American Hustle

You know that disclaimer at the end of the movie which says that the preceding was a work of fiction and that " "The events depicted in this movie are fictitious. Any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental."  Well here is a film where you should take that to heart. The movie is a brilliant re-creation of the time and place of the ABSCAM  story, but it is mixed with generous amounts of fictionalized romantic entanglements, sympathetic characterizations of the perps and a sense of humor that I know is not FBI approved.

This is basically an update of "The Sting", with Christian Bale and Amy Adams cast in the roles originated by Redford and Newman. Bradley Cooper is slotted into the Robert Shaw part, and the con artists are complicated good guys who may or may not be getting the drop on an FBI that is out of control. The clever way in which the film distracts us from the illusion right in front of us includes a showoff piece of supporting work from Jennifer Lawrence and a starring role for Amy Adams breasts, which certainly deserve an award for how well they are displayed here without giving away the whole trick. The craft in the story telling is very evident by the way that things ultimately make sense despite the fact that the film makers start their movie in the middle and have to work backwards. By the time the denouncement arrives, you will have been entertained and fooled for a couple of hours and you will barely notice the way the film tries to re-frame events so that the bad guy are turned into misunderstood good guys. 

It would be unfair to say too much about the plot, except that it does roughly follow the investigation into corruption by the FBI, using a phony sheik and a con man who helped plan the operation. Bale is the dumpy looking but charismatic con artist who pulls in an ambitious woman from nowhere and begins the process of fleecing a variety of marks. When Cooper shows up as a potential mark, Bale's radar starts sending out warning signals and the rest of the story begins in earnest. Everyone in the story has delusions that motivate them, Cooper sees a career and a life elevated, Adams sees herself as a completely invented new woman, Lawrence imagines a stable love life when she is incapable of real love and Bale sees "real" as something that is ultimately achievable for him after long playing at being someone. All of this takes place in the late 1970s, an era noted for it's lack of reality. Self help gurus cater to willing customers who are self deluded.  The clothes and the music and the dance steps of the times were all designed to be costumes that anyone could wear and make themselves into something they were not. The whole operation was largely defined by the use of a fake middle eastern sheik who fit right in to the glamorous perspective that the characters have of themselves.

The best example of the perspective taking that the characters (and the makers of this film ) engage in is the characterization of the Mayor of Camden, N.J.. Jeremy Renner plays the guy like a sane version of the Joe Pesci character from "Goodfellas". He is lovable, sincere, unpredictable but not a killer and he is actually motivated only by his interest in serving the people of his town. He becomes the emotional center of the movie. The "real" romance in the story is the relationship between Bale and Renner, not Lawrence or Adams at all. We hate the idea that he becomes collateral damage in the investigation. All the steam and fireworks between Adams, Cooper, Bale and Lawrence is a sideshow to the true victimization of Renner's character. The most dramatic moment in the film centers on the sudden shift in the friendship between these two men.  Like another film with an ABSCAM reference, "Donnie Brasco", we see the betrayal of one man by another who considered him a friend as the most unethical act in the story.

The music in the film highlights the moods of the era. Sometimes the events of the day are dark, calling for an even more somber version of "White Rabbit" than the Jefferson Airplane could come up with. Romantic failings are perfectly encapsulated by "How Can You Mend a Broken Heart". Exuberance and optimism are displayed in a karaoke version of "Delilah " or Jack Jones singing live in a nightclub. Duke Ellington represents the sophistication that the two leads both identify with but seem least likely to be identified by. Sexual lust is explored with a repetitive disco tune complete with moaning lyrics and everywhere in the film, the music of Jeff Lynne and ELO are used to both recall and mock the excesses of the 1970s. "Boogie Nights", "Savages", "Donnie Brasco" all use Lynne tunes to evoke a feeling from the past. Even more than the disco tunes of the day, Lynne's music recalls those turbulent days of the late seventies, and so it is ubiquitous in this film.

The rapid cross cutting climax of the film is an echo of "Goodfellas" again and the payoff will satisfy just as the results did back in 1973 for Paul and Robert. The movie is adventurous and complex and titillating without being grotesque. Everyone does stellar work in their performances and director David O. Russel along with his co-writer Eric Singer, have crafted an entertaining fiction out of a weird historical incident. Just don't be conned by the words of Irving Rosenfeld about the little guys who got caught. The Senator who was approached and reported the contact to the FBI would be a real role model. The guys who got stung, well maybe not the worst people in the world, did in fact betray our trust in them as public servants. Let's not get carried away by a great film and reinvent history.

Grudge Match

I know, I know, this movie looks like recycled crap. It is some pablum designed to milk a few bucks from undiscerning movie goers who are just looking for a way to kill a couple of hours over the holidays. I can't really disagree with that too much. It does at times feel lazy, the comedy aspects are weak and the delivery timing on the jokes is bad, really bad. So having accepted the premise that most of you started off with, let me give just a couple of reasons that you should refrain from being so harsh. Those two reasons are in fact the two stars; Robert DeNiro and Sylvester Stallone.

Are they cashing in on old success, yes. The "Rocky" references are everywhere in this film. "Raging Bull" hangs over DeNiro's performance like a gargoyle, leering at what he has become. Even with all that baggage, both actors suit up and are game for the fight.  In the second half of the movie they start to become characters rather than caricatures. The script does not always give them enough ammunition to pull off an effective dramatic story, it does come up with a few honest moments and enough of what made us love the performers in the past to give them a pass on the flaws of this and enjoy what there is. "Grudge Match" in not a modern classic and it probably isn't worth your time in a theater, but it is not the travesty that some think it looks like and it overcomes a weak first hour comedy set up to become a mid-level adult drama, not a great drama, but one that does not embarrass us too much by watching.

The tone of the movie is all over the place. Ninety percent of the Kevin Hart sequences look like outtakes from that movie with Ice Cube that he has coming out next month. He cracks wise, makes asides out of the corner of his mouth  and contorts his face into so many clown like expressions that you worry his face might freeze like that, you know, like your Mom always warned you about. Alan Arkin almost always makes a movie better, this film is the one reason that I can think of for saying "almost". Arkin's part is underwritten and we are simply expected to use the Burgess Meridith allusion to give it the heart that it needs. His character is supposed to be so infirm at one point that he can't bath himself and then later he spends time training Stallone's character. The fact that he uses an electric wheeled cart is not enough to span the chasm between these two views.  Kim Basinger turns out to be a more important character in the story, but she is also not given enough to work with.

So the things that succeed are the stars. DeNiro manages to go back and forth between goofy aging lug and bitter resentful egotist without seeming to be schizophrenic. He does mug for the camera at times but he also plays some scenes with a nice degree of sincerity. The lost family angle is a little hokey, but DeNiro manages to sell the idea of an irresponsible self centered bastard, and the pitiful old guy in funny underwear in the very next scene. The young man who plays his son is fine but is stuck in a pretty cliche role. The little kid who turns out to be his grandchild is "TV kid" precocious, but he also is cute as hell and easy to forgive because of that. Stallone is trapped a bit in the opening sections as the introverted former boxer, that gets financially pushed into making the deal that sets up the fight rematch. We have seen this sullen, silent type in a lot of other films. Once his character reconnects with old flame Basinger, the performance feels a lot more natural even if the script does not. The idea of two men at or nearing seventy, being able to perform in the ring as they do here is far fetched but if you can get past that thought, they sell it as well as anyone could.

This poster is better than the movie.

This movie reminded me of another DeNiro misfire from 25 years ago, "we're No Angels". A comedy match with Sean Penn that does not work as a comedy and struggles to work as a redemption story. It's heart is in the right place but something along the way just did not work. "Grudge Match" actually does have a grain of a good idea in it, but the stunt casting and awkwardness of the set up undermines the more believable although cliched parts of the story. If you see it and enjoy it, good for you, just don't tell anyone because they already have preconceptions about the movie and then they will start having those same ideas about you.

Saving Mr. Banks

Everyone has their own Christmas traditions. Some open gifts on Christmas Eve, many go to Mass on Christmas morning, at our house we also attend to ritual, the Christmas film screening. The decision of what film to choose depends on what is fresh and seems appropriate. I'm still not sure how we ended up in 2007 seeing Will Smith battle hyperactive zombies after a plague, it must simply be timing. Last year we knew all the way back to the summer months that we would see "Les Misérables" on Christmas day. The trailer was the perfect bait for us. Well this trailer also sold us early on, it is the concept of the film and the stars that made "Saving Mr. Banks" our planned on Christmas film experience since we first heard of it. The story of how Walt Disney convinced a reluctant P.L. Travers to give him the rights to the character of Mary Poppins seems a natural for a family holiday film. Two words, "It is".

There is a bit of a caution warning to begin with. The story does have immense charm and humor, and there are moments of delight, but all of those moments seem more meaningful because around the edges is a dark cloud of family history that is the source of Traver's reserve. Those moments are at times sad, frightening and they might be bewildering to the very youngest family members. I can't imagine that anyone will be traumatized, but you should go in forewarned because the back story of P.L. Traver's family is not ultimately  a happy one. The story is told through a series of flashbacks and forwards from 1901 to 1961. Those transitions are made in very effective cinematic techniques that are not subtle and may put off film hipsters that object to heavy handed story telling but they will please traditionalists with the craft in which they are interjected into the story. 

Emma Thompson plays Travers as a truculent woman who is unable to be appeased by the most logical appeals a professional film story teller might make. She comes off as unpleasant and dour. At first you might be inclined to wonder how it is that this woman is responsible for the marvelous character she has created. It seems that the performance is to be all frowns and facial ticks conveying unhappiness. As the story develops though, it is clear that there is a trans-formative process occurring. She never becomes cuddly but she definitely becomes human. Here there are some obvious Hollywood tools employed, including a tentative friendship with a wise minor character that delivers some positive energy despite the negativity flowering off on Thompson. It helps that this character is played by the talented Paul Giamatti, who can convey patience and kindness with his eyes as well as anyone can. There is also a very obvious moment when a musical breakthrough occurs and it is shown in a extremely conventional way; a way that completely works and should bring a huge smile to your face even if you don't like being manipulated. 

It is hard to imagine better casting than Tom Hanks as Walt Disney. Even though his voice and appearance might not automatically make you think of Disney, his warm demeanor and the audiences personal history with him as an actor, create a wonderful shortcut to the man that the film wants us to believe Disney was. There are only a couple of hints dropped at the tough minded businessman he was capable of being, for instance his reluctance to invite Travers to the premiere of her own film, but with the force of nature that Thompson represents Travers as, we need the Uncle Walt image to balance the story. Also in the cast are Jason Schwartzman and B.J. Novak as the Sherman brothers, the genius team behind the song of the Mary Poppins film. Novak gets some laughs for daring to be honest with Mrs. Travers and Schwartzman gets to play the piano and vamp the songs in rehearsal/story meetings. Bradley Whitford is Don DaGradi, the screenwriter who must work with the team to massage the story to Travers liking. Whitford is a personal favorite from his time on "The West Wing", but he is also a skilled comic actor who helps these scenes work both in their comedy aspects but later in their dramatic moments as well. 

The director is John Lee Hancock, who did two terrific sports themed films in the last dozen years or so, including directing Sandra Bullock to her Oscar win in "The Blind Side". It is quite possible he will have overseen another Oscar nominee in Emma Thompson's Travers. He has effectively used the same sentimental palate that Steven Spielberg uses, including warm colors and camera shots that evoke emotional isolation for children. I was especially impressed with the screenplay of Kelly Marcel and Sue Smith, who between them do not have any credits suggesting that they could accomplish what they have done here. This is a story that turns dark occasionally and the mixture of the light and dark are matched very effectively. Hanks and Thompson are both well served in the last third of the film, when the pieces start to form a more complete picture and allow us to see the complexity behind then difficulty of the characters. I don't know if Walt would have approved of his monologue to travers as he reveals his ability to identify with her, but Hanks sells it and it is very nicely written.

Maybe the best teaser poster of the year.

I have never made it a secret from any of my readers that I am a sentimentalist. The idea of this movie is enough to bring a tear to my eye. In the last twenty minutes I gave over to it completely and I am not ashamed to say that my face would have been soaked if not for the discrete presence of a handkerchief in my hand. This movie did for me exactly what I wanted it to, it intrigued me, entertained me and moved me. While it may have done so at times with a heavy hand, I frankly don't care. Leaving a film with indifferent emotions and only an intellectual experience is not a goal I seek from films. I like when my brain is stimulated, but I also like when my heartstrings are pulled. This movie did enough of the former not to be insulting, and enough of the later for me to treasure it.

Die Hard/ Die Hard 2

Last night I saw "Die Hard" for easily the 50th time at least, but it was only the second time that I saw it on the big screen. It was part of a double feature (along with Die Hard 2) at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood sponsored by the American Cinematheque. I don't know that there needs to be much explanation here, "Die Hard" has been a family favorite since it came out. It is the same exact age as my youngest daughter who was also released on the world that week in 1988. It is second only to "Jaws" in her mind (although "Lawrence of Arabia" is rapidly climbing). We had a great time and it is on our annual Christmas viewing list. Some have challenged the right of "Die Hard" to be seen as a Christmas movie.Clearly the Cinematheque agrees with me.  Last year there was a Great Debate posting on Fogs Movie Reviews over that issue. I have included my comment below as the post for last nights film. (Die Hard 2 does not deserve the same defense as a Christmas movie)




Fogs my man, a valiant effort but in the long run futile. You have measured the indicators of Christmas in the film, but you have left untouched the themes of Christmas that make this a Christmas Movie. Let me get to those in just a moment. I would like to start with a sweeping refutation of the material you have presented. The evidence is excellent and I commend you on your attention to detail. My admiration for your willingness to take the time and count all the references, measure them and put them in a proportional context is very high. (The Commando Screen Shots are still your own personal gold standard but this comes close).
The fault is not in the evidence but in the reasoning. You never give us a standard by which we can measure the “Christmasness” of a movie. Does it have to have a fifty percent component? That would eliminate almost all Christmas films from consideration. Maybe it is the presence of key icons such as Santa, Rudolf, or God that make a movie a Christmas film. If that is the standard than Die Hard meets two of those requirements, the Santa Hat and Ho-Ho-Ho reference takes care of the secular element.

God appears in multiple sentences where the name Jesus or God are invoked, although not in a very Christmas like manner (Oh Christ, you know what I mean). If a percentage is significant enough to spice the movie, it may very well become a Christmas film much as the addition of a small amount of cinnamon or peppermint makes a latte a Christmas drink at Starbucks or a Christmas cookie in a stocking. 11.7% would be more than sufficient to render “Die Hard” a Christmas film.
The true reason that Die Hard is a Christmas film is the theme of the characters. The main characters have the same thread of redemption in them that “A Christmas Carol” has. The setting of the story at Christmas encourages the deep questioning of our selves much like the Christmas spirit encourages us all to ask why we are not as charitable and kind all the year long. The Christmas season provokes a contemplative thought process that might otherwise be dismissed during the rest of the year.
We have three characters that represent redemption, the kind that is life affirming and important especially during the holiday season. While redemption is certainly a theme in other films, it is the Christmas season that provokes the redemption of our characters here. Primary among these characters is our lead, John McClane himself. He is using the holiday as a justification to reach out to his wife by traveling all the way across the country to see his family in L.A.. The coke sniffing by Ellis and the casual workplace sex going on in the offices are a reminder that people in the work place take advantage of others during the holiday season. For many at that party it will be the only holiday spirit that they get. You know Ellis is not going home to cookies and carols with his family after the party. It is clear he’d like to be going home with some Holly wrapped around his tree. John sees this and gets angry, which drives a wedge between he and his wife just when his very actions of coming out to the coast started to bridge their gaps. Later, he does the best he can to save Ellis from himself, despite having plenty of motivation to be happy that he will be out of the picture. That is one of many redemptive acts. He gives Hans a chance on the roof, even though he doesn’t give him a loaded gun. Patience with a stranger is another act of redemption. His devotion to his wife is incredibly strong despite their estrangement, this is another. He consoles a fellow police officer that he has never seen, and takes him to his heart because Powell needs the support just as much as he needs Powell’s. That is an act of mutual redemption. All of this takes place during the Christmas season but more than that is influenced by the spirit of the season. No such redemption is being offered in the first sequel which is also set at Christmas, but for which you will not find many if any adherents of the premise that it is a Christmas movie.
Powell and Holly are the other characters who seek redemption and gain it because of the Holiday. Powell, gets involved in the whole set up because he was willing to work Christmas Eve. A sacrifice in part that is certainly brought on by his guilt over being a “desk jockey”. His reason for being behind a desk most of the time is tragic, the kind of tragedy that Christmas story themes are designed to help us confront. (It’s a Wonderful Life, A Christmas Carol, One Magic Christmas as illustrations). His holiday redemption is completed with his restoration to real cop by helping McClane in the tower, and rescuing them with the same act that had condemned him in the first place. Holly has let her home life suffer for her vanity at work and her pride in disagreeing with her husband. She stands up to Hans, that is an act of courage, she is given hope by the frustration of the terrorist/criminals, that is a restoration of her faith. Finally, she reclaims her married name at the end when she is being introduced to Powell, that is the sign of redemption in her marriage, much like Jimmy Stewart crying “Merry Christmas” after seeing what life would be like if he had never been born.
Hans and Thornburg are the Marley and Potter equivalents in this story. Each is selfish and indifferent to the suffering of others. Each is given opportunities to act in a manner that is consistent with the spirit of the holiday, and each rejects those chances. As a result, they each get a comeuppance that is commensurate with their acts. Hans gets shot and dropped off a building, and Thornburg is publicly humiliated. The spirit of Christmas in the form of a naughty or nice list is kept by the outcome of the story.
We are all on the nice list because this movie was left in our Christmas stocking for us. I know that we would not be discussing it here and now, if the Christmas theme were not an essential part of the plot. The very fact that we are having this discussion at Christmas time, 24 years after the movie came out is also proof of it’s lineage as a Christmas film.
You may still disagree if you like but to do so may put you on Santa’s naughty list. Merry Christmas.

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.

.