BPS Part One

Here at the Best Picture Showcase. A lot of familiar faces from last week. We are missing Anne but the day looks promising. Hugo is up first and it is in 3D.

Loved Hugo even more than the first time.

The Help was again, terrific.

Extremely Loud Incredibly Close was fine but not great. There were some things about it that bugged.

After Dinner, the Artist and Midnight in Paris.

Best Picture Show Case Day Two Preview

Last weekend was pretty great. There was a good sized crowd but it was not packed. Everybody was having a good time, and we started off with the movie that AMC Voters ranked as the best for the day on their text poll; War Horse. We saw this movie on Christmas day and it was a wonderful way to cap off the holiday. I was moved by the story all over again and in many ways it was more touching and deeply effective than it had been the first time. My appreciation of the movie was increased, and although I have heard criticism of John Williams score being over used and too saccharine, I thought it worked well and was happy to hear it.

Next we saw "Moneyball" which was my first time. I have a hard time believing that I did not see this earlier in the season. Like other movies with baseball at the center but not about the game, it uses our familiarity to tell a different story altogether.  It is a lot like one of the two Costner baseball films of the eighties. Family and reconciliation are the themes of "Field of Dreams" and love and ambition are the targets of "Bull Durham". Both movies feature baseball, but the outcome of the game is not really the point. In "Moneyball" the outcome of the season is the point, and there is one game featured, but that was about it. The story is really concerned with innovation and creativity confronting prejudice and tradition. It was very entertaining, even though most of what happens is talk. Of course if the talk is scripted by Aaron Sorkin, then it should be plenty interesting.

The less I say about "Tree of Life", the happier I will be. You can see my comments elsewhere on a post earlier this week.

Finally, "The Descendants" manages to be an effective drama with humorous moments. It centers on several complicated situations that the main character must deal with all at once. Every once in a while, I think a family gets challenged by a really tough stretch of time. Years ago I lost my best friend, my Mother, my Father was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, we bought a house and we had the hardest move you can imagine, all in a period of about nine months. George Clooney's character faces overwhelming problems and difficult decisions and it is the manner in which he faces those challenges that he end up defining himself as a person. I was much more ambivalent about the movie the first time I saw it. This time it resonated more with me and I could see the quality of work Mr. Clooney was turning in.

Tomorrow, we have "Hugo", "The Help", "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" , "The Artist" and "Midnight in Paris".  For my previous comments on two of the films you can click on the poster below. I have heard great things about the other three and it looks to be a very pleasant day.

 

Safe House

Finished off the long weekend with a little Denzel action. The man can play badass without breaking a sweat and in this movie all he does is kick other peoples asses and brains around. There is a little too much dependance on fistfights and car crashes and shootouts to make this work as the paranoid spy thriller it wants to be. It never rises above the level of action film with pretensions of insight. It looks like it is going to be a buddy spy film for a while and while it does have elements of that, there is not much time devoted to the motives of the two protagonists.

From the late sixties and early seventies on, there have been a thousand spy films with rogue elements of the CIA doing bad things. They must have the stupidest recruiters and the worst internal controls of any bureaucracy in history, at least if you buy any of the premises of these kinds of films. The story here involves a CIA agent that has turned traitor and may be selling secrets that will expose the CIA to international ridicule. The bad guy in the movie can be spotted early on because it is just casting that creates this character. None of this ultimately exonerates Denzel's agent, but it is supposed to make it more acceptable that he is basically "Wiki-leaks" with a bank account. 

Ryan Reynolds does a credible job as a young CIA operative, in a low level, low priority job which suddenly becomes the center of the spy universe. He sells the desire to do the right thing with his puppy dog face, and he handles the action scenes with vigor. He needs to because every time we turn around there is running, fighting, chasing and shooting. There are more survivors of car crashes in this movie than there are on the streets of L.A., I know that for sure. People get shot, stabbed, beat up and they just keep going. You hope the real spies can do all of this stuff because most people can't make it through the course in an episode of "Wipeout" without a longer breather than any of these guys get. The director relies on a lot of shaky cam work to pump up the action, but there is some good tight choreography as well.

A few years ago I saw a parody of action films where the lead, turns their back and walks away as an explosion goes off right behind them. It has become a cliche in the modern action world. Denzel seems to be making it his own personal cliche to put an extra bullet in the other guy when he is on the ground, and to do it while looking away. Of course the one time he fails to perform the cliche move, there is a negative consequence so in a sense it does set us up for one piece of business.  His character is supposed to be an expert at manipulating assets with psychology, but we hardly get any of that. That would have made the relationship with Reynold's character so much more interesting than we got here. There was enough to sustain the loud gunfights and action sequences but not the story threads.

Sometimes these films rise to a level of excellence that is impressive, but more often they simply compete with one another on body count and action. This is a missed opportunity. It was still a worthy movie, after all it features Denzel doing his thing, but the stone cold facial expression sometimes needs a little more backup. What this movie really did for me was make me want to see some Denzel films where he gets to do more than just his thousand yard stare. I could really go for seeing him work opposite Gene Hackman again. Those two are fantastic in "Crimson Tide". If you just want a shoot em up, this movie fits the bill, but if you want something a little sweeter from Mr. Washington, maybe go back and check out some other work instead.

'This Means War'

In an effort to come down from yesterday's sugar rush of movies, today we have a little bit of the hair of the dog so to speak. A single movie that no one will remember for good or ill in a few months. There is nothing about it that I found offensive but there was also nothing about it that I found particularly worthwhile either. It has cute guys for the girls, Reese Witherspoon for the guys and a bunch of misused spy craft for everyone else. Some explosions, a couple of smiles, and maybe a laugh or two. If you are looking for a date movie this will do fine, it is entertaining enough but it won't interrupt the rest of your evening with conversation about the meaning of it all or the film maker's craft.

The two guys featured are up and comers Chris Pine and Tom Hardy. Pine is the new Captain Kirk in the relaunched Star Trek movies. As far as Amanda is concerned, he is a terrific actor, which translated means, "yummy". Tom Hardy was in my favorite movie last year, "Warrior" where he is a menacing, hulking presence and does most of his acting with his fists. Both of these guys get to trade on their natural gifts, Pine uses his baby blue eyes, crooked smile and smart guy attitude to woo our female protagonist. Hardy plays it sincere with a natural physicality that I guess would be appealing to the opposite sex, oh, and he has a British accent. The third part of our triangle is Miss Witherspoon, last year seen in Water for Elephants and seemingly a little old for her co-star there. She hasn't gotten younger but the make up and costume people on this shoot made sure that she would be a desirable woman for the two younger guys (and us old guys also). She does a completely unnecessary booty dance that reminded me of Cameron Diaz in Charlie's Angels. I guess that should not be a surprise since McG, the director of this film also directed that piece of cotton candy film.

Comparisons to "True Lies" might be in order since the film does feature a spy romance where the profession of espionage agent is being hidden from the romantic partner. Also, a lot of government resources are being used for personal purposes that verge on the brink of creepy stalking. What is missing from this movie that "True Lies" had in abundance is a real action spy movie to immerse the romance in. This movie sets up such a plot line, abandons it for most of the rest of the movie and then revives it in the last ten minutes. The spy stuff never feels serious and there are stupid resolutions to most of the action in that last section. The set ups of the shots felt like out takes from "Fletch" and "Speed". The shots from those movies that were too tired to be used in their respective stories.

For a modern twist on romance being conflicted by two rivals, the story makes some pretty dated references. My guess is that the dialogue of Reese's friend will be lost on contemporary audiences. Do any teens and twenties really know who Gloria Steinem is? This movie sets up Pine as a smooth up to the minute player, and he is using Sade as his seduction song and the cute meet with Reese takes place in a video rental store? Those devices would have been funny ten years ago but here they seem lazy. It is just screenwriter shorthand to save from having to develop something original. The dating site jokes were old a decade ago when I saw them in "Must Love Dogs", why would anyone think this is a fresh take on this kind of story? The idea of Spy vs. Spy is a good one but underdeveloped and used only for the barest of story structure here.

Anyone can see the romantic resolution coming from early on. The bad guy is not menacing enough and is clearly too stupid to be much of a threat, maybe that's why he disappears from the movie for ninety percent of the time. There are some ridiculous romantic set ups that would be cheesy in any film, but set in a world of international espionage, they stand out as obvious. Attempting to match up to an ex-boyfriend, dating at a carnival, lying about volunteering at a pet shelter, all provide quick jokes but no real humor and never any sympathy for any character. This movie is product, but not even good product like an obvious romantic comedy. It gets a reaction in the most obvious way possible and then moves on to the next set up.   There were several times when I noticed story continuity issues, but the film just keeps plugging along. It may be a better evening to go out and see this with a date, than spending time in watching Law and Order or NCIS, but just barely.

Tree of Life -- Special Edition WARNING***

I do my best to talk about movies without repeating the storyline and giving out spoilers. Since Tree of Life has no storyline and the movie is spoiled already, I can safely say that the point of the film is to wallow in vague imagery for two plus hours, and then make you want to throw up from the shaky camera work. Vomiting would make you feel better after digesting this unsatisfying exercise in film school philosophizing. Just yesterday I said that the original Ghost Rider was maybe the worst film I'd seen in five years, well we have a new winner and I may not be putting a time limit on it.

More than a decade ago, I was warned away from the Thin Red Line. I'd seen Badlands and Days of Heaven, but a friend told me she would lose any respect for me if I liked the Thin Red Line. Her scorn was never at risk since I had heard enough to stay away to begin with. On the other hand I did enjoy The New World, but I only saw it one time and maybe revisiting it would highlight some warning signs for me. I was hesitant about the movie and I thought Tree of Life was supposed to run almost three hours. When we looked at our Best Picture Showcase Booklet, the run time was listed at 2:19. That did not sound bad. Well, I need to leave instructions for my end of life declaration that this movie be played on my last day on earth, because it will make it seem like I am living an extra ten years. Tree of Life is pretentious, and boring and pointless in so many ways, it is hard to find the words.

Several film sites that I follow and read have praised the movie for it's innovation and visual storytelling. Anybody who thinks this movie is artistic genius, probably thought that the best part of 2001 was the light show near the end. People stoned on pot, at a lasariem show at Griffith Observatory, would have to drop acid three times to appreciate this. Whispered dialogue used in narrating story points is derided in many films, here it is praised even though the comments have no context, insight, or interesting language to go along with them. The visual spectacle of inner and outer space is beautiful to look at, but after a while it reminds you of a screen saver that you downloaded ten years ago for your computer. The classical music would be better to listen to with your eyes closed. Terrance Malick has created a doodle that lasts for more than two hours and people have been suckered into seeing something deep here.

Brad Pitt is a stern Father who loves his kids, despite the fact that one of them is a borderline head case. The boy does some kid stuff, some strange stuff and some deeply wrong stuff. All of this happens after we get the history of the universe in CGI, watercolor, nature documentary style shots. Oh, this includes the history of dinosaurs, from evolution to destruction by giant meteor. The scenes set in the human world are shot with a steady cam that is not steady at all. The dialogue, such as it is, sounds like ghosts muttering about nothingness. The acting in the movie is not acting at all, since there are no motivations or real human emotions on display. We have snippets of yelling, and deep looks and a lot of walking. Terrance Malick's main direction to the actors must have been for foot placement and speed. Sean Penn appears to be the young boy all grown up, but all he has is maybe three lines of dialogue and twenty minutes of walking around deserts, modern buildings, and what is supposed to pass for heaven.

Like I said above, many reviews and on-line posts about the movie have described it as polarizing. Our audience was unified by this movie, we all hated it. I'd rather sit through an insurance seminar, followed by a division meeting, and then a Ghost Rider/Donnie Darko double feature, before I subject myself to this. We watched the Descendants after this, and that movie took only ten minutes to wrap up it's goodby to a doomed character. Tree of Life is so constipated in trying to deal with the death of one character, that when the final goodbye gets said, you'll wish all the other characters were dead too.

Best Picture Showcase Live Blog

So ready for the day. I will be posting pictures and brief comments during the showcase. They have to be brief because I am using my phone, but it should be fun. If you can't make it out to the movies today, please check in and see what is going on with our movie orgy. Talk to you soon.


The Live blogging with my phone is not working well.

Warhorse was better than the first time I saw it.

Moneyball, was great, I can't believe I did not see it until today.

Tree of Life is something I will have to do an extensive post on, because I need to spew all the bile it built up in me.

We are on a dinner break and will go back for The Descendants. 

Ghost Rider 2 Spirit of Vengeance

I am afraid I have to admit that the main reason I spent $40 taking Amanda to see this and buying popcorn and coke is the stinger at the end of the trailer above. I forget exactly which movie Dee and I were seeing, when we saw the trailer, but Amanda, Allison and I saw "Shark Night" back in September, and the 3D flame-throwing Ghost Rider provoked  such a big laugh that we were committed then and there to seeing it. At that point we had never watched the original Ghost Rider from four years ago. I had recorded it off the satellite, and had it on DVD, but we never got around to it. Nicolas Cage is a guilty pleasure at our house. He can be a terrific actor, or a huge ham, chewing up the scenery. We like him in both kinds of movies. Last year he was in the ridiculously stupid and equally fun, "Drive Angry in 3D".   So this looked promising.

In anticipation of the arrival of the sequel, we got out the prior film and watched it a few weeks ago. It may very well have been the worst movie I have seen in five years. It should have been fun and self depreciating and stupid action. Instead, it lay there like something the dog dropped off and no one wanted to admit was smelling up the house. It certainly lowered our expectations for the "Spirit of Vengeance", after all, there are very few sequels that live up to the original much less exceed them. What chance was there that this movie would stink less than the awful original? However, we were reminded of the scene in the trailer where we see "Ghost Rider" relieving himself and that gag had exactly the tone and humor we had expected the original to have so we took a deep breath and plunged in. I am happy to report that the experience was much better than we had any right to hope for. This movie is substantially better than the one that preceded it. That is not really saying much, but it is a start.

Getting to the point, "Ghost Rider Spirit of Vengeance " is not a good film. The story makes jumps which have no sense to them, there is not much tension built up and when there should be dread, there is only the hollow sound of mild anticipation. We get no sense of character development from anybody in the story. People are killed off left and right and there is no reason to care if they deserve the fate that the Ghost Rider brings them or not. One character who opens the movie with a pretty good action scene, seems to be someone we can root for, but he is drawn in the vaguest terms possible. He appears to be a priest of dubious origins, and he is smarter than the other characters in the story, but we have no sense of why.  There is a prophesy that is referred to several times, and we are never told what it says. The mother and child that the "Rider" ends up playing protector to (much like Terminator 2), are introduced but never given anything to do except be the focus of the bad guys pursuit. The kid does get one chance to shine when he is denied a request to open a car window, (there is a complicated action sequence that follows) but after that, he mostly just walks through the movie.

So, if it is not a good film, why did we still feel satisfied with the expenditure of time and money? It is simple, there are three or four good action scenes and an equal number of bad jokes that are right up my alley. Cage gets to grimace and mug for the camera in a funny transition from Johnny Blaze to the Rider, while on a motorcycle. The combination of CGI and Nic Cage facial ticks, was certainly worth part of the admission price. I also liked the long title sequence which told the necessary parts of the original story in a clearer, more interesting manner than the whole first movie. There was a nice combination of comic book animation, still shots and voice over. Skip the first movie, you don't need it, everything that is important was in this nice recap. In the middle of the film, is maybe the best "Twinkie" joke I ever saw in a movie. There are also a few clever social jabs concerning the form that the devil takes. Let us not forget the money shot from the trailer, which is repeated a second time for an even better laugh. 

No one involved in this movie will want to highlight it on their resume, but it won't cause anybody to skip applying for a job because they did this movie. If you see the film, I don't think you need to hang your head in shame. Be careful about recommending it to the wrong people however. Not everyone will have the demented taste to appreciate the few gems of wit in this otherwise stupid film. "Ghost Rider Spirit of Vengeance" does not rise to the level of craptastic that "Drive Angry in 3D" does, but you won't have to scrape your shoes off after you leave the theater as you had to with the original.







Come back tomorrow for the live blog from the Best Picture Showcase. Four Academy Award Nominated Movies all in one day at the AMC annual event.