Cinematic Katzenjammer Not So Sectret Santa: Black Narcissus (1947)

Whenever you volunteer to participate in a Secret Santa Exchange, you run the risk of displeasing the person that you choose from the pool. Even worse, you could be subjected to a gift from someone that does not know you well and dumps a gift on you that might only be appropriate for a White Elephant party exchange. When you make it a movie review exchange, the danger is heightened, after all, someone can't just shrug "Thanks" and put the gift aside and ignore it. Here, you have to live with the gift for a while. A two hour film takes up that much time, if you are ordering it on line you may be paying for the privilege of watching your gift. Then you have to figure out what to say about it. If you hate it, that might offend someone who only was trying to share something they love and instead of discovering another friend online, you have created an enemy. All the same, with a film review/swap, I still think you should honestly express your views on the gift, that is what someone else was looking for.

So far in participating in the Secret Santa Reviews on the Cinematic Katzenjammer, I have been lucky. No films that test my patience, morality or my stomach. I'm not sure how Nick decides to pair up films with participants. If he uses a random process then I have been under Fortune's  good star, if as editor, he screens films and matches them with people that he thinks might fit well with the move, then Good Job Nick. I was pleased to receive my assignment and even more pleased when I opened it up and examined it closely, it is a cinematic gem. "Black Narcissus" is a movie I have heard about for decades and never got around to seeing. Much like a book that has been assigned to you rather than pulled off the shelf and borrowed under your own will, a movie can feel like a chore because it is expected of you to have seen it. Like "The Great Gatsby" or "1984" in high school, "Black Narcissus" turns out to be something that will stick with me because I liked it rather than it being a mere assignment to get out of the way.

One of the reasons that a film could stay out of your reach is a lack of familiarity with any of its premise in the first place. I'd heard this referred to as a mystery, as a cultural piece, as a woman's film and as a sexual Gothic melodrama. Without a handle on the subject matter or story, it was easy to pass by for something more familiar, that was my mistake. As usual here on the KAMAD blog, I will be staying far away from spoilers. I don't want to recount the story scene by scene for the readers, I always try to share my impressions and emotions without repeating the whole movie. However, since my own reluctance to see the film for a number of years has been a result of ignorance, let me just give a quick set up of the events and plot. An order of nuns in India have obtained the right to open a school/hospital/convent in the abandoned palace of an Indian general's family. A younger nun is given authority to take a half dozen sisters and act as the Mother Superior in the new and remote location. The local population is primitive by Western standards and suspicious of outsiders and new ways. The agent for the General making the donation is an expatriate Englishman who appears to be very unsympathetic to the  plan for somewhat selfish reasons. All of the women are chosen to participate in the endeavor for personal characteristics they display, and all of them have different reactions to the situation they find themselves in.

With that set up out of the way, let me explain the features of the film that I most enjoyed and that I think would be appealing to other film lovers. There are three distinct pleasures that I derived from my screening of the film; it is breathtakingly beautiful, it is overtly sexual (at least for 1947) and it is freakishly weird in character development. It deserves it's reputation as a classic film, I just don't know that everyone will know why without having a little better peek at it.

This is a film set in India, in the Himalayan regions, and it was shot entirely in England. You will not be aware of how rooted to the backlot this feature is. The cinematography, lighting and background mattes will convince you that you are on a mountain precipice in a remote location in India. The sets are constructed and decorated in such a way as to suggest they are ancient, neglected rooms or sparse regulated spiritual environments. The outdoor shots look expansive and convey a feeling of isolation despite being on the Pinewood Studios lot.


























Michael Powell, who shares credit with screenwriter Emeric Pressburger, is known for his visual style. He was responsible for the look of "The Thief of Baghdad"  and made "The Red Shoes", one of the most iconic color films of the early part of cinema history. This movie revels in colors and camera angles and lighting that are startlingly beautiful and interesting at the same time. Along with legenday cameraman Jack Cardiff, Powell gives us some vertigo inducing views of not just mountains but dining halls, chapels and even people.

The white habits of the nuns crossing against exotic colors creates an otherworldly atmosphere from the beginning. The first shots of the film are of an office with a ceiling fan, but the view seems to be from a level higher than the ceiling fan itself. There are several points in the film where the characters are viewed from above as if we are spying on them under a microscope, observing their actions and noting the characteristics of each cell as it floats across the slide that has been inserted. These shots are well designed and they don't come off as a directorial flourish but rather as a natural way of observing something that is foreign but at the same time familiar.

A key location in the film is the bell that the nuns use to announce the start of the day to the valley of natives below them. It is located on an outcrop from the palace, right on the edge of a precipice that would intimidate even seasoned base jumpers. The view is spectacular, but as I have already said, it is an illusion. The location is not a mountain top and what we see is largely special photographic effects, but they will put to shame much of the CGI wizardry that now dominates film making.

It is not just the sets and scenery that make this film visually spectacular. The lighting of characters and the movement of wind through the palace is also evocative. The mystery of the women and the location is heightened by small touches of color or choices of perspective. This is frankly one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen. It is almost possible to envision each frame as it's own stand alone image, deserving of a place on your wall or in a coffee table book of photographs.

While I am not quite done mentioning the look of the film, I want to transition to the sexual nature of the movie. A film featuring nuns that was made in 1947 may not seem like a rich subject for erotic psychology but this film is loaded with references and images that seem to scream out "SEX" in spite of the subdued way in which the story progresses. The palace that the sisters take over, is referred to as a palace, but it was actually the location of the harem for the General's grandfather. He kept his women there and the caretaker makes a passing comment that it is now to be occupied again by women. The decaying but opulent interior is splashed with erotic murals from Indian culture. It might have been the first thing that nuns could be expected to do but to cover or paint over them. It never happens. In many of the interactions that take place during the story, the murals remain in the background. When the nuns arrive at the palace, they are greeted by the General's agent Mr. Dean. He is an Englishman who has nearly gone native. He is barely dressed each time he encounters the sisters, his shirt opened across his chest and his legs exposed by shorts. He seems to resent that the women are unavailable to him because of their vows, but makes it clear that he has a particular need for women. His suggestion that the education of the young women of the district would be beneficial to him carries with it a strange sexual undertone. He lingers over a piece of tapestry with an erotic scene painted on it as he verbally fences with the new Mother Superior. While several of the nuns
are older, two are young enough to be attractive to a man in his late thirties or early forties. Deborah Kerr plays the tense new
Superior, a woman who has come to the order as a release from the pain of a failed love affair that left her a marked woman in her native Irish land. We never get the full story behind Sister Ruth, played by Kathleen Byron, but it is strongly suggested that she is an emotionally damaged woman of loose morals who is seeking celibacy as a way of righting her mind. All of the sisters are effected by the location. It is hinted that even the oldest and most down to earth nun, Sister Phillipa has allowed erotic thoughts to distract her from her duties as the gardener for the convent.

A young Jean Simmons, plays a native of the district who appears to be orphaned and also something of a vixen. She is deposited with the sisters as a way of keeping her out of Mr. Dean's bedroom, which he surprisingly does not want her occupying. Her presence stirs the pot of eroticism even more. In a couple of scenes she seductively vamps in front of a mirror or dances with a lewd twerk in her hips in the former bathing lounge of the brothel nee palace.

In a summary of the story that I read on line, the author suggested that the "Young General", the nephew of their benefactor and an interloper in this world of women, has seduced the young Kanchi. That perspective ignores that she is part of the erotic background of the location and it is her effect on him that produces his action. All of the sensuality becomes too much for some of the characters and they become unhinged in very different ways by its continuing influence. It is at this point that the story becomes a macabre tale of unrequited love and madness.

 The characters frankly become even more strange than they started out as. The atmosphere starts to close in on them and the haunting location and images spark desires and tip egos in ways that seem melodramatic but understandable. We have been set up for some of these elements by the winds whispering constantly through the film. The way the habits move of their own accord suggests that the women are not quite in control of their own behaviors.

The intensity of emotional turmoil is easy to read on the face of Sister Ruth. Her eyes are dark and terrifying from the beginning of their time on top of the mountain. As she lurks in corners and spies on the comings and goings of Mr. Dean, she becomes more and more lost. There is a particularly startling scene in which she is

revealed to us as having made a significant decision about her life. She doesn't have to say anything, all that has to happen is a door opens and we see that sexually repressed madness has taken her over. While Sister Clodagh may have sexual stirrings triggered by Mr. Dean and the palace, we know that she has kept her sanity. Once again the visual nature of the movie shows us what power the eroticism takes as we see an even graver change in the eyes of Ruth.

We have oversexualized teen Lolitas, and handsome exotic men mixed into a strange location in a foreign land, all of which is layered on top of nuns who have taken vows of celibacy but who are still subject to human frailties. It all adds up to a unique film experience which will haunt you with it's breathtaking beauty and strange story. "Black Narcissus" deserves it reputation as a great film from post war England, and it was a stocking stuffer that I am sorry I left in the toe for so long. Whoever was my Secret Santa, I'd like to thank you for the push you gave me toward this memorable gift. Merry Christmas to all.


 

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

I keep promising myself that I am going to stop going to midnight screenings and spare myself the pain of the following day. I also keep breaking that promise and justifying it to myself with all kinds of excuses. Last nights excuse was simple, both of my daughters wanted to go to the double feature of The two Hobbit films and the second premiered at midnight. At 27 and 25, they still have their Dad wrapped around their fingers. When they were small kids and we lived in an apartment in Alhambra, I would read them a chapter of the Hobbit as a bedtime story every night. We must have read the whole book three or four times and it remains one of those proud achievements of fatherhood that I introduced them to that form of literature  when they were only four or five years old. Even though they were not as enthusiastic about the first movie "An Unexpected Journey" as they had been about the Lord of the Rings trilogy, they still want the movies to work and there are still scenes in our heads that we want to see depicted on screen, forty feet high and seventy feet wide. We also craved hearing a voice that we had nightmares over when they were young; the dragon Smaug. This new chapter in the Hobbit series suffers from the same bloat that it's predecessor did, it takes a long time for some events to happen, some events that are not needed intrude on the story and sequences of action often go on longer than needed. That having been said, we all had a marvelous time and I at least enjoyed the film immensely in spite of the story excesses. I was happy to be in a theater, and I was there for over six hours with two of my favorite three people in the world. The film kept me awake and involved, even though I had been up since 4:30 in the morning on Thursday. If it can keep me awake when all my senses would normally be screaming to shut down, the film must do some things right.

To start on a positive note, let's focus on the key scene in the movie. The one piece that everyone is anticipating and needs to work for the film to have any chance. Last year, the riddle game with Gollum was the scene that everyone loved and allowed them to embrace the film even though it has flaws. This year the conversation is more dangerous and erudite. Bilbo Baggins, novice burglar, confronts "Smaug", the dragon responsible for wiping out the dwarf kingdom of Erebor as well as Dale, the nearby town of men that now lays in ruin at the foot of The Lonely Mountain.  Many of us remember the Rankin/Bass animated version of The Hobbit from the 1970s. The dragon was voiced by one of the great pieces of voice casting ever, Richard Boone. His sonorous and gravelly voice fit the serpent like qualities of the character perfectly. His self aggrandizing tone matched the ego of the beast and revealed his weakness. Boone is long gone and when the films were finally announced we played a game; name the actor who would best voice Smaug. At our house we were three for three, all of us picked one voice that we thought would be perfect, and it is not the one that was cast. Imagine our disappointment when we saw that Benedict Cumberbatch would voice the dragon and not our unanimously agreed upon Peter O'Toole. Of course at that point we were not familiar with Mr. Cumberbatch and his vocal talents. I still have not seen his Holmes, but he was excellent in "Star Trek: Into Darkness" and so I had high hopes. He manages to live up to those hopes very well. He brings menace and temperment to the right boil to make Smaug more than a monster but a real character as well. Check out the last thiry seconds of the trailer below to get a preview.


In addition to being well played vocally, the dragon is vividly realized in a visual medium. He moves convincingly and looks very realistic. In one of the many departures from the book, there is a long confrontation sequence and chace between Smaug and the troop of dwarfs seeking his destruction. Like several  other sequences in the film, it goes on a little long and is not entirely needed but it is cleverly put together and entertaining to watch.

A second example of the weakness of the film is the long chase of the dwarfs as they escape from imprisonment in a elf kingdom by riding in barrels. What was whimsical and somewhat comic in the children's book that I read to my kids, becomes an elaborate set piece featuring a violent battle scene at a water gate and then an extended hunt and chase battle along the path of the river by which the barrels are returned to Laketown. The sequence is well staged and has some amazing stunts and visual tricks to show us but it goes on much too long and it could easily be taken out of the film since it does nothing to advance the narrative and only exits to make this an action film on the same level as the movies from ten years ago. Conversely, the interlude at the beginning of this chapter of the trilogy, features the character "Beorn" and it goes by much too quickly. It was a good change of pace moment in the book but it does not get a chance to allow us to reacquaint with the band of adventurers before they are quickly pursued into Mirkwood. The pace of the film is constantly moving quickly, which is surprising since the story is so padded. For a nearly three hour film, it never seems to slow down enough to take in the events or personalities that we encounter. They are interludes between the long fight sequnces that have been interjected in a half dozen places in the story.

If your favorite parts of the "Lord of the Rings" films were the battle at Helms Deep or the War at the gates of Gondor, than this film will be perfect for you. Orcs and Goblins crawl through forests and towns and attack at nearly every opportunity. There are flashback sequences and parallel story lines and there is even a romantic subplot thrust into this film. I can say that even though the tie in to the later stories is not needed here, it was actually assembled very well. Strings of connection have been forged where none existed before but they are not so much grafted on as weaved into the story. The scale of the movie is much larger than the original book required, and it dilutes the product even though it is prepared well and cooked expertly. Gandalf is a much more central figure in this version of "The Hobbit" and sometimes that means that Bilbo gets a little lost. The actors are all playing their parts with great fervor and some of the dwarfs are finally stepping out of the crowd and establishing a little more personality distinction. The scenes in the Kingdom of the Mirkwood elves do feel like the drama is being ratcheted up rather than building naturally. On the other hand, the sequence in Laketown, except for the orc attack, feels much more like a story that is telling itself rather than being forced on us.  Bard as a character is perfectly cast and his somber demeanor fits with the story. I did think his imprisonment made very little sense and there are a couple of similar glitches in other places as well.

This time I splurged and we saw this in 3D IMAX with the 48fps speed film. I understand the criticism that it got last year and there were several spots in which the high speed shooting makes the picture less cinematic and more obviously set based. Some elements look much better with the high speed film but others look almost videotaped rather than filmed. There did not seem to be any consistent reason that this was true. It was not as if all of the action scenes worked but the exposition scenes looked off. Both types of sequences worked and failed at different points and I am hard pressed to say why although I can say I noticed it. For a story that has been building to a confrontation with a dragon, it ends a bit abruptly. This will certainly make the start of the next and final chapter more memorable but it left the audience a little short this morning. The critical praise from the Lord of the Rings films was deserved, it was an intricate story that was massively complex and stitched together in an effective way. The reason the Hobbit films have not had the same kind of support is not a lack of talent, vision or skill. The reason these movies are not as revered as the other series comes down to the fact that this simple story is being reverse engineered. As Peter Drucker said:

“There is nothing quite so useless, as doing with great efficiency, something that should not be done at all.” 

JAWS Diorama

Post by Bruce's Scale Modeling Domain.

Final Cut 2013 - A Cinema Tribute

Movies I Want Everyone to See: The Court Jester 1955

Time marches on and history sometimes fades into vague memory and then is forgotten. If I asked anyone in my classes if they know who Danny Kaye was, my guess is that a couple of hands would go in the air and the other twenty-five would look at me blankly. This is no fault of their own, there are so many good films to catch up on, and if you are a fan of the Golden age of Hollywood, you probably want to absorb some film noir, or catch up on classic westerns that you have missed. Heck, maybe you would even want to see some of the socially relevant classics of that time period; films like "On the Waterfront", "Gentleman's Agreement", or "The Best Years of our Lives". Who could fault you with so many wonderful choices? I don't ever want this continuing column to be about scolding people for the films they have not yet found. My purpose is always to bring attention to a movie that I want others to share and enjoy. While Danny Kaye starred in dozens of movies and did television up till his death in 1987, it is this movie that makes me most love him. It is time for me to share the love.

Homefront

A video review for a pretty standard Action film. Hope you enjoy. Also on KAMAD.
Not much to write about, but if you are interested I have a view things to say.

Frozen

Twenty years ago, I would have taken my small daughters to see this movie on a chilly day after Thanksgiving and they would have loved it. It has music and funny characters and two princesses. They would probably fight for the rest of the year over which princess they got to be when they played together.  I have no doubt that there will be 1000s of little girls and their parents enjoying the same kind of enchantment I might have enjoyed then. The problem however is my kids are grown, and while I did take my youngest with me (she is 25 now) we have grown more critical in our willingness to embrace a movie on mere concept. Execution matters. There is a lot to appreciate in this Walt Disney Pictures Release, but it falls far short of being a classic that you will want to return to time after time.

I love musicals, so when I say this film falls a little flat on the musical side, know that it is not because I object to the format. I have noticed that many musical films, especially children's films, start heavy in the first half and then as the narrative gets denser and more convoluted, abandons the musical sequences. Except for the Umpa Loompa song in Willie Wonka, once they go through the tunnel, the only distinct song is the "I Want it Now" Veruca Salt number. In "The Wizard of Oz", after they meet the Wizard the first time, there is only the guard song and it hardly counts as a song at all. This film has a dozen musical sequences in the first half and none in the second. When all those songs are stacked on top of one another in the first part of the movie, none of them gets to stand out. They are also pretty much the same style and sung by women's voices that are strong but not particularly distinct from one another. The Disney films of the early nineties knew that you needed a show stopper, not just a character piece. All the songs in this film feel like showcases for the singers but not for the story or the song. None of them advances the story or reveals anything surprising about the characters. They sound very "Broadway" with a little bit of contemporary teen pop to make them radio friendly. We need a "Prince Ali" or a "Be Our Guest" to make the show distinctive.

The set up of the dilemma with the two little princesses is nicely done but the reason for Ilsa having special powers is not explained and is taken as a given before we know it. There is a crisis that immediately follows our discovery of this gift and it is resolved by another unexplained phenomena, a village of rock trolls. The magic seems arbitrary and the explanations are rapidly zipped through. The loving parents are made to vanish for no particular reason and in a manner that seems to belie the circumstances in which they live. The whole first part of the movie skips over the relationship between the sisters after the opening incident. Since that relationship seemed so intense in the start of the story, it feels sadly underdone after that. The appearance of a love interest and the ease with which he is accepted by all but the new queen is another oddly undeveloped point. I also felt that the animation style, computer generated images, sometimes seemed to be used for display of ideas rather than telling the story. The best part of the artwork is not the magic of the frost covering the land, but the characters faces and the charm of the non-human characters.

As in most Disney films, the hero has a horse (or in this case a Reindeer) who has personality plus and steals the scene from under the lead. The nice touch in this story is that the hero provides a conversational voice for the animal and then carries on dialogue with himself as if the Reindeer were answering. Most of you with pets know what I am talking about. I liked the fact that this forces the hero Kristoff, to make decisions for himself but blame it on his reindeer Sven. The relationship between Kristoff and Princess Anna develops nicely through the adventure they travel through together. The introduction of the Snowman Olaf is a little less effective. As a character he provides comic relief and a narrator perspective on things, but he also seems to be obviously shoehorned into the story for just that purpose. There is also a villainous Duke from a neighboring kingdom who meddles in the affairs of Arendelle, the kingdom of the new queen and her princess sister. There is a sudden turn in the way the story plays out that is a bit of a mean cheat for the kids following along. It also feels like a convenient plot device rather than an organic twist in the narrative.

OK, enough with the grousing, the movie is perfectly fine family fare. I don't think it stand up next to "Tangled" or "Bolt", two other recent Disney brand films that have more going for them, but is is servicable for the holidays. I wanted to like the film more than i did, and I was inclined to because I was surrounded by parents with their small children who did seem to love it. The film was packed and there were lines for the next showing, so it will clearly be a hit with the audience it is made for. It just won't be as big a hit with those who have reached a different stage in their life. Enjoy it but don't expect to feel a need to revisit it. It is a clockwork piece of entertainment that has too many rough edges.
 

Thor: The Dark World

The God of Thunder returns in a film that features his own world for most of the story. Everyone will discuss how much the movie needs more Loki, and they will be right but it has a variety of other surprises as well. I am a couple of weeks late in getting here but it is an entertaining film and I don't think there are big secrets out in the webs that would spoil it for anyone.

Four films in one day and I'm too tired and it is too late to complete all the reviews. I will fill in all of them this week.

Now I am finally catching up with the films from last weekend. I am planning on seeing some new things today and I don't want to be behind.  This is the simplest of the four films to review. If you liked "Thor", you should like this film. It keeps all the original elements in place and  lets the actors carry on with the parts that they have established. The only exception being Stellan Skarsgård, who's Erik Selvig gets turned into a figure for comic relief and as a consequence, is undermined when the weapon he has devised is brought into play. 

There was more Anthony Hopkins and Renee Russo in this film and that is an improvement from my point of view. Russo as Thor and Loki's mother gets a good dramatic story line and appears to fuel the temporary alliance of our two demi-god brothers.  It is not clear what the resolution for Odin's character means, it was not very clearly explained but that will probably be the basis of the next stand alone Thor movie. It looks for all intents and purposes as if Marvel has managed to succeed in making the films work as part of a collective universe but also maintain their stand alone story lines. I did not feel impressed with the "Dark Elf" antagonists in the film. They were satisfactory but largely cardboard cutouts. Loki remains the key ingredient in making this story of conflicted Prince of Asgard Thor work. 

The movie is much grander than the original film. It features more action in Asgard and other spots in the Universe, as well as more interesting locations on Earth than the desert town found in the first movie. I actually found Natalie Portman to be less annoying in this film as well. She seems to have lightened up a bit about working in a comic book story and that makes the film feel less like it is reaching for grandness and more like it is trying to entertain us.  Tom Hiddleston steals the movie as everybody expected to happen. He plays Loki just right, so at times we can believe him and then at just the right moment, his voice changes, his eyes gleem and we know that we have been suckered in by a trickster. There is a fleeting cameo that got a big laugh in the film and it worked completely for me because it features a character that I like better than almost all the other characters in this Universe. 

So, the movie is big and loud. It has some spectacular set pieces and there are a number of good laughs. None of the material will surprise you or elevate the movie above it's comic book roots but it will please fans and entertain those who have enough patience with some simplistic story telling. There is plenty of eye candy for the female fans, both Chris Helmsworth and his chiseled look and Tom Hiddleston and his dark eyes will make many fans want a return to the land of the gods in the nine realms. Go and have fun, there will be a new comic book movie in the spring, this one will tide you over until then.  

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

This generation now has the equivalent of an "Empire Strikes Back" moment. The second film in a series, matches and in many ways exceeds the original and it ends in a cliffhanger that will leave the audience breathless in waiting for the next episode. Jennifer Lawrence is a rising star with an Academy Award in her back pocket and a hugely successful movie franchise to back it up. The movie is as creatively successful as it will be financially.

I'm still trying to catch up with the tsunami of movies that we saw last Sunday. The third film we saw was the biggest hit of the weekend and may turn out to be the biggest film of the year. It helps immensely that the movie is actually very good. It is far superior to the "Iron Man" sequels that it will be competing with for top box office honors. This is a young adult series that has not been afraid to tackle some serious issues. From my point of view there is a dangerous parallel between the fascist government in the story and the times we live in. People inside "the Capitol" (read "the Beltway") see the hinterlands as a source of resources for their own power and status. This is so much like the relationship of the current government to the rest of the country it should come with a political disclaimer. "The Hunger Games" are designed to remind the rebellious that there is a cost to challenging government authority. All the pomp and circumstance is made to be a distraction from the lack of jobs, freedom and hope that everyone is saddled with.

The second film in the series has clearly had an upgrade in budget and scale. The vision of the Capitol city and of the surrounding Districts is much clearer in this film. There is a strong sense of the technology and how it is integrated into the power structures. When the storm troopers arrive in District 12, the whole country gets a brief look at the clash that Katniss has provoked among the proles that have had their necks stood on for 75 years.This is a world ripe for revolt and the snakelike President Snow, recognizes it. His open animosity toward the winners of the games, makes it easier for the rebels to maneuver the star of the games into a position as a figurehead. The politics of the film are as important as the pyrotechnics of the games. Then, you add the games on top of this and the movie becomes entertaining as well as thoughtful. The ability to visualize the challenges of the new games, with their new rules and manner of selecting the tributes, is very praiseworthy. We get a little more insight into the motives of all the districts and we meet the contestants in more detail this time. The fact that many of them are old, middle aged, and still able to find a reason or a way to fight is pretty encouraging. It is another thing that moves this from being a one note love story for tweens into a full fledged science fiction epic.

Katniss is more conflicted in this story. She knows that the games are a death sentence meant for her and the only thing she wants to assure is that her counterpart Peeta survives. One big difference in these games is that the arena is much more focused on eliminating the competitors than they are interested in eliminating each other.  The alliances feel different this time and it turns out there is a reason why. It is not clear how all of the twists are managed but they seem to be leading to a very serious story conclusion that is not light hearted at all. There are a few moments of humor and some moments that provoke sadness but when the end comes, it will arrive with a sharp intake of air from viewers who have not read the books. This is another comparable element to the second "Star Wars" film, things take a turn and they don't always turn out well.

In reading the books, they declined in my opinion, starting with the strongest and devolving to a climax that felt unsatisfying. I get the feeling that the films are reversing that trend. There is hope that the weak finale of the story can be turned into a more admirable outcome in the films. I don't expect the story will change but it feels like the story telling is much more controlled and thoughtful. I expect, based on what I have seen in this film, that the plot will be more meaningful and the characters more interesting than they were in the book. I guess I will have to save that pronouncement until we get those last films, but "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire", has me hoping that the film makers can pull it off. 

Dallas Buyers Club

A second great performance by Matthew McConaughey this year and one that is likely to bring him substantial attention. It is a dramatic story about tolerance, AIDS, and FDA bureaucracy. It certainly does not sound like a laugh a minute but there is a great deal of humor in telling the tale and although much of it is of the gallows type, there are a lot of targets that needed to be skewered and this movie goes after them.

 McConaughey plays a drug using, homophobic, redneck rodeo cowboy who gets an unexpected H.I.V. diagnosis. He suddenly has to confront the fact that he has what he would describe as a "gay" mans disease. The social context is now on the other foot and in addition to figuring out how to fight against what at the time was a death sentence, he has to confront his friends who suddenly are not so friendly.The medical procedures at the start of any new crisis are uncertain and they may require sacrifices. The controversy over F.D.A. policies at the time reflects a bureaucratic mentality rather than a political one. While A.I.D.S. patients were understandably frustrated with the slow rate of reform and expediting the treatments for the disease, no one, including the doctors doing the research or the pharmaceutical companies, wanted anything more than to find a cure. Ron Woodroof was not the kind of guy who would wait around for others to figure it out.

The physical transformation that the star goes through is frighteningly dangerous. Like DeNiro gaining a hundred pound to play Jake LaMotta, Matthew McConaughey loses weight like you can't believe. He looks sick before the story has even started. The fluctuations in his physical health are reflected not merely through make up and acting but by real physical change. This is the kind of stuff the critics groups and Academy will eat up. This is a much more flamboyant performance than his turn in "Mud", and it will probably be the one that gets the accolades. I prefer the more subtle work in the other film but that is just my preference. This is the story that will connect with the Hollywood community. Jared Leto gives a similar performance in the film as a drag queen facing the same kinds of issues that Ron has. Both roles take advantage of strong emotional elements in the story and they mirror each other in effective ways.

The battle with the FDA and with an apparently unfeeling medical community is cleverly given a populist resolution by  McConaughey's character taking advantage of loopholes in the law to be able to supply patients with medicine that might help them. Every opportunity he has to stick it to the man is cheered by the sympathetic audience. We all admire the perseverance of a man who is unwilling to go silently into the night. He demands the kind of help that everyone facing a terminal disease would hope to get. The fact that the disease is new, that the treatments are untested and that the rules require sacrifice is not something he will take laying down. This movie succeeds not only because the two leads are terrific actors in very cinematic roles, it is that they are empowering people to take control of their lives.

There are great character actors in a variety of parts in the film. Michael O'Neil, who I will always think of as Ron Butterfield from "The West Wing", is the F.D.A. bureaucrat who needs to be taken down. Griffin Dunne was not recognizable at first as a defrocked physician, making a clinic in Mexico work for patients in need.  The great Steve Zahn is a cop and friend to Ron, who knows exactly how far the law should be enforced. Jennifer Garner is not quite a love interest but is definitely a stand in for the audience in building sympathy for the two leads. Everybody does good work and the story plays out as expected but with very effective emotional touchstones despite the straight forward story arc. If you like good acting and a story of the little guy punching back at the powers that be, than "Dallas Buyers Club" is right up your alley.


 

12 Years a Slave

This has been the most talked about film of the year. It is certainly deserving of acclaim and it will be awarded many accolades before the Awards season is done. I have nothing but praise for the film but I do think the hype needs to be tempered a bit.  While it's depiction of slavery is accurately cruel and devastating, I'm not sure that it is as new or distinctive as many have said. Much of what transpires reminded me of other films that displayed the shame that this type of bondage represented.

This is the first film from director Steve McQueen that I have seen. I can't say for certain what his style is yet, but based on this film it appears to be direct and subdued. He lets the actors fill the screen with their performances and is not playing with the camera or lighting the scene in ways that seem to be self conscious. There was only one shot in the movie that I thought drew attention to itself rather than the story. That was a lingering close up on the star's face, while there was no dialogue. It was noticeable but the nice thing about it is that the shot focuses on the actor rather than the direction and that makes it less problematic. 

It is not necessary to recap the story for the most part, after all the title tells you what is coming and that there is a resolution.  While there is clearly a plot/history that is being followed, the real strength of the film is in showing the everyday hopelessness faced by human beings treated as property. There are incidents that are heart-wrenching and moments of  cruelty that are unfathomable to our modern senses. The film does a nice job showing how the just and self respecting tried to live with the institution, even as the miserable and the cruel were exploiting and surviving respectively. Chiwetel Ejiofor is the star and he gives a solid performance as Solomon Northup, a free man, kidnapped into the peculiar institution. Michael Fassbender may have trouble getting work in the future if people associate him too much with the part of the cruel slave owner Epps. His character is unpredictably unbalanced. He carries the air of a privileged aristocrat and the self loathing of a man debased by the slave holders power over others. Ejiofor has to play his part subtley because his character must be subdued in order to survive, but Fassbender gets to let it rip as he fights his own depravity, gives in to it and then punishes others for his weaknesses. 

The other great performance in the film is from newcomer Lupita Nyong'o, as a young woman tortured for being the thing that the master most desires and hates himself for wanting. She has the heaviest physical burden as a performer, she is beaten, raped, insulted and deprived of her family. All of that allows for a wide range of acting techniques to be displayed by the actress in her role as Patsey. She is not the focus of the story and the failure to have any resolution to her plight, while it may be honest, is also unsatisfying in the long run. In fact, the wrap up to the story seems to happen very quickly and it leaves several points dangling. On the other hand, the resolution for Solomon is quite satisfactory and well earned by the film makers, even if they are just following the history of the actual man's life.

The film is excellent and there is good reason for it to be praised, but some of the on-line hype may have influenced my perception a bit. I was not floored in the same way that others have been. It is an emotional story and I did respond to it, but it exists within a well worn path of similar stories. I suspect the passage of time has diminished some peoples memories of "Roots" which was equally devastating and almost as visually brutal as this film. Last year's "Django Unchained", while a revisionist western action flick, also addressed some of the loathsome qualities of slavery. The themes are not fresh but the story is compelling and I would be glad to recommend this film to anyone, just don't expect the second coming, it is not miraculous.

About Time

Regular readers of my posts know that I am a marshmallow and a sentimentalist. If a film moves me and leaves me feeling better and happy after seeing it, it will certainly get my approval. This is a film that did both big time. It comes from writer/director Richard Curtis who created one of my favorite Christmas films of all time "Love Actually". There is a definite style and pace to both films that mark them as unmistakably from the same creative team. Cynics need not spend their time with the movie, although if there is aheart in there somewhere, this story should be able to reach at least part of it.

The romantic fantasy here involves an interesting conceit. The men in this particular family can travel back in time to any point in their life. The rules are as they say in Great Britain, a little dodgy, so you just have to accept the premise as it unfolds. Much like "Groundhog Day" this film expores what it means to strive for perfection in a relationship. Unlike the sour character Phil played by Bill Murray, the hero of this tale is not really pursuing redemption. Tim, played by Domhnall Gleeson, is a likable character who just seems to be missing on opportunities for a romantic relationship. He uses his power much like Murray did, to try and manage a successful relationship with the woman of his dreams. The point of the story is that ultimately, our dreams really are what our lives are all about.

His gift is not ever explained in any scientific way, and the conundrums of time travel come up in convenient spots for the story and are ignored in inconvenient spots. Tim's Dad is played by the continually delightful Bill Nighy. He gets some great moments in the film, like when he first reveals the secret to his son on the boys 21st birthday, but especially wonderful are the commentaries he engages in while playing table tennis with his son. The most sentimental moment is the toast he offers at Tim's wedding. If you can keep a dry eye through that, then there is a black hole where your heart ought to be.

Tim has an interesting arc, since he moves forward and backwards in time. He has to make some tough choices at times and the story tries to emphasize that the heart will guide you correctly more oftenn than the head. He manages to meet a woman who is perfect for him, and he does so without the use of his secret at first. When he changes the outcome of a friends destiny, it also changes his and he has to then use his gift to try and restore the magic that he almost lost. Rachel McAdams plays his love interest and she manages to look plainly beautiful instead of stunningly beautiful. The difference between those two types of beauty matters as Tim discovers in the course of the film. All the little things in his life matter and that is the theme the movie develops very effectively.

The final moments of the movie were very reminiscent of "Love Actually". There is a charming song in the background, some sweet narrative from our main character and images that will evoke both sadness and happiness simultaneously.  This is a movie that will certainly rank high on my end of the year list. It did everything I want a movie to do, I laughed, I cried, and I nervously held my breath that the right outcome would arrive for the characters created in the script. A thoroughly satisfying movie experience for romantics everywhere.

Captain Phillips

The drought is over the deluge is about to begin.  I've been out of theaters for almost a month and there is a ton of stuff to catch up with. Tonight I started back with a vengeance by seeing a really fine film with a couple of solid performances. Everybody already knows that this is a great film, so my comments will not be designed to convince anyone, they will merely be an attempt to explain what I admired about the film.


[ It is nearly midnight at the moment, so I will pause here and finish the post in the morning. If you come by and this abbreviated version is still here, please come back later tomorrow and I will have it complete]

There has been some controversy about this movie because several of the crew members have complained that Captain Phillips was largely responsible for the ship being in the wrong place. Plus, from their point of view he was a bit of an ass. The one thing I have not heard being disputed is that he was in fact taken aboard the lifeboat and he was threatened and beaten, and he was rescued in dramatic fashion by Navy Seals. I don't want anyone to think that I am confusing this with an historical document, it is a movie, but it sounds like the story largely got this right.Maybe Phillips sees things differently than the crew, but he wrote the book and the screenwriter has dramatized the events in a very effective manner.

Tom Hanks is excellent in the part. He plays Phillips as a hardworking professional who sometimes is not as relaxed as those around him. The captain of a ship probably can't be too casual, despite all we know about that job from watching "Love Boat". The sequence of events is not in dispute and it appears that the crew did all they could to keep the pirates from getting on board. The Mareck Alabama was not the first ship taken and it won't be the last unfortunately. I found the details in the way the crew tried to disable the ship and frustrate the pirates to be very interesting. Phillips is a part of that story because he is a central figure but the crew carried out the actions and they are the ones who turn the tables on the invaders when they were being hunted in the bowels of the ship. Dramatization keeps a lot of the story focused on the bridge and the dialogue may not always be authentic but the tone of danger almost certainly is accurate.

I don't think anyone seeing this will sympathize with the pirates too much. That is another criticism I have read. It is true that they are depicted as nearly being victims themselves, by the way their community is dominated by thugs who control through threats and violence. The situation in Somalia sounds and looks horrible, but they are all willing to take another persons life to gain wealth and tribal glory, so my sympathy is very limited. It is a brutal world out there, and choices have to be made, sometimes they are rotten choices but that does not mean you have to choose the path of self destruction. Everyone had opportunities to pick a different outcome, and they turned those opportunities down. The four actor who portray the pirates are apparently novices and were chosen for their heritage. Barkhad Abdi plays the leader Muse, a skinny man sometime ridiculed by his compatriots but a clever guy who makes the piracy even more dangerous. I thought his performance was exceptional coming as it does from a non-professional.

Hanks is the titular character but he is not always the hero of the story. When you witness the descent of the SEAL team from their planes to the ocean below, your confidence in the outcome goes way up. These guys don't mess around. They are serious and they do their jobs with such discipline that it is awe inspiring. For my money, the U.S.Navy is one of the best investments our country has made in trying to keep the world civilized and safe.  It's not just the warriors that are admirable, the corpsman attending to Phillips after the raid was so professional that it was eery. She spoke exactly as I would want to be spoken to in that situation, with professional sympathy and reassurance. Another example of someone doing their job. In fact this whole film is about doing a job; ships captain, pirate, second in command, sharpshooter, negotiator. We know next to nothing about Phillips background and even less about everyone else. We know what they do, and how well they perform their job. That is maybe the real heart of the film. 

Doing the job he does best is Mr. Hanks. He adopts a New England accent and it sounded authentic to my ears. He looks frightened at the appropriate times and his manner with the crew came across as realistic. The biggest praise for his performance will probably be based on the scenes immediately following the SEAL assault. He does indulge in a bit of his crutch facial yawning and soundless utterances, you will see that in a lot of his roles, but he played the most realistic depiction of shock I have seen. It is understandable how the trauma of the two days as captive and the bloody rescue could put someone in that condition. My understanding is that Hanks improvised a lot of that scene and if he gets nominated or even wins for this role, he should be sure to thank himself.

.

The Shining

AMC is currently playing a series of films from the past in showcase times on Sundays and Tuesdays. I did not get to "Bonnie and Clyde" and I will miss "Dirty Harry" next week, but I got a chance this afternoon to revisit Stanley Kubrick's version of "The Shining". It is a great film even though it is not as scary as you might have been lead to believe. It is creepy as all get out, and there are some good shocks, but the most disturbing and frightening image is a series of words typed out on a page. The gore level is low, the tension is slow building, and the style is all Kubrick, who has always been a "cool" film maker as opposed to a passionate hot.

This is not a full review but just a few comments about some of the things I noticed in the film that either escaped my attention before or that I'd simple forgotten. For instance, the guy who hires Jack Torrance to be the winter caretaker is Barry Nelson, a well known TV and character actor from the 50s and 60s who had the distinction of being the first actor to portray James Bond on screen. That was something I got a kick out of. The movie that Wendy and Danny are watching when Danny goes up to their apartment and finds his Dad sitting on the edge of the bed was "The Summer of 42". I don't know for sure why it struck me as interesting except that I'm a big fan of that movie.

Actor Tony Burton appears briefly in the film as the guy who gets Scatman Crothers a SnowKat to take up to the Overlook Hotel. He was Apollo Creed's corner man in the first couple of Rocky movies and he was a customer of the insurance agency my wife worked for thirty years ago. She said he was a very nice man, and I think he lives in our area because there is one of those autographed shots of him at the local Phillie's Best Sandwich shop. I also enjoyed the fact that Dr. Tyrell was serving the bourbon in the bar to Jack Torrance. Apparently Joe Turkel was a favorite of Kubricks.

Jack is at his Jack best in this movie. His performance is all eyebrows and smiles. Up until the end of the picture he manages to be a sympathetic character. You'd have to sympathize with a guy married to Shelly Duvall's Wendy. She is a nervous breakdown in a dress. I think I heard that Kubrick did not care much for her as an actress and tormented her to get the performance she turns in. It was an odd choice and it works for the movie but she doesn't get the kind of emotional support from the audience that would make her a more fulfilling heroine.

I have a lot of other things to do so as I said this is not a full review, just a bit of fun to remind people it is Halloween week and they should go out and find a scary movie to enjoy. That's what I did, even though it is 33 years old.

 

Escape Plan

This will be short and to the point. There is almost no way this whole scenerio could ever come close to happening. It is over the top dramatic and the prisoners in the "Tomb" would not have the same access to each other that they would have in a normal prison. The job that Sly has is one of those movie created specialties that exist in a screenwriters fantasy and that's about the only place. The speed of events and the brutality of the fights would leave normal human beings dead after a couple of minutes. All of that means nothing because this is an action film starring the two biggest action stars of the last thirty years and it goes down like candy. Sweeet.

As the world's foremost prison security expert (based on breaking out of high security penitentiary's). Stallone is his usual tough guy with a brain character. His brain is not big enough to keep him from being betrayed and locked in a prison that was built largely based on weaknesses he himself discovered.So the stakes are pretty high. Guess who he runs into on the inside, the Governator himself. Looking fit and with a stylish moustache and goatee. He is another prisoner who has been deep sixed into this high tech prison. Together they must break out. That's it. You don't really need more plot set up than that.

Arthur Conan Doyle gave Sherlock Holmes the detailed information he would need to crack a case. Holmes has made a study of tobacco so he knows where in London a certain blend can be bought. It was occasionally a stretch but it was not overused in the Holmes canon. Sly's character kno2ws the heat rate at which rusted steel bolts will snap, he knows that milk cartons have a cellophane like liner that can hold a mark and he can not only build a sextant, he can use one and teach someone else how to do so also. Yet this is the kind of hokum, fans of action films love. We love it when the hero outsmarts the bad guys and surprises us with a unexpected use for everyday items. MacGyver made a whole TV series out of that audience demand. So shrug your shoulders and go along for the ride.

Schwarzenegger is actually pretty good in his role as a guy who knows secrets that the bad guys want. He gets tortured and locked into isolation and gets to feign a breakdown as part of the plot to escape. His German sound very convincing, I wonder why because his English never was. Both he and Stallone beat up fellow prisoners and each other from time to time. The movie takes a while to get us to the prison but once it does there are plenty of the usual tough guy tropes. The biggest gas comes when, during the actual breakout, Arnold picks up a big ass machine gun off a helicopter. Anyone who has seen a Terminator movie knows what comes next and that's what we are waiting for.

The movie is efficient at making the characters just interesting enough for us to care, before tossing us into prison mayhem. The bad guy warden played by Jim Caviezel is just a big enough prick that we are anticipating the final outcome. There are plot holes and inconsistencies galore but who cares? Arnold and Sly get together to kick a little ass. I heard on "The Title Pending Movie Podcast" that they did not think it was quite "Cobrawesome". I guess I agree but I did find it "Terminazing".
 

Rush

It is hard for me to accept that I went three weeks with this in theaters and I'd not seen it yet. Holy crap, is this a great movie! I know nothing about Formula 1 racing, I knew next to nothing about this story and I've been hit ot miss on Ron Howard films for years. So you can take my word to the bank, this is one of the best films of the year. If it gets lost among all the other great films coming out now because Americans are not well versed in Formula 1, it would be a crying shame. The screenplay and performances in this movie are sure contenders for awards consideration and the film is directed with great confidence and patience by Mr. Howard. This is a thinking person's movie. It asks big questions and it probes deeply into the psyche of competition.

James Hunt and Niki Lauda are legends in their field. While they might be embraced by fans of racing, as portrayed here they would not be embraced by most of humanity. Each one has damning flaws and personalities that would drive the average person to the brink. Hunt is a reckless glory seeking thrill addict, who can't make an emotional connection and leaves a series of romantic conquests in his wake. Lauda is a brilliant machine, focused on the odds and playing a strictly regulated percentage as a competitor. That he manages to form a fully functioning romantic relationship is miraculous in itself since his arrogant self assurance is so off putting. As each one circles around the other, it is clear that their rivalry is uniquely reponsible for their individual success. Americans know how Larry Bird and Magic Johnson drove each other further along the path of greatness, this relationship works the same way. Each one needs the other as a standard by which to be compared.

Both actors are terrific in the parts they are cast in. Chris Helmsworth  was made to be an object of romantic fantasy. Women will want him and men will want to be him. He has swagger and weakness at the same time. he knows he can count on his good looks and his driving skills, but he can't always count on his head to tell him the right thing to do. The scene where Hunt antagonizes his wife into the arms of Richard Burton happens quickly and Helmsworth plays it fast and dismissive. Later he is all manufactured confidence when he announces to the world that he and his model wife are calling it quits. His crack to the media sounds light and cynical but we get a peek behind the curtain and see how it really effects him. Daniel Brühl as Lauda has the showier role despite being a character that is more contained. The physical transformation after his accident and the internalized struggle he goes through in trying to find enough reason to marry is played very well on screen.

The car racing sequences are aggressively edited and the sound design was impressive. I felt frequently caught up in the recreation of races from nearly forty years ago. The dramatic crash that briefly sidelines Lauda but changes him almost not at all was frightening and a little stomach churning as well. The harrowing hospital scenes are another place where Brühl gets to be the center of the story and show us what he has got. Hans Zimmer may have some cliches in his bag of tricks, but they work really well in this movie and the musical score keeps us involved and on the edge of the seat during the races. Howard and his team of editors don't linger over scenes and they don't cut them so quickly that you can't tell what is happening. This film was put together by people who know how to tell a story.

We had a conversation last night about how few movies these days feature actors in dramatic roles that are really about grown ups acting out a drama. This movie has come along and shut that conversation down. There are still good stories to tell and good actors who can play the story out for us. in the hands of another director, this could have just been an inspirational sports film. Howard and company have made a movie about courage, rivalry and the sacrifices it takes to be a champion. The fact that the story is true should not detract from their accomplishment. This film is almost out of theaters now, do yourself the favor of finding it in your local cinema and see what a great movie can be in the current film environment.

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Blogathon

For the Cinematic Katzenjammer Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Blogathon


Here is my take on the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, I tried to find a theme that would be a bit different but I know that some of the choices were going to be obvious, at least they were to me. The four films I've chosen to represent the four horsemen have a common actor to unite them. His powerful voice and steel jawed expression make him the ideal stand in for God in the end of days. All of the films have their own following so there is not much need to introduce each of them. So I will give my simple justification and provide a few links to make a short visit worth your time.

Carrie (2013)

Everyone has an opinion about remakes. Most cinephiles hate them with a passion. "The new version will never live up to the original and Hollywood is creatively bankrupt". Of course people who have never seen the original don't care and they may first fall in love with the new work sometimes without even knowing that it was made before, "Oh my god, it's a remake? The original can't be as good." My opinion is that a remake is only likely to succeed if there was something about the original that is evergreen. The subject, the role the concept has to be something that people can relate to. This film is not an English language remake of a foreign film, so stupid Americans can watch without reading. It is a traditional remake, a chance to tell the same story in a different way for a new audience. Having seen the original however, it is impossible to approach the new film with impartial eyes. There will always be comparisons. So this review will focus on the comparisons.

The story is largely unchanged. The plot moves in the same direction with the same basic characters so there are no surprises as far as that goes. If you saw Brian DePalma's 1976 original, you have seen the story.  There are differences in style though that are interesting and help the movie feel fresh despite the previous version. For instance, the start of this film is very different, it has a flashback story technique that takes a little advantage of our expectations and makes what follows a bit more meaningful. Julianne Moore is playing the Piper Laurie role of Carrie's mom. She is pathetic and frightening and loving and hateful, and usually all at the same time. The religious fanaticism here is contained to her world and unlike the original, this woman is not surviving on the charity of guilty Christians. She is even more clearly disturbed than Laurie was in the part. That being said, I think she feels less of a presence than in the 1976 version. Carrie's powers dominate after she gets asked to the prom, and the terror that we felt for Sissy Spacek when she returns from the prom is less ominous as a result.

The DePalma version starts with a lurid trip through the girls locker room and the movie is on the brink of being an exploitation film, but it is held back from that by a sympathetic central character. This version never feels dangerous in the same way. It is going to be a serious film from the time it starts and the directors restraint at the beginning creates a more subdued feeling. The bullying that Carrie endures is exaggerated by the modern technology but the bullies are mostly the same. Chris, the main antagonist, acts out her rage at being called on the carpet for being a bitch. When she can't get away with it, even with her father confronting the principal she goes off the deep end. Nancy Allen's version of Chris is mean girl standard, Portia Doubleday is a monster in the making that crawls out of the larvae stage to become a full fledged antagonist. The one flaw from the original film was that Chris' comeuppance was over so quickly, that is a mistake that is remedied here.  

In the original, it always seemed to me to be very ambiguous as to Sue and Tommy's motivation for getting Carrie to the prom. William Katt came off as a good natured doofus, and Amy Irving did not quite break with the Chris character. Their involvement in the end becomes a bit of a puzzle. In this version, Sue is clearly conflicted about being one of Chris's drone bees. She is motivated by guilt and a desire to reach out to Carrie. Tommy in this version is also very sweet and he seems to understand his role much more clearly. His exclamation of "What the F@#*" as the crimson shower comes down on them signals to the audience and to Carrie that he was a victim of Chris as well. This is another point that makes the emotions work better although the mind is not taxed as much. I'm not sure which version I prefer but I do know that Tommy is sympathetic in both and Sue is a lot more sympathetic in the new version. The mean girls that follow Chris are not as distinct in the new version so although there is some furious vengence rained down on them, it does not feel as significant.
 
Carrie is played by one of my favorite young actresses,  Chloë Grace Moretz (Hit Girl) for the uninitiated. She is very good in the part. Whereas Sissy Spacek was all big eyes and small voice, Chloë grows more confidence with her power and the decimation of the prom feels like a more deliberate act as a result. The harshness of the original is tempered here in that not everyone dies at the end. That may feel like a sell out but it will make a more sympathetic Carrie at the end of the movie. The remorse and compassion that Carrie feels at the end makes us more likely to resent the "Burns in Hell" graffiti that is the exit of the film. There was no way that the stinger from the original would be matched or that it would work, so they don't try for that. Instead they try for a more supportive outcome that makes us more likely to feel for our protagonist. 

The one thing that did clearly fail in the film was the CGI effects. They take us out of the movie and were overdone. If you have seen the viral video of the coffee shop, you will see a more convincing and frightening version of the power that Carrie wields. I don't know that we can but the genii back in the bottle but the old school effects are more effective at creating real shock than the modern computer. I was very satisfied with the film. The story still gives us a slow burn and the actors do a good job making their characters feel fresh even though this is a remake. Since I'm not a hater I am willing to give this movie my approval. It was not necessary but it was not a waste of time either.

Machette Kills

I'm afraid this sequel should have been called "Machete Sucks".

If you have read this site in the past, you know that I am a as big a fan of trash cinema as the next person. I enjoy those terrible SyFy Channel shark movies, I like to wallow in bad taste humor and violent action films are my Big Mac. So this series of movies, based on a trailer invented for the "Grindhouse" feature a few years ago should be right up my alley. I will admit that there were some great bits in "Machete" when it came out three years ago. My favorite part being Machete's use of a guys intestines to swing down a couple of floors and escape. The problem I had with that film was that it started moralizing about political subjects it had not earned the right to be serious about.

Rumor had it that this new version steered clear on the Illegal Alien subtext and stuck strictly to an action formula. That had my hopes up but they were quickly dashed. "Machete Kills" is supposed to be fun trash cinema and it is dumb trash cinema. Writer Director Richard Rodriguez has taken a great idea, and a great character and turned it into a meaningless cartoon with less personality than Scooby Doo. Somewhere he got the idea that all he had to do was show cool images and that would be enough. There are a lot of neat looking things in the movie, but they are pasted together in such a slapdash fashion that they mean nothing and don't hold your attention or build suspense. It feels like a TV movie made by someone who has seen enough action films to know what to include but has no idea what an action film is really all about.

The bad guys are all built up to be horrible but they are dispatched without any fun or glee. People are shooting all the time but no one seems to feel any anxiety about being shot at. They die too quickly or escape without consequence. Much of the film reminds me of "Sin City" which was all about the look and did not have a single moment of real emotion in it. Pacing feels wrong, everything happens quickly and without purpose. Characters change allegiance, personality and their faces for no reason whatsoever. There are jokes that just lay there and do nothing and random people are killed without any explanation. The CGI bloodshed may have something to do with this. So much of it seems designed for a visual gag, but the gags only work if we are caught up in what is going on.

Danny Trejo is a national treasure that is wasted here. Action stops repeatedly when he is threatened and he is not escaping by using his wits. When there is a funny bit it is thrown away so quickly that there is not much chance to enjoy it. Mostly he is asked to walk around mayhem that goes on around him. Slow motion walking does not build a good character. It's as if he was directed to express no emotion at all, but he needs to be angry and determined. He looks lost in a PG sex scene and bored in every other scene. No one gets to spend much screen time with him and that also undermines our ability to care.

This is kitchen sink film making. Throw in everything we can and everyone we can get. Jessica Alba is gone in the blink of an eye, Michelle Rodriguez can't blink her eyes and Amber Heard, who I liked in "Drive Angy" walks through this with an irritated scowl as her main facial expression. Antonio Banderas, Cuba Gooding Jr., Walton Goggins and Lady GaGa all play the same character. It is a joke that gets repeated four times and was not funny the first time. The film wants to be a cheap parody of James Bond and Mission Impossible, it's not even a good parody of "Spy Hard ".  The grindhouse fare of the 70s had grit under its fingernails and simple stories that played out in obvious ways but at least you could tell what was happening. This movie feels as if it was assembled in a computer from a writing program that did not care about motivation, continuity or entertainment. We saw it today using an on-line two for one coupon from AMC. I now understand why they have to bribe people to come see it after only eight days in the theaters. If I had payed full price for two tickets instead of half price for matinee tickets, I would be the one who wanted to kill.

Drew: The Man Behind the Poster

I am so overwhelmed when I encounter talent far beyond my ability to comprehend. I know authors and directors and actors are special people who bring their talent to the audience in a way that is amazing, but more than any other skill or ability in the world of the arts, the talent to draw or paint stuns me. There are very talented computer animators and musicians, but I guess their tools feel so much more significant to their work in comparison to a man with a canvas, some pencils and paint.  To watch someone manipulate an air brush or colored pencil and turn a blank canvas into something spectacular is a gift from the gods. Tonight I had the pleasure of watching a film about one of those artists with a talent far beyond my understanding. Drew Struzan has been making commercial art for forty years and all of it is in my head because the art he is best known for is hanging on my walls right now. Drew Struzan does movie poster art. He paints the images and draws the figures and integrates the imagination with the eye. Everyone who reads this will know his work although many of you will not know his name.

If you were to name a movie series from the last forty years of film, except for James Bond, Drew appears to have painted something for those projects. Even when his artwork is not used for the main poster, there are special edition posters and art books and box art for home video that he created. Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Back to the Future all use his iconic work. He does not produce those images from a computer but rather with his own two hands using an eye for detail that most of us cannot comprehend. This film gives us some brief glimpses of him at work and the small details that he adds to all of his work make the images come to life. Some might dismiss this work as mere illustration but when you see the creativity and magic that the images provoke, you will know that this is fine art.

The film is a love letter to poster art and a warm tribute to the man himself. The director Eric Sharkey managed to make a human story as well as a thank you note from all of us. I was surprised at some of the dark issues that got mentioned, because this type of biographical film might be seen as a mere puff piece. Drew's start in life was not easy and breaking into the art world was a passion that most of us cannot imagine. The term "starving artist" has been around forever, but it certainly seemed to apply here. Even though it was more than forty years ago, I found myself heaving a sigh of relief when Drew got his first steady job working as an illustrator for album covers.Since I am a huge Bee Gees fan, the work that I most admired was the cover art for the "Main Course" album.
It was however the amazing cover for Alice Cooper's Welcome to My Nightmare, that got him noticed by the more lucrative world of movie advertising and it wasn't long before he was knee deep in the film business with a lot of big names knocking at his door. A collaboration with another illustrator on the poster for Star Wars, lead to a long time association with George Lucas.Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Harrison Ford and many others all line up to sing the praises of this talented artist. Each is able to express a sense of wonder at how his style and technique bring a living quality to his paintings. Spielberg has even gone so far to say that he needs to make the movie live up to the illustrations that Drew provided for the film.


There are highs and lows in the stories and some truly amazing pieces of information. The poster for "John Carpenter's The Thing" was done without any visual reference to the story, no photos from the set, a complete absence of guidelines for what the "Thing" looked like and it was done in a day. Many would consider the concept to be among the most clever of his career. I can't think of how someone could accomplish this in months, much less in the space of just over a day. As you listen to Drew Struzan describe these events, it is clear he is not bragging or exaggerating. He is a quiet, unassuming man with confidence in his ability and a sense of guilelessness that is disarming. He tells the stories proudly but without glory. He is a man simply describing his work, not aggrandizing it. That is for everyone else to do and they all do it very well.

I almost went full fanboy at the screening tonight. It took place at the Archlight theater in Hollywood, and I just happened on an announcement on Facebook. Mr. Struzan himself was going to attend and there would be some Q and A. I brought my copy of his book of poster art, thinking I might ask him to sign it. However after seeing how retiring he is in person, and noting that the occasion was a screening not an autograph queue, I held myself back. After the Q and A, I got a chance to speak to the director and shared my appreciation for his work in making the movie happen. The producer, editor and cinematographer were also in attendance and I wish I could have made it over to speak to them as well. I also got to shake the hand of the man himself. Because there was another film screening at the Festival in the same theater, we could not linger in the aisles. I did however force myself on him as he exited the theater and had a chance to speak to him for a few brief moments. As I'm sure he heard from a thousand other lovers of his work, I told him of my admiration for all he had accomplished. He was extremely gracious and shared with me that although he is retired from the movie painting business he still needs to work to take care of his home and family. An artist must work, their art demands it. I know that Drew Struzan does not continue to paint because he needs the money, he does it because he needs the outlet for his talent. I am just thrilled to have seen the film in a theater and even more so to have shaken the hand that produced so much of what I love about the movie poster business.