visual techniques to do so are also overwhelming. Characters come in and out quickly and plot points pop up so fast that without that voice it would be confusing and annoying. The whole tone of the movie changes quickly though with one great shot and piece of casting. 

When Leonardo DiCaprio looks out at us as the visage of Jay Gatsby for the first time, it is a great example of a movie star moment. His smile and expression are inviting but seem to be contained. There is a mystery in his eyes that is haunting and a bit empty. He looked so much like Robert Redford in that one brief shot that for a moment, i was reminded of the 1974 film which was far less successful and not nearly as well acted. DiCaprio takes over the story, and in spite of the fact that he is something of a mystery, he becomes the most vivid character in the movie. That's a good thing given the title, we want our Gatsby to be great. For the rest of the film he gives a very solid performance. Sometimes he rests on his good looks and movie star charisma to carry a scene, but when you see his embarrassed behavior at tea at Nick's with Daisy, you will see a real actor doing the things we want them to do. He makes us feel the rush of love, the anxiousness of awkwardness and the blindness to his own situation that will ultimately be his downfall. Even though the visual pyrotechnics have settled down a bit, Luhrman turns a rainy afternoon tea into a vivid dream with some nightmare qualities that melt away as the sun comes out.  It is the most lovey moment of the film, and the one place where we might hope for a happy outcome.

The story is not a happy one however, and the darker elements creep in during a number of sequences. The valley of ashes might as well be a cemetery for all the symbolism and imagery it lays out for us. Gatsby's parties take on an increasingly distracting tone with the intrusion of guests that don't fit with the image he wants to portray. Daisy's husband spouts off about racial superiority and the affair he is having seems more and more ridiculous as the story progresses. Personally, I love the deco motifs and the clothes of the era. The cars are beautiful as are the furniture. Everything in both the Buchanan and Gatsby mansions is over the top, Nick's rented cottage is the most pleasant set in the whole film but the speakeasies, hotel rooms and gas stations all seem vividly real. The cars never move in a real way however. The director makes them as speedy and quick as a cartoon can get. In fact the movie this film most reminded me of visually was "Speed Racer". It is so packed with visual extravagance that you may not notice the shallowness of some of the characters. Early on we can see what a delight daisy must have been to the younger Jay Gatsby, but here tentative embrace of his renewed affections is masked by the opulence of the surroundings. Gatsby is blinded by the world he lives in and it is easy to see why as we explore his house, and his closet.  Hell, we can almost believe Tom when he proclaims his love for Daisy over all the other dalliances he has had, because the wind in the curtains or the rain on the clothes or the modified visual movements of the cars and characters distract us from the emptiness and meanness that is there. Gatsby's pink suit goes from being a splendid reminder of the pure heart but flawed man that he is, to the source of a valid criticism by an unworthy competitor.

The final act brings all the visual techniques together with the plot to make the resolution seem so appropriate. There is a horrifying car accident, a flash of yellow or blue automobile, and multiple shots of pearls being scattered on beautiful wooden floors or dusty soiled furniture. The three way phone shot right before the violent aftermath of the hectic preceding night, is a mastery of visual misdirection that tells us that Gatsby's only friend is not the one he most longed for. Everyone in the movie is cast extremely well. I know I made fun of Maguire's nasally tone earlier but he looks the awkward young man who is in over his depth. Carey Mulligan is beautiful and vapid and uncertain as Daisy. She is an object of affection that ultimately proves unworthy of Gatsby's dreams, but she is a vision to dream about. The Wilson's are played by solid professionals who bring the right amount of sex in the one case and blue collared indignation in the other, to the screen. Joel Edgerton is an actor I have seen in several movies where his character was sympathetic, here he plays the heel Tom Buchanan, not as a monster but as a self entitled manipulator who does have some gifts, even if they are not always admirable. The movie lives or dies though on our acceptance of Gatsby as a hero, even though he has enormous flaws of character. Leonardo DiCaprio works, and he works because he was cast right and he knows how to play the part. I was worried after the opening section of the movie, but in the end "The Great Gatsby" feels to me like a nearly great film because of it's lead.

Iron Man 3

Since I have not read comic books for almost forty years, I am often unfamiliar with the back story and the multiple mythologies that grow up around those characters. The Marvel comic book movies of the last seven years or so, have gone a long way to bringing new audiences to those stories. The first "Iron Man" movie back in 2008, was one of the best films I saw that year, much less one of the greatest comic book movies ever made. Tony Stark was an original interpretation and Robert Downey Jr. was the right man for the job. Today, after several movies where he has played that part, I think it is safe to say that he is earning every dollar that he gets paid. The whole persona that Stark puts out in these movies is a reflection of the performance that RDJ gives. While the character of Iron Man/Tony Stark may continue after he leaves the part, his impact will hang over every future story that Marvel tries to tell.

If you like Robert Downey Jr.s' snarky persona and witty one liners, then you should find plenty to enjoy in the third film that bears the name of the main character. This movie is all about giving Downey Jr. the chance to quip and pontificate and pose for the audience as the brilliant and self absorbed billionaire superhero. He trades throwdown insults with the villains, he plays modest megalomania with secondary characters, and he gets to pose heroically when the suit gets thrown on him. That said, there are a few things about the movie that are going to be problematic for fans of story telling. This film is all over the place, setting up confrontations that don't pan out and building a set of rules to operate under that are going to be ignored. It is overstuffed with visual gimmicks and there is a never-ending series of fight scenes that while great to look at, don't make much sense and do little to build any tension in the film. The motivations of the characters remain murky, that includes our hero, his sweetheart, and the multiple villainous characters that come along.

The premise of the challenge that Iron Man faces here concerns a DNA regeneration process that might allow for the kinds of physical restorative powers shared by The Wolverine in that sister series of comic book heroes. At the same time, there is a mysterious terrorist with incredible reach who seems to be honing in on an ultimate act of terror that no American know how or strength will be able to respond to. It turns out that these two threads of storyline are connected in an interesting way, but it will probably escape anybody who is not paying close attention because neither of those plot lines gets any development except through action. I generally agree that movie stories should be shown and not told, but we are not shown enough in the events of the film to make the threat completely clear and what is explained is sketchy and fragmented and inconsistent. In "The Avengers" last year, our team of superheroes was faced by aliens with godlike powers and advanced technology. It's a comic book so we can swallow that. The powers that are faced down in this story are supposed to be based on human science and genetics, but they come off as a little outlandish. When the main enemy opens his mouth and becomes a creature out of "The Fellowship of the Ring", it is too hard to swallow. In the climactic battle sequences, the powers of those evil opponents seem to fluctuate so much that they might better have been mutants who developed separate strengths. It is never clear why some are defeated and others continue. The final battle between Iron Man and his nemisis is also inconsistent. One strategy works temporarily and then fails but when it is repeated a few minutes later it succeeds, without any explanation.

There are some fun surprises along the way. The Mandarin character is underutilized, and there is a reveal that is clever but undermines the tension of the story. It does however help explain the weird accent and why Ben Kingsley is playing a character who is supposed to be from the orient. Guy Pearce starts off well but by the time the storylines are being played out, the originality of his character is lost and the most important part of any action film (the quality of the bad guy) gets lost in a series of action sequences and fights that are great to look at but make very little sense. I did enjoy the rescue stunt that involves Air Force One. There was a quieter scene when Tony is waiting for his technology to come to the rescue that works pretty well. One henchman voices the thoughts that all of us should wonder whenever there are hundreds of extras being killed in service of the plot. It was the most entertaining bit in the movie. It got a big laugh and it was one of the only times in the movie that someone other than Tony Stark was half way interesting. Unfortunately that moment lasts about five seconds and then it is back to the mayhem.

The choices that Tony Stark makes and the technology that gets employed are both arbitrary. He is alone in Tennessee working with nearly nothing at one moment, and then has the command of three dozen robotic versions of Iron Man in another instance, without much reason why except that it helps make the final conflict bigger. In the first "Iron Man", Stark is the hero and the story is about his rise to face adversity. The second and third editions are all about spectacle. They provide that but without the kind of emotional connection we got from the original story. If they are not careful, Tony Stark will turn into Jack Sparrow, a great character in need of a story that will wear out his welcome."Iron Man 3" will play well for early summer, and it will live on video and broadcast quite happily. It is not as disjointed as the first sequel was, and it has a high level of entertainment value, but it does not have the drama that it needs to reach for greatness. The trailers for the film promised an uncompromising confrontation between a sinister and mysterious figure and our hero. What we got was even more conventional than that, and it was less satisfying as a result.

21 Mesmerizing GIFs Of Ray Harryhausen's Magical Creatures

21 Mesmerizing GIFs Of Ray Harryhausen's Magical Creatures

Ray Harryhausen. Rest in Peace

Lawrence of Arabia/Vertigo Double Feature Vlog

I was checking in on Facebook, just before Lawrence of Arabia started, and my blogging Buddy Eric from New York had just posted his review ten minutes earlier. His comments are very insightful so I'd like to share them here.

For the KAMAD VLOG Posts on these two films, click on either image and the video blog will show up. Hope you have fun, both posts are far shorter than the JAWS link from Friday.

Jaws Vlog Link

Click on the Poster to Reach the VLOG or go to the KAMAD VLOG link to the right.

The Other Great Performance from Jaws

I think every Jaws fanatic thinks Robert Shaw's Quint is the finest supporting performance of the last 50 years. It is incredible that it went unmentioned at the Academy Awards, when looking at it through the prism of time it seems so clear that it was a game changer. The Indianapolis monologue itself would have been monumental but it is also surrounded by a dozen other scenes that are iconic. Shaw however was not the lead in Jaws. His character actually disappears for almost a hour after we first meet him. The movie has to survive on more than Quint's ticks and grumbling the half seen shark. The unacknowledged backbone of the movie is the work of star Roy Scheider.  

The steady presence of Chief Brody is the hook we can hang onto during the emotional upheaval and thrilling action that takes place in the story. He is our surrogate into the political, scientific and emotional stories that collide during the course of the movie. Brody is an average guy trying to do his best for his family and the town. Scheider gives a great conflicted performance on the ferry when the town elders confront him about closing the beaches. The expression on his face and the vocal tone when he pleads that he was just acting on what he had been told, mimics all of us when we have been stuck between a rock and a hard place. The whine of powerlessness is just below the surface and Scheider underplays it perfectly.

Whole essays and dissertations have been written about the theme of man's inadequacy in the face of nature as evidenced by this film. The Brody character is the manifestation of this.  He is at the beck and call of petty officials. Brody has to listen to complaints about the kids karating the picket fences, or the red zones in front of some store. Schieder shows the powerlessness in two great scenes, when he takes the slap from Mrs. Kintner and his shoulders and face collapse with guilt and remorse. Later at the council meeting, he can never be in the right spot. He gets pushed out of the center and shunted to the side as if he were a kid in his dad's way. Those moments are in the script but it is the performance that makes them memorable. Here is an example of that real, physical , display of need and desire played out with the little boy who plays his youngest son. Everyone remembers the scene but don't forget it is Schieder who sells the powerlessness so well that only the love and admiration of his child can begin to pull him out of the funk he is in. That's the point at which he starts to fight back against those powers that overwhelm him. It's when he is drunk and at his lowest that he says, "I'm the chief of police, I can do anything I want."



Roy Schieder is also responsible for the most iconic line from the movie, a bit that he improvised and shows the terror he faced. Maybe I am over reacting but it simply seems to me that he has never been given full credit for the contribution that he made to the film. His part is to play the weak link in the chain. Hooper is smarter, Quint is tougher, and both in their own ways lord that over him. Schieder has to be believable, not as a loser, but as a man that has not yet faced up to the biggest challenges. He needs to prove himself to himself. Unless his performance is solid, his character will be swallowed up whole by the likes of Dreyfess and Shaw. The fact that we still root for him and are not ashamed to see ourselves in him is a tribute to the job he did as an actor. He may now need glasses, he may have to kowtow to local tyrants, he may sit in the car on the ferry back and forth to the mainland, but he still manages to be a hero. In a pissing contest over scars, he loses by an appendix, but in a battle to the death with nature, he manages to make a man out of the everyman in all of us.

You're Gonna Need a Bigger Boat



Jaws
— MOVIECLIPS.com

Oblivion

It was tough this last week, avoiding several of the posts that sites I visit had on this film. I always want my first experiences with a movie to be as fresh as possible, and if I get a spoiler, or an opinion in my head too earlier, I'm afraid I will respond to the movie with someone else bias instead of my own. I could not stay entirely uninformed and still be on line, so I was aware that most of the other bloggers I follow felt it was a solid film, but all of them seemed to think it was derivative. Having seen the movie for myself, I can say that there are touches of other films, but I don't think they have much to do with the story. This felt pretty fresh to me and original enough to have me anticipating revelations without being exactly sure which way they were going to go.

Folks like me enjoy dropping names and gaining some cache from our familiarity with other films. You get to show off a little when you can say, "That's stolen from [fill in obscure film title here]. " In reality, the films being cited don't always have to be obscure to give the impression that we know what we are talking about. If the referent is well known, just make sure that the analogy is a fresh one and it will still register with others.  I can be as cynical as the next person but usually I prefer the role of sentimentalist. If a story moves me, or my eyes are filled with wonder, that is usually good enough for me. This movie succeeded at doing both of these things and that is why I can give it my recommendation. The plot twist does not have to be a blind side "Twilight Zone" original, it simply needs to make the story work and the characters matter more to me. The three main characters in this film, play out a series of what may seem inevitable outcomes, but there were some earned emotions along the way.

Victoria, played by Andrea Risebourgh, is a character that in the end is much more complicated than we are originally lead to believe. The set up of the story seems to imply a lack of depth on her part and the willingness to accept orders suggests she is merely a convenience for the plot. I thought there was a solid emotional journey and that the feeling of betrayal that sends this story in it's final direction was completely understandable from the perspective of the Victoria we meet. Her tears are not the manufactured emotions of programmed character, but rather a wounded soul who is in over her head. Tom Cruise manages to make his switch in loyalties reflect a dilemma rather than a mere awakening from a delusion. When he has to confront the same emotion after a stunning plot point, he sells it as a truly painful moment  despite his deepest emotions being awakened. In the end, Victoria does not turn out to be the love interest, but she is not a disposable character at all, and if we had to put our imaginations to it, we would see that she is more deeply effected than Jack is. This is the second feature in a row that Cruise plays a character named Jack, and it seems to suit him. He is subdued in the part but effective as a protagonist. There are two or three moments when his acting has to sell what might be an otherwise ridiculous story line. He once again is very reliable, and the star casting is undoubtedly one of the reasons for the movies success.

This is a science fiction film, so there are always going to be elements of the story that seem unrealistic. If there are plot holes, they don't intrude enough on my first viewing to take away form the suspense of the story. I like the twist and it seems completely real given the context we have been placed in. There may be some big picture questions, but when you are following the characters, those questions fade to the background. It helps that we are distracted by some spectacular design work for the world of the future. The devastated planet and the high tech living quarters and tools are wonderfully realized. Jacks vehicles and weapons are detailed just enough to make them practical while still having the cool sci fi look that I always enjoyed as a kid. The living platform that Jack and Victoria occupy, would make anyone on the West Side, jealous of their design and location. The concept for the swimming pool will almost certainly be on some billionaires feature list in their next house.

We are looking at a war film that begins by telling us that the war is over. Nothing is that straightforward however in a  science fiction film. Complications arise and the personalities of the characters drive the ability of the plot to develop. We learn that Jack is better at his job than he needs to be, and that his job is not enough for him. The crack in the facade escalates on two paths; his life with Victoria and the bigger issue of the film, the future of humanity. There are some nice revelations that tell us the real story. Some of them are contained in flashbacks, some are revealed in action and then, when we need it the most, some are shared through the sonorous tones of the great Morgan Freeman. He has a relatively small part but it adds to the credibility of the story to have his character exist at all. This was a very entertaining film, that told a story that worked for me and fit the forms of a good science fiction adventure. What elevated it for me a little was the level of conflicted emotions I felt for the characters of Jack and Victoria. The story finishes with a satisfying plot turn which resolves on aspect of the tale, and leaves the personal aspects settled on the surface but maybe frustratingly so.

The Dude Abides in Vegas

OK, it's not strictly speaking a movie post. I did not get out this weekend to a film (yet). We headed to the desert to the City of Sin, to attend a concert featuring a terrific actor (Academy Award winning by the way). Since the name of the band that Jeff Bridges plays with is inspired by a movie beloved by all film geeks, I did not think anyone would mind a little change up in the material today. We saw "Jeff Bridges and the Abiders" at the Santa Fe Station Casino and Resort. It was way on the north end of town, about fifteen miles off the main strip but well within our stamping grounds when we go to Vegas, since we try to visit the outlining resorts even more than the mega resorts on the strip. This was a venue we had not been to before but the casino was nice and the showroom was a perfect size for a show like this. There were maybe between 500 and 600 people in the audience. Every seat was withing hailing distance of the stage (which a few of The Dude's followers took advantage of, apparently under the influence.)

It's not just the fact that Bridges is an actor that let's me feel good about posting here, it's also that his set includes numbers from a several of his films. In at least two of those, he performed the songs on screen so there is an additional connection. Bridges band consists of his friends and fellow musicians from the Santa Barbara area. He has been a musician himself most of his life. He told the story of how his Dad pushed him toward acting. Jeff claims he told his Dad "I really think I like this music thing," to which he claims his Dad responded, "Be an actor and you can play a musician at some point". It was a charming story and indicative of the warm way in which Bridges embraces the audience with some familiarity and modesty at the same time.  He has of course played a musician, most notably in his Academy Award winning role as Bad Blake. The show featured at least three tunes from that film, including as part of the encore the amazing "The Weary Kind".

I do have to say that I was a little surprised at the number of canes and walkers that were being used by the audience members. The sixties generation is clearly not all as fit as the Stones are and many are moving into that stage of life where they are a bit frail. All of the audience however was enthusiastic and appreciative of the musicianship, with particular kudos and ovations for the lead guitarist and for the accordionist/steel guitar/percussion/jack of all trades man in the hat. Bridges introduced both of them but I'm afraid I don't recall their names and as I looked around on his website I could not find them. It is almost certainly there and I just missed it, sorry.

 

The above shot is from a show in Seattle last year, but I think the band is the same. I looked around to find some links that might make the show more real for any of you who are interested. There were at least two songs from "The Big Lebowski", the Bob Dylan song "The Man in Me" was nicely covered in Jeff's gravely but warm tones. Here is something approximating the way it sounded on Friday, this is also from a show last year.

The band also played a rocking rendition of the great Creedence song (and my personal favorite CCR) "Lookin Out My Backdoor."

He reminisced about several movie experiences between the songs. I would love to have been sitting around listening to the musicians jam on the set of "Heaven's Gate" or just strumming along on the guitar the last time he claims to have been in Vegas doing "Starman". He mentioned that one of his favorite lines from any film he has done was the line near the end when the visitor explains what he finds most beautiful about humans, "You are at your very best when things are worst." It was a touching thought given the events of the last week and reflective of his humanitarian attitude, and it came without preaching, which made it all the more inspiring.

Another song featured was one that he played the keyboard on, it was  from the film "American Heart" and it was written by Tom Waits, "I'll Never Let Go Of Your Hand." It was one of the slower songs of the evening but it was also very heartfelt and beautiful. I look forward to hearing it again. He made a point of sharing the names of almost all the songwriters who's work he was covering, especially his friend John Goodwin. There were three or four songs from this talented writer who appears to go way back with Jeff. There was a terrific, hard song that he apparently actually sings on screen in the film "Tidelands" from Terry Gilliam. I've never seen the film although I did hear some pretty scathing reviews when it came out. The song is an odd piece of business and I found a You Tube link for it as well so here it is:



I was most familiar with the songs from "Crazy Heart", one of my favorite films from 2009, a film like "Star Trek" that was neglected in the Best Picture category but made it's mark in two other categories. I have listened to the album occasionally over the last three years and the music is on my ipod, although lately I have depended on my Kindle Fire to hear music. The songs are mostly country based and that fits well with the bands work. They are focusing mostly on Rock/Country based sounds and the show was heavily influenced by Nashville sensibilities.

I'll finish this post with a clip put together by a fan, featuring Bridges singing the Academy Award Winning song and some photos taken at another event. If you are going to miss a weekend in the movie theater, at least let it be for an event like this. Back soon with more film centered posts.

Fogs Post on JAWS

On his regular feature "Movies That Everyone Must See", my pal Dan over at Fogsmoviereviews has a terrific article on the greatest film of the last half century. Enjoy.

42

With a hundred things to do this weekend, I thought at one point of skipping the movies and waiting until next week to see this film. Every time I saw a billboard, or poster or TV ad, I just could not wait. This is a film that calls for attention, it is about an important subject, and it is not afraid to wear it's heart on it's sleeve. Those are characteristics that compel me into a theater even when I don't have as much time as I'd like, and my instincts lead me in the right direction this weekend. "42" is the kind of movie that cineastes often dislike but the public at large consumes in mass quantities. The story has few surprises, the film making is sometimes obvious or even down right schmaltzy, but it works on such an emotional level that minor quibbles about hamfisted story telling are swept aside by emotional performances and the personal baggage that the viewer brings to the experience.

The story of Jackie Robinson, breaking into the major leagues, is a turning point in our cultural history. Years before anyone had heard of Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., or Brown vs. Board of Education, baseball became a pivotal moment in the Civil Rights movement. Robinson was on his own, standing up to the world as it was and simply asking to be allowed to play ball like any other person might expect to do. The movie focuses on the three years from when he was first considered as a candidate for the big leagues, to the end of his ultimately triumphant rookie season. This is a dramatic view of post war America, warts and all, struggling with itself as a moral leader in the world. I'd like to think that this film accurately reflects that struggle and allows us to take pride in the determination of a few men, black and white, who thought it was time for the world to change.

The movie starts by visualizing the  decision of Dodger President Branch Rickey, to seek out a black player for his team. It appears to be a calculated move, designed to build brand loyalty among the black fans of baseball, and the forward thinking Rickey seemed to know that it was destiny that the league would be integrated. As portrayed by Harrison Ford, Rickey is a combination of shewed business man and visionary civil rights advocate. He never comes out and acknowledges a motive other than building the best ball team he could, until an emotional scene when he confesses to having done less than he might have for another black player at another time. It's not a moment lingered over, but it does give us a little more motivation for all the trouble the decision ended up causing. Ford has always been an actor of great physicality.  I think ninety percent of his one performance nominated for an Academy Award, is based on how he squares his shoulders, raises his arms, and smiles or grimaces for the screen. In this role he may have more lines than any part he has ever played, even when he has been the lead. It is still his physical behavior that imbues the part with it's life. Here his back is bent, and shoulders slumped. He chews his cigar with the same fervor that he is chewing the scenery. He gets the most possible out of his gravelly old man voice and lets the special make up effects that are his eyebrows in this movie sell the rest. He is not the lead, but he steals every scene he is in and the performance is grand.

Chadwick Boseman is a bright young actor with a great future in front of him. He plays Robinson as a tightly wound spring, a man that has a strong desire to stand up and fight back, but due to circumstances he must bite his lip and keep his anger holstered. The story and it's emotional impact helps carry him through some rough patches. There are a few flat spots and a few over the top moments, but the actor manages to keep our focus on the story. The script sometimes requires a bit of the ridiculous, but that's the story of the country at the time. a giant in the world having to acknowledge the ridiculous racism that mars it's moment in the sun. Everyone else in the movie works very hard to show the kinds of people that were faced with these great changes. Some of them were brave, like "Pee Wee" Reese, who learns that his burden is nothing compared to Robinsons, others are cowards, backed reluctantly into playing with Robinson because their jobs were threatened. The most small minded of all are synthesized into two dramatic scenes. Alan Tudyk, portraying Phillies manager Ben Chapman personifies the deliberate hatred of the new, with a string of invective launched at Robinson during an early season game. Later, we see the contamination of an enthusiastic kid by the seeds of hatred planted by his father in the casual cat calling that went on during the season.

I am a sentimentalist, and the tears come easily when Robinson is embraced by his team mate in a show not just of unity but of self definition. The baseball heroics are fine, sports films need those kind of moments, but it is the small, sometimes obvious moments that really get to me. Robinson was not always perfect, Rickey was not altruistic, and the whole country was not racist. Separating the good from the evil is not a pretty enterprise at times, but it is comforting to think that when push came to shove, most of the country was anxious to push forward. It will probably feel like hokum to some viewers, and the movie will be accused of the usual faults of a story like this is. If people can get over their racist past, you would think movie snobs could temper their bias and just enjoy a great, uplifting story without having to deconstruct it through a narrow sociological prism. I was deeply moved by the story and the production values make me long for the days when the world was coated in hope, and promise. Maybe the vision of the film is an illusion, but it is one that we should be entertained and inspired by. I always hope every movie is better than the last one, but I don't know if any poster this year will be better than the one for this movie shown here. Let's play ball.

Jurassic Park Imax 3D

So why would anyone spend almost $40 to take three people to see a movie that is twenty years old and that all three had seen dozens (if not a hundred times)? That's easy, it's "Jurassic Park ", back on the big screen. I'd have paid that to see it on a regular screen without the 3D. The fact that we saw it in the third dimension and on a giant IMAX screen is just a bonus, although one of my companions did say that all viewing of "Jurassic Park" should be on IMAX, so everyone has to get a 70 foot screen for their home. That's not really practical but I know exactly what she means, this movie rocks on the giant screen. There were details that you could maybe see on a big TV, if you paused and looked closely. Here they are right in your face.

A few weeks back I posted on another bloggers post on this film, a brief story about seeing this twenty years ago, here I want to share the longer version of the story. We saw this movie with my friends Tim and Jamie Martin. My kids were little and we had my Mom baby sit for the night. We went opening night so it was packed because this was one of the biggest movies to open not just that year but ever. We only saw Tim and Jamie a couple of times a year, we went out to dinner, and then to the movie, it was a big deal. Sitting in front of us in a packed theater, were three or four twelve to fourteen year old boys. As kids at that age do, they started acting up a little, mostly just showing off for each other. I was very patient waiting through all the trailers for them to calm down (one of the trailers was for "The Flintstones" which was just a teaser and was not coming out for a year). Anyway, there was not another spot to move to, so I waited. When the screen goes dark and the "Universal" logo scrolls on the screen, John Williams ominous music cue starts and it sounds like a dinosaur, stomping through the dark. One of the kids sitting in front of us says out loud so the whole audience can hear his jaded attempt at humorous bravado "Oow,  scary!" It is at this point that I leaned forward and said to all of them, "You haven't seen scary until you've pissed me off. I don't want to hear from any of you for the next two hours!" In 1993, I wore my hair long and my beard big, and in the dark I probably looked like Charlie Manson staring at them. They shut up and when the movie ended skedaddled out of the theater shooting me nervous looks. i know that a lot of people these days avoid going to films in theaters because of boorish behavior, but unfortunately that behavior is not new, it is just intensified with the advent of the cell phone.

Now little kids for some reason have always loved dinosaurs, and mine were no exception. They begged me to take them to see the movie. They were five and seven. They were in fact small children but they were also very precocious.  I put them off for a long time but finally Jurassic Park was playing out at a discount theater for a final week, nearly six months later. We picked them up from school, and went on a late October afternoon when it would still be light out when the movie was over. I will never be a candidate for Father of the Year, and I am probably lucky I was not prosecuted for child abuse, because this is the second Spielberg film I exposed my kids to at way to young an age (take a wild guess what the first one was). Anyway they of course loved it and I thought they managed to get through without being too traumatized. It was only a few weeks ago that my oldest daughter, now 26, told me that for years she was worried about velociraptors  in her closet at night. And of course it drove my youngest to want to work in the entertainment business, the trailer at the beginning of this post is exclusive to the company she now works for.

Today, twenty years later, the movie is still terrifying and exciting and fun. The attack of the T-Rex is one of the best fright scenes in movies, and it goes on for nearly ten minutes. There is plenty to be impressed by, but when it is on the really big screen, and in 3D, it is extra impressive. Jurassic Park does not need to be in 3D to be effective, it's just a little something extra to sweeten the experience and make us want to go through it all again. Spielberg's trademark extended tension scenes are still there, his empathy for kids going through a divorce, and his ability to empathize with characters who are way over matched is what makes his movies more than just action films. Spielberg creates drama to go with the action. When I read the book back in 1991, everyone was casting in their heads for the main leads. I had always envisioned Harrison Ford as Dr. Grant and William Hurt as Ian Malcom. Sam Neil and Jeff Goldblum are now so much a part of the way I see this movie that I don't know what I was thinking. Goldblum of course has all the great lines and his delivery could not be matched by anyone. The extra reach of the T-Rex as it is chasing the jeep makes his line "Must go faster" even more appropriately understated.

I don't know if you will be able to see, but the theater we went to featured a real IMAX screen, not one of those Fauxmax screens that AMC tries to pawn off on the public. The screen drops about ten feet below the first row and towers over all the remaining rows except for the very back where the screen is only ten feet higher than the highest row. We sat three rows from the front, right in the center and it is easy to justify the extra travel time and expense to see the movie in this format.

Lovers of movies probably know the story of how Spielberg changed the way the movie was going to be shot after seeing a test real of digitally generated dinosaurs. The huge animatronic puppets that had been created for the movie by the Stan Winston Studios, did not go to waste. They are integrated into the movie very effectively and they look terrific. The eye work on some of those puppets is creepy and especially good at selling the illusion that these creatures are real. Phil Tippets stop motion animation doesn't end up in the film as far as I can tell, but you can visualize several scenes where it was probably going to be the tool they used until the digital dinos came along. Here is an L.A. Times ad that was run before the movies nearly twenty years ago that illustrates the relationship between these two techniques.



There have been two sequels to Jurassic Park and from my point of view they are both highly entertaining.  I fervently hope that the Fourth film, scheduled for next year in the summer, is also fun. I doubt that it will match anything in it's twenty year old ancestor, despite the improving technology. Spielberg is a producer on it, so there will be some standards applied, but the creativity that went into the original Jurassic Park is never going to me matched, it can only be imitated.

Evil Dead 2012

Preliminary comment...All kinds of Awesome. More tomorrow.

OK, I'm awake now and ready to let you in on my deep and analytical consideration of this complex and emotionally challenging gem of human drama.  Not really.

This is a straight out gore soaked, high intensity, disturbing shockfest. It is exactly what I wanted the movie to be. I came to the "Evil Dead" series a little late and I sort of hate myself for it. I remember seeing the poster at the "Alhambra/Gold Cinema" movie duplex back in 1981 and thinking that it looked messed up, but for some reason I did not make it out to the show. I saw a little activity from the film community when "Evil Dead II" was in theaters, but again I did not get off the couch and head to a cinema. Sometime in 1990, my friends the Yennys and the Rollinos, ended up watching "Evil Dead II" on video, I think at a Halloween party, and as John Yenny passionately defended his choice of film to others, I became convinced there was something there. At a comic book store near where I taught, they had "Evil Dead" on continuous loop and it was wild. I rented the two films and quickly became a champion myself. These movies were no holds barred fright films with a generous amount of gore to keep one disturbed for days. They also had a sly sense of humor, even the most serious of horror hounds was likely to appreciate.

Most of us who love movies rail against remakes, suggesting they reflect the bankrupt creativity of film studios who must pillage the past to find material to generate revenues. Over the past dozen years there have been dozens of horror films remade, utilizing the new technology available to achieve effects and then watering down the product enough to get a PG 13 rating to have a bigger audience. I don't automatically recoil at a remake, and there are a few instances where bringing the story to a new audience has resulted in superior entertainment. Those cases are usually the exception. This version of "Evil Dead" is one of those exceptions and a big reason that it is an exception is that the film makers abandon most of the tools of contemporary technology and go old school with their effects. There is no CGI blood in this movie, it is all on the set and the props and the actors. The blood soaked story uses galleons of crimson liquid to bring this tale to life (I love the irony of that sentence). One of my favorite things about horror films is the use of make up. In most modern films the make up effects are computer enhanced and I often feel like I am looking at a cartoon. You won't have that feeling here because the gruesome make up consists of brilliant use of appliance and prosthetic. When faces are mangled or limbs severed, it is all done in camera and it looks great. Rick Baker can be proud of the descendants he has spawned in this field. Tom Savini can sleep soundly knowing that his skills have inspired others.

"Evil Dead" practically invented the Cabin in the Woods premise of horror films. Typically a group of young people, isolated from the civilized world, are forced to cope with evil on their own with little chance of respite. A creative and successful innovation for this telling of the tale is to make this visit to the woods a serious intervention for a drug addict rather than just a picnic for horny teens. It makes it all the more believable that the cast would be slow to respond to some of the events taking place. In the world of the Evil Dead, spirits are possessed, the living are abused, and the only hope of overcoming any of it usually depends on taking the most extreme measures possible. All of that happens in this movie. I don't think it counts as a spoiler to say that most of the cast does not make it out of the story alive. In fact, most of the cast does not make it out of the story in one piece much less alive. The deaths and attacks are not morbidly lingered over like some torture based film. These events happen quickly, in a shocking manner and while they are sometimes disgusting, they manage to be scary more frequently than merely gross. Somewhere in my role as parent, I brought my children with me to the dark side. My youngest daughter (she is now 24), loves tea parties, Winnie the Pooh, Alice in Wonderland, and gore flicks. She and I have seen countless horror films in the last few years and have rarely been satisfied. Last night, she saw only half the movie, the half you can see from behind your hands or the jacket pulled up around your face. She pretty much had the same reaction I did,muttering as we walked out of the theater,"Oh God, Jesus, and What the f***." The movie was scary good and has everything you could want as a fan of horror films.

There are several tips of the hat to the original film. A close to the ground tracking shot at speed represents the evil in the woods. There is a vivid aural environment, ripe with tension and often mimicking  pieces of business from the earlier films. The trademark automobile of a Sam Rami film makes a guest appearance here. Over the credits at the end we are treated to the voice recording used in the earlier version of the film
to provide the exposition back in 1981(Bob Dorian, the host of AMC channel movies for many years and perhaps the inspiration for having Robert Osbourne host on TMC, provided the voice on the recorder). And if you are a real fan of the series, you will want to sit through the credits to get the one wink and nod that most "Deadites" crave the most.

A movie like this is not really subject to some of the same standards one might apply to other stories. When people are slow to react, it's not because they are stupid, it is just part of the order of things. There is not always a clear explanation or a sense of logic to the events. One character put it this way, when asked if he was sure if the action being planned would work, he said "I'm not sure of anything". That is pretty much the way I think most of you will feel, uncertain as to what is going to happen next. Eric, the same character also responds when David tries to reassure one of the others that everything is going to be fine says "Everything's gonna be fine? I don't know if you noticed this, but everything's been getting worse... every second". That's what we want from a movie like this, we want it to keep ratcheting up the tension, squeezing out the scares, and making us laugh at our own fears while cringing behind our hands.

Roger Ebert dies at 70 after battle with cancer - Chicago Sun-Times

Roger Ebert dies at 70 after battle with cancer - Chicago Sun-Times

While his political commentary in the last few years has frayed the edges of my respect for him, the legacy he leaves is enormous.  A pivotal figure in the world of entertainment for a position that is truly unique.

A Few Things I Miss At the Modern Movie Theater.

I just finished watching "The Cowboys", the great John Wayne film from 1972. I saw it on a very nice Blu Ray disc with an excellent picture. The movie was just as good as I remembered, but there were a few things that I had not remembered. To begin with, there is an Overture. For those of you too young to know what that is, or if you are not a classical music aficionado, an overture is defined as " An instrumental composition intended especially as an introduction to an extended work, such as an opera or oratorio.". Movies in roadshow presentations frequently had overtures. The curtains opened, the previews played and when the trailers finished, the the curtains closed again and then announced on a title slide "Overture". We are then treated to three or four minutes of musical themes from the score as people settle into their seats and anticipate the movie.

This was the second day in a row that I watched a film that includes the "Overture: as part of the video presentation. Yesterday I got to enjoy  Miklos Rozsa's fantastic theme music while the title card stayed on the screen the whole time.



In this case the overture was more than six minutes in length. The John Williams overture from "The Cowboys" is equally lengthy. The mood is set very effectively by sitting in a darkened theater with no other distractions and letting the emotion of the music sweep over you. It always seemed portentous to me, but I suspect it seemed pretentious to others. The practice made the audience focus on the movie and the presentation. When films played in roadshow presentations there were often substantially higher ticket prices and unique features to make that price acceptable. Nowadays a theater needs to take advantage of the time between the screenings to advertise to the audience. Some theaters still have slide shows that list local businesses, others have elaborately packaged show reels for movies, tv shows and other products. All theaters usually sell upcoming films through the use of trailers.

I have nothing against trailers, in fact they are one of my favorite parts of the film going experience. The trouble is that trailers are now treated as part of the advertising process rather than the movie watching process. Some theaters do not separate the trailers from the ads, some do not lower the lights all the way during the trailers. Revenue sources have to be exploited, the theater owner margins are so thin that they squeeze every nickel they can for popcorn and soda. So of course the extra time for an overture is going to be money out of their pockets.

At drive in theaters and double features which were ubiquitous in my youth, the break between movies was thought of as the intermission. The screen would sometimes countdown  the minutes until the show started up again. Often there would be ads for the snack bar similar to this:



I have seen some nice computer graphic promotions for the snack bar before the movies, immediately after the trailers. I don't know how effective they are since they are usually the last thing we see before the film starts. It would make more sense to show them five minutes before the trailers.

The two films I just mentioned also had an intermission. There is a dramatic sequence that ends with a strong music cue and then a title card identifying the break as an intermission would come on the screen. An intermission could last anywhere from five to twenty minutes depending on the film. "Gods and Generals" and "Gettysburg" are two films that had intermissions because the run time of each was near four hours. "The Cowboys" is only two hours and fifteen minutes but it still had an intermission. Anyone who has sat through one of Peter Jackson's Tolkien films would almost certainly have appreciated an intermission. The big roadshow films had an entr'acte music cue. A briefer recap of the overture to announce the start of the last section of the film. Again both of the films I saw yesterday and today had that feature. One last musical feature was exit music, that played after the credits but allowed people time to enjoy sitting in the theater as the crowd thinned and then knowing that they had really overstayed their welcome when the music stopped.

While there may be intermissions in some parts of the world during film screenings, the last major motion picture (the two Civil War Dramas mentioned earlier being relatively cheap TV productions shown in theaters) to contained a planned intermission appears to have been "Gandhi" from 1982.

While it has been thirty years since these kinds of presentations have been typical, it is only in the last dozen years or so that the process of opening and closing the curtain as part of the presentation has disappeared. With the advent of the multiplex, it seems that this pleasing feature of the experience was determined to be unnecessary. As far as I can remember, AMC theaters never had curtains on their screens. When the Edwards Chain was consumed by Regal Entertainment Group, all of the old theaters that they kept were remodeled with stadium style seating. It was at this time that the ritual of raising the curtain for the trailers, lowering it again and then raising it for the feature came to an end. It's too bad because again it really enhanced the magical experience of the movies.



If the above does not convince you, I don't know what would. I love seeing films at the El Capitan or the Chinese Theater because they continue to keep this tradition alive.

G.I. Joe Retaliation

I saw the first G.I Joe Movie a couple of years ago. I guess it was before I started the blog because I don't have a review posted. I do remember telling several people that it was "craptacular". It was loud, stupid, confusing and entertaining enough to fill a Saturday matinee and allow me to kill a bucket of butter popcorn. The sequel is just about the same. It is not a good movie but it is a good time. If you see it in 3D, it doesn't make it 3 times as good but it does make it more interesting and gives you some extra value for the effort that you made. Several scenes seem to have been planned with the express purpose of making cheesy use of stuff flying off the screen. Let's face it, this is a movie, based on a cartoon that was based on a toy line that was promoted on television. It has a lot pushing against it to begin with, if it manages to be enjoyable at all, that is something of an accomplishment.

My memory of G.I. Joe is completely different from all of the stuff that makes up this storyline. Check out this commercial from the toy line when I was growing up:



Somewhere in the early 1980s, the action figures got smaller, and the toy line got bigger. I remembered hearing speeches about how inappropriate it was that toy lines were creating cartoons that would serve as long form commercials for their products. "Transformers", "My Little Pony", "He-Man" and "G.I.Joe" were all cited as examples of this phenomena. It appears to have taken root in the consciousness of kids from that decade because they are now nostalgically returning to their youth and sharing it with their own kids. So now the commercials are not half hour television cartoons badly animated, but two hour motion pictures, almost animated and badly written. The cartoon like villains  in this movie put it in the same category as the "Transformers" films, they are action-fantasy films, and you can buy the toy. I still don't know why there are ninjas in the commando units but who am I to question the successful marketing of this product line?

The ninjas actually provide the best reason for the use of 3 D in the movie. There is a long sequence where two American Ninjas must fight against a whole squad of evil "Cobra" ninjas, and capture a duplicitous ninja who is somehow connected to the good guy ninjas. Read that sentence back, believe it or not that is an accurate description. Anyway, even though it makes very little sense, the ninjas repel down mountain sides, use zip lines and pitons to escape and fight on the side of the mountain.  This is all done in a way to allow the ninjas to fly off the screen, swoosh past our faces and then toss another bad guy off the mountain into the audience dimension. All that effort and the bad guy ninja, the cooperates with the good guys for no particular reason except some distant grudge that apparently is awakened by being kidnapped. At least we got to keep the cool customized 3D glasses.More collectible toys to keep the marketing gurus happy.

I did have a vague recollection from the first film that the President had been replaced with a "Cobra" agent. The best part of this continuity is that Jonathon Pryce returns to the film and lends it his dignity. How an English guy got elected President in the first place is a mystery, but I guess if we can have a President from Kenya, we can have one from England. (For those of you with no sense of humor, that is a joke, Do not take it as a belief in birtherism or Manchurian conspiracy theory). Channing Tatum was also in the first film, but it appears that the producer's did not realize how his career was going to take off. I heard that one of the reasons for the year long delay in releasing this was to put more of Mr. Tatum in the movie.  Joseph Gordon Levitt played the bad guy in the first film but I guess he didn't want to be back or was not going to get paid his current rate. He is replaced by a costume, and it is no great loss, he was almost not in the other movie either. Two stunt guy actors get pretty good parts, Rays Stevenson and Park. There is also a juicy part for Walton Goggins, Amanda's current crush. And the kid from Jurassic Park dies early.

The two biggest assets G.I.Joe Retaliation has going for it are Dwayne Johnson and Bruce Willis. These two guys are in nearly every movie coming out in the first eight months of 2013. Whatever they are not in stars Mark Wahlberg.  I have always enjoyed "The Rock" in movies, and I was never a wrestling fan. He has a good star presence, lifting even terrible material to at least mediocre. Bruce Willis is one of our favorites, but after the awful "Die Hard" sequel earlier this year, I was a little concerned. He seems to have awakened from that slumber (or given that the film was delayed, fallen into a slumber). Here his natural charisma adds to the film and he gets to punch in some energy without having to carry the film on his own.

If I had played with the later toys, I probably would not need a score card to keep track of all the players. No one is invested with much of a character except Johnson and Tatum, and their character comes delivered via video game, so you can tell how thin it is going to be. Stuff blows up, guns go off, swords get crossed and characters live on to fight in another sequel. I don't really care about any of it, but it was fine while I was there. I'm sure I won't remember much about it in a couple of weeks. I am afraid I do want to see General Patton's Ivory Handled .45s being used on the bad guys, that might be enough to get me into the theater three years from now, but nothing in the story is going to last long enough to anticipate it.

Olympus Has Fallen

Gerard Butler has been in some terrible movies in the last few years. His roles in "Phantom of the Opera" and "300" are almost a decade old now. So how does a guy, stuck in crappy romantic comedy hell redeem himself and return to box office success? The answer appears to be produce your own film, choose something that emphasizes the things that made you a star in the first place, and surround yourself with talented people who know how to make a movie work. The result is "Olympus has Fallen" an entertaining as all get out throwback to the action films of twenty years ago. This is the movie that "A Good Day to Die Hard" should have been.

Every few years we get studios battling it out with dueling films on similar themes. Back in the 1980s, two studios combined to merge Diane Fossey movies into "Gorillas in the Mist". Four years later there were two Robin Hood projects, one studio blinked and sold their product to television. Then there were matching Volcano movies and battling Meteor destroying the Earth films. This year we have two action films about an attack on the White House. "Olympus has Fallen" hits theaters first and sets a pretty high standard for action movie mayhem. The set up is pretty straightforward although preposterous. North Korean terrorists seize the President in order to gain political and military advantages. I get the impression from the trailer for "White House Down" that we will be getting domestic terrorists seeking a similar objective. I don't know how that will play, but it appears that Kim Jung Un wants us to believe this is possible. The North Koreans are acting in a belligerent and bellicose manner at this very moment, and the film exploits that behavior pretty well to make the premise somewhat acceptable.

The degree of firepower used in the take over of the White House in this film is alarming. The violence is brutal and there is a good reason that this film is rated R. The Secret Service and the D.C. based military units committed to defending the President's house are out gunned and the level of brutality was somewhat reminiscent of the last "Rambo" movie. Killing is indiscriminate and there are no rules of war being observed. If you are not up for a violent film then you better skip this, but if this is the kind of action that you crave, this movie will fill your plate. While much of the battle is CGI enhanced, there are dozens of extras and actors who take the stunts to the limit, flying through the air or having squibs explode their bodies. A lot of modern technology has been focused on this film. I have mentioned in some past reviews that it appears that Eastern Europe is rapidly replacing Korea and Taiwan as the leader in animated and computer rendered effects. There were several sections in the credits where every name ended with a v, usually an ov. Those that did not end with a v ended with an a. Bulgaria must be swarming with computer animators looking for work.

Butler plays a Secret Service agent with a bit of a history. We are shown his heroic nature and the nature of his failure early in the movie. The purpose of this is to add to the drama with the President's family and to raise questions in the minds of those dependent on him later in the movie. His character however, never has any doubts about his own ability. He never hesitates to act when needed and he behaves in a very consistent and aggressive manner in the film. This is how people want to see Butler, kicking ass and taking names, not trading banter with a series of actresses who can't carry a picture on their own. There are some good "Die Hard" type exchanges with the bad guy, and he gets to argue with generals and the acting President. None of the dialogue reaches the comic heights that Bruce Willis manages in the first four Die Hard" films, but there are a couple of nasty comebacks that give us some satisfaction.

The movie that this should most be compared with is "Air Force One".  The plot is simple, there are insiders who betray the President, it is one against many and the outside leadership group often feels powerless to act. There are plot holes that you can ignore because what is happening in front of you is more fun than noticing that there are other choices and options that the protagonist and the temporary command structure are missing. The cast is loaded with good actors who make their scenes work more effectively. Angela Bassett, Robert Forester, and Melissa Leo bring some gravitas to the silly goings on. Any time you get Morgan Freeman playing the President (Acting or Elected), you get some sense that people want this to be seen as something more than a cartoon. Dylan McDermott gets to return to work for the secret service, a job he had twenty years ago in "In the Line of Fire". Rick Yune plays the lead terrorist, mimicking his role in the last Pierce Brosnon 007 film. The poor guy seems to be getting a little type cast, but his acting range appears to fit the type so it's probably just as well that he gets to work at all.  Gerard Butler has some early scenes where he gets a chance to emote a bit, but once the action starts, he basically turns into the action figure that a movie like this requires. He brings enough personality to the performance to raise it above the level of a straight to video programmer. Aaron Eckhart plays the President and he is believable but underwritten. There are some nice sequences with his son that set up some more emotional points but it is standard stuff.

The action is staged energetically. Big fights and battles are mixed in with one on one combat. There are also several high tech operations and weapons that add to the suspense in the film. There are some good ploys by the bad guys to disguise some of their actions, but there are also several things that are left unexplained. It would be easy to knit pick the films plot and twists but why would you? If you paid your money to be entertained, you will be. If you wanted something that was logically sound, you will be disappointed, and you should have your head examined for wanting that from the film in the first place.  I also enjoyed the patriotic flourishes spread out through the movie. The Secretary of Defense defiantly shouts the pledge of allegiance, the American Flag is mistreated but ultimately restored, portraits of the Presidents are often shown in background shots and Abraham Lincoln makes a guest appearance and this time it's not vampires he is hunting.  This movie feels like it was made in the 1990s. The plot, action and tone recall the days of  the great action films of those times. This will be one of those movies in the future that are sometimes called "Black Hole" films. Their gravitational pull is so great that the viewer can't resist. (Thanks Dan for that term). If I don't see it again in theaters, I know I will experience it a hundred times on cable, and each time i will enjoy.

R.I.P. Uncle Vernon

Richard Griffiths, best known for the Harry Potter Films has passed at the age of 65. He doesn't look anything like Matt LeBlanc (Episodes Reference). I remember him doing an odd little dance in "Guarding Tess", it was a nice moment. Deadline Hollywood Obit.


And here he is in one of the Naked Gun films.

Wheelchair Mayhem



The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear
— MOVIECLIPS.com