SPECTRE Vlog

Just Sharing some stuff you all might want to see.

Seventh Son

Fifty or sixty years ago, this movie would have featured the stop motion animation of Ray Harryhaussen. It would have been made with elegant sets made on a limited budget and it would feature actors not entirely familiar to American audiences. Times have clearly changed. This movie is packed with CGI creatures and sets, it has a cast headed by well known Academy Award winners and nominees. Marketing and production priorities have clearly evolved. There is one thing though that has not altered in all the time passed between "Jason and the Argonauts" and "Seventh Son", fantasy adventure movies still work based on simple story premises and the right attitude by the film makers. The people behind this movie have exactly the right attitude.

This film is a throwback to weekend afternoon matinees and more innocent adventure films of the past. This is not a reinvention of a well know story like "Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters" from a couple of years ago. That film turned CGI into the main reason for seeing a film. It was loaded with violent destruction and blood delivered in 3D. "Seventh Son" also features the destruction of witches, but not by decapitation or Rube Goldberg weapons. This is old fashioned hero magic against the dark forces of the world. With the exception of relatively mild conflagration of witches, the violence here is on the PG level. You could safely take a couple of bright eight to twelve year olds and not have to worry about nightmares or turning them into gore hounds.

I hope that doesn't sound like a knock on the movie because it is far from it. This is a recommendation for people who are looking for a movie with tradition adventure elements featuring monsters and brave men fighting the odds, but can do without the viscera flying off the screen in their faces. There are five or six witches featured in the story and they all turn into some kind of monster. All of those monsters are of the 50s flavor, they are inventive, dangerous and unlikely to rip people into small pieces just for fun. The sensibility of this picture is light and fun in spite of the dark themes and characters.  Julianne Moore is a witch who turns into a dragon but was caged and banished for many years by a knight with special gifts. That knight must be the seventh son of a seventh son, who becomes what is referred to as a spook, a wandering hero who tames all sorts of dark magic and evil in the world. Jeff Bridges is Master Gregory, the knight who contained her and he is training an apprentice to take over his job. When she finally manages to escape, complications arise and we get a another young hero emerging from the shadow of an older master, the hero with a thousand faces has returned. The Lebowski reunion of Moore and Bridges has none of the knowing self satisfaction of that Coen classic. This movie plays all the characters straight.

When I first saw the teaser for this movie it was almost two years ago. Jeff Bridges had made a similar film that was pretty sad called R.I.P.D., where he is mentor to a dead Ryan Reynolds. I did not hold out much hope for this movie, it looked like just another CGI crapfest that would be as disposable as this morning's diapers. Imagine my surprise when it turns out to be a simple popcorn story with a fun sensibility that could have been written five decades ago. The look of the monsters is fun rather than gross and the story is pretty easy to follow and includes a little romance, a little revenge and a few secrets along the way.

The very first thing that grabbed my attention and made me have hope for the film was the score by Marco Beltrami. The sound is swashbuckling light at the start. It does not try to overwhelm us with brooding power. Instead it builds the characters and sets a tone that suggests something fun rather than something solemn. While there is a lot of CGI, it did not feel like it was constantly used just to make us gasp, rather it brings the world of the story to life but never ignores the characters. The work is also stylized enough to make it seem like a movie rather than absolutely real. That may sound like another criticism but fantasy films need to be a bit unreal at times to help us suspend our disbelief in the right way. There are nearly a billion people living in India, and from the credits, nearly half of them worked on the special effects for this movie.



If I have negatives they are limited. Bridges is channeling the same character voice he used in R.I.P.D and it sounds too garbled at times. Young star Ben Barnes has a haircut straight from 2015, which seems at odds with the dark ages settings and costumes. Other than those minor quibbles, I found this to be a delightful surprise. What could have been a total waste of time turned out to be a fun time at the movies. If your kids are too old for Sponge Bob, this is the one to take them to this month.

Oscar Blogathon--Neglected Supporting Actor Performances of 1975

This  is my entry into the 31 days of Oscar Blogathon hosted by Paula's Cinema Club, Outspoken and Freckled and Once Upon a Screen. This week focuses on Oscar Snubs. For forty years I have been stewing on this injustice and I am thankful to have an opportunity to vent. Please be sure to check out the other posts on this project at the sites listed above. I have also included links to relevant posts of my own in this entry.




I have always maintained that 1975 was one of the great years in American movie history. Along with 1939 and 1982, this year from the middle of the last golden age of cinema had a plethora of worthy films. I would never denigrate "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", or "Dog Day Afternoon". "Barry Lyndon" is lovely but I despise "Nashville". The picture that deserved to win the big award is featured on the masthead of this blog so it is no secret that I harbor an admiration for Steven Spielberg's "Jaws". It was an oversight to neglect that movie but it was understandable given the fine work done by all in the eventual winner.
What I do find unforgivable however is the negligence of the Academy's Actor's branch to include two performances from that year in the supporting actor category. Not only were the two performances I want to highlight for you ignored, they were far more deserving than any of the roles that did receive nominations. Just to refresh your memory, in case you don't carry that sort of trivia around in your head for just such a discussion, the nominees in the Best Supporting Actor category were, Brad Dourif as Billy Bibbit in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Burgess Meredith as Harry Greener in "Day of the Locust", Chris Sarandon as Leon in "Dog Day Afternoon" and Jack Warden as Lester Karpf in "Shampoo". The eventual winner was sentimental favorite, comedian, vaudevillian, and TV personality George Burns, as Al Lewis in "the Sunshine Boys". All of these men did fine work, and no one should be embarrassed to have been included, but the five selected did not include career defining work from two other well known and worthy actors.


Let me start with the performance that is least likely to be remembered by today's movie goers. Brian Keith was maybe best known as a Television actor. He starred in two separate successful series, one in the 1960s, "Family Affair" where he played Uncle Bill, the bachelor guardian to his brother's orphaned children. In the 80's he costarred in Hardcastle and  McCormick, he had two or three other series that did not last more than a season or two as well. He made an appearance in many films since he started in the business but worked most consistently in TV. In 1975 he showed up and off in the John Milius written and directed "The Wind and the Lion".

Keith played President Theodore Roosevelt, perhaps the most accomplished man we ever had in the job of President of the U.S.. It is also a role that is parodied in films, depicting Roosevelt as a reckless headstrong cowboy, whose bellicose manner was defined as the "Big Stick" policy. What may not be said as frequently is the first part of the policy, "speak Softly". Keith manages to to convey this dual nature of Roosevelt in this adventure film inspired by a real historic incident.

In the story, Sean Connery is a Berber brigand who has taken an American woman hostage for political purposes in Morocco. As he is preparing to run for the office he inherited, Roosevelt seizes upon the event as a potential campaign issue. Keith never raises his voice or shouts. His whole performance is level but with a lot of vocal nuance. Keith had a naturally gruff voice that fits with our image of the Rough Rider Teddy. He uses tone and pacing to emphasize some deep philosophical ideas well at the same time laughing at himself for taking things so seriously.

Keith has a bit of an advantage in his performance by playing opposite Director/Actor John Huston who plays Secretary of State John Hay. Huston had another one of those great voices and the two of them crossing swords in the White House or out on the shooting range made for some wonderful scenes in the movie that contrasted nicely with the action adventure scenes set in Northern Africa. Keith gets some nice moments of power conveying the certainty of his foreign policy. Roosevelt was know as a man of action and that's exactly how he is represented here. Not by having him run around in circles crying Bully every five minutes but by speaking forcefully and decisively. His actions are not shown to be short sighted or politically motivated but rather, that he understood the political advantage his manner and policies provided him.

The closest the film comes to mocking Roosevelt is in a scene where he tries to describe to a man from the Smithsonian, how he wants the grizzly bear he shot to be displayed. He poses with hands up and growls, and encouraged by his daughter, repeats the pose and growl on a table. Part of it is political theater, but mostly it comes across as the enthusiasm of a man who knows what he wants. Keith's jovial nature in the scene contrasts effectively with an earlier scene in the wilderness with an entourage in tow as he speaks about the taking of the bear with a magnificent vista behind him. He is proud of the accomplishment but also sad. He expresses an admiration for the grizzly that seems heart felt and warm, again mostly because of the vocal variety he uses. He smiles with his voice and speaks wistfully about America's place in the world.


Connery and Keith never shared any scenes in this film. Their characters are an ocean apart but very similar in nature. In the closing of the movie is the closest we come to an interaction as Roosevelt, suffering from blindness in one eye, sits at the foot of his bear and reads a note from the Rasuli, describing their places in the world. The two actors would share the screen a few years later in the execrable "Meteor" but nothing there matches the power of Connery's voice over narration as Keith sits in silence and acts with just his shoulders and hands in the scene.




While Brian Keith being ignored is a disappointment since he never had another part equal to that role, the second actor ignored is a crime beyond my comprehension. If you were to ask almost anybody in the movie business, what are the most culturally influential films of the 1970s, there are really two main answers. "Star Wars" is a juggernaut that turned the geek audience into the main driving force of popular culture today. All the comic book movies that dominate the screen these days are descended from that George Lucas film in 1977. Yet it was two years earlier that the ground began to shift, the blockbuster mentality began to rule, and the talent of Steven Spielberg was recognized by the world. The failure to nominate Steven Spielberg for the best film he ever made is probably a result of jealousy by other Academy members and hubris by Spielberg himself. The failure of the actors branch to mention Robert Shaw is inexplicable.

"Jaws" is a film that everyone who watches movies knows about, and anyone who loves  movies cherishes. The story behind the making of the film has been told before. So has the story of the impact of the film. This is not the first time I have complained about the neglect of Robert Shaw either. As a vocal advocate of this movie I will freely admit that this is not an unbiased opinion. I consider it a duty to remind the world on a regular basis of the greatness of this film, and this post gives me the opportunity to do so through the means of promoting a great screen performance.


I have done maybe a dozen posts over the years on some aspect of this film. It is a film I know I can say I have literally seen at least a hundred times because every year since it has been available to rent or or buy on VHS, watch on cable or on laser disc or DVD, or Blu ray, I have done so approximately four times a year. It is downloaded on my Kindle right now, waiting for an opportunity during a long wait in line or a medical appointment that is taking too long to get to. One of the reasons that it is so repeatable is the performance of the aforementioned Mr. Shaw. It is a part that is fascinating every time I watch it and there is always something new and amazing to discover.


To begin with, the character of "Quint", although introduced in the first act of the film, doesn't reappear in the story until halfway though the movie. That first introduction is incredibly memorable, with Shaw scraping the chalkboard and chewing his food during the town council meeting. He condescends to everyone in attendance and then walks out of the scene. The force of his personality lingers over the meeting and the rest of the film. We know this smug, superior fisherman in the ancient sweater jacket and muttonchops is going to return and be a pivotal player in the story.
While he does pop up in one brief moment, chuckling to himself over the amateurs who think they can bring in the shark, his return to the story takes place on his ground. The business he runs is filled with stewing cauldrons of shark cartilage and homemade liquor.  His self assurance is spat out at the way he mocks Richard Dreyfuss's characters attempt to provide some credentials by mentioning the America's Cup. Shaw's English background helped make the flinty New England  accent more realistic. His devil may care costuming impresses us with his working class manner of thinking. He is a man who knows his place in the world and is completely confident in it up to the end. Look at the body language as he surveys the equipment that Hooper is bringing aboard, he might just as well have spit.

The on set legend is that Shaw disliked Dreyfuss and that dislike carried over to his performance. Shaw was also an alcoholic who needed just one drink to turn mean. It sounds like he was the perfect fit for the role. I recently saw "The Godfather" and Sterling Hayden who played Captain McClusky in that film was originally supposed to take the role of Quint, but tax complications kept him out and fortuitously put Shaw in. I can imagine Hayden fitting the part with his haggard look and somewhat raspy voice, but the character would have played very differently. I think he would have come off as an old man set in his ways and believing in them. Shaw provides some of that, but he also manages to suggest that he is just a little off hinged.

For example, the Limerick he recites as Mrs. Brody is dropping off her city slicker husband to go on the shark hunt, sounds so much more snarky and odd coming from a younger man and one who is taking such glee in sharing it out of nowhere. Quint projects it across the sounds of the Orca being loaded and he smiles knowingly as he gets to the somewhat dirty payoff. Shaw almost puts a chuckle in his voice but stops just short of being cloying. Shaw plays Quint as if he is tickled at the chance to show up all these land lubbers. Of course he is also the master of his own boat and while Brody does complain back at one point, Shaw makes it clear in near silhouette and with a frozen posture, that he is having none of it.

Carl Gottlieb, the credited screenwriter along with book author Peter Benchley, largely gives credit to Shaw for the most famous monologue since Shakespeare. The story he shares is a ghost story about the demons who have haunted him and turned him into the character he is. The fact that Shaw sells the story makes it all the more jaw dropping. This one scene would have won the award for any number of actors. The five minutes in this scene trump the whole five minute performance of Beatrice Straight in "Network". Of course the role was not limited to that one scene and just about everywhere else, he burns up the screen with his stare, his grin or his hat. The by-play with Roy Scheider as Chief Brody, exists in a friendly but condescending universe.
The three leads are all well cast and well played, but it is the prickly off-kilter Quint who gets the best scene and makes the most memorable impression. Robert Shaw played a series of tough guy roles over the years. Some of them steely like Red Grant in "From Russia With Love", or Doyle Lonnegan in "The Sting". Others were playful and heroic like the pirate in "Swashbuckler". "Quint encapsulates both spirits and puts a haunting backstory in the mouth of a master actor. It's nice that George Burns got an Oscar and a new career from his role in "The Sunshine Boys", but history shows that the Academy can make a mistake in the interests of sentimentality. It is my opinion that they did so in 1975.

Star Wars Poster Finally Ready

Way back in 1987, I visited my favorite store in Hollywood, "Hollywood Book and Poster". At that time they were located on Las Palmas, just North of Hollywood Blvd. It was a cavernous room with high ceilings which made it possible to display all the cool new posters that were for sale. I'd purchased a number of items over the years, usually in the $10-$40 range. The most notorious find was the original "Revenge of the Jedi" poster I bought when the movie was still called "Revenge of the Jedi" in December of 1982. Last year I took it to a screening of the Drew Struzan Documentary and the artist signed it for me. If you click on the image it will take you to my story about that day.


1987 was the Tenth anniversary of  the original release of "Star Wars". When I walked through the store that day, I spotted a beautiful lithograph poster on a thick piece of paper stock that took my breath away. It was a pricey item, at $120. I'd not seen anything like it and because I am a geek, I decided I had to have it. It became one of many Christmas gifts to the family that were a tradition between my wife and I.

It was much too nice to put in one of the standard poster frames you can get at Aaron Brothers or other stores, which I use to display many of my other posters. The idea of having to bend a corner to fit it into a prefabricated frame was an anathema to me. We decided to wait and get it custom framed. Flash forward twenty-five years: we were moved into our house for about eighteen years and I decided to do an inventory of my posters.   One of the things I find is that poster I bought back in '87 and I had done nothing with it, time to remedy that. After having had several pieces done at a local business that specializes in framing (Richards Framing), I knew that the project would not be cheap. So again I bide my time and wait for an opportunity to splurge.

The opportunity came up as I am celebrating my 57th birthday this year. There is a new Star Wars movie coming, and it turns out, as I expected, that the poster I bought a print of in 1987 was painted by Drew Struzan himself. It was a print run of 3000 and he had signed them all. I suspect this was one of the projects that ended up unhappily with the agent he worked with at the time and was mentioned in the documentary. I sure hope he got paid because the image is fantastic.

I just returned from my friendly locally owned and operated business, where Karen, the owner, has done a fantastic job on the project. I have several images to share of the project.
We picked out the matting based on the colors in the poster and she has a very sharp eye for color. This is a perfect match of the blue and orange hues found in the art work.

I tried to get a slightly different view with this second shot and I turned off the flash. Although neither of these images does justice to the poster itself, the mat and framing work is pretty evident. At the moment I don't have it up on the wall but I expect that to be remedied shortly. I will include a shot or two at the bottom of this post when I get that done.




At the foot of the poster is the numbering of the lithograph and the signature of the artist, it is just below and off to the right of the image of Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia. I tried to get a close up, but I'm working with a pretty basic older digital camera and I don't always know what I'm doing.
You can see that this is number 739 of the 3000 prints in this run. It's a sweet little birthday gift that originated as an impulse Christmas gift and has germinated into one of the nicest pieces of movie memorabilia in my collection of geek worthy stuff. I hope you enjoyed the share and if you can ever make it to our neck of the woods, I'd be happy to have you come and look at it in person. It will definitely distract you from the debris in the rest of the house.


Here is a link to Struzan's site where you can pick up an Artist's Proof of this beauty.

 http://www.drewstruzan.com/illustrated/portfolio/?fa=medium&gid=1172&pri&gallerystart=1&pagestart=1&type=pri&gs=1

The Godfather Live

For many years, we have attended the Hollywood Bowl Movie nights and enjoyed the live orchestra as an accompaniment to the images that they show on the screen. Last night was a similar experience but instead of scenes or clips we got the whole film with a live symphony. 
The movie cannot be faulted in any way. Almost universally "The Godfather" is recognized as one of the great achievements in cinema. It is another reminder of the second golden age in Hollywood that lasted most of the decade of the 1970s. The music from the movie is iconic. It is immediately identifiable and has become iconic. A few notes and suddenly anyone in listening range will be transported to the violent, romanticized world of the mafia from the mid-20th Century. The sounds of the film have been used in a million parodies because everyone knows the central themes.

This was my first visit to the Nokia Theater in the L.A. Live plaza. The theater, which has been seen by many on a dozen award shows, seats over 7,000 which is comparable and maybe even a little larger than the Radio City Music Hall in NYC. We arrived early because the Will Call message said there would be line ups, but we were so early I could walk right up. With some time on our hands, the three of us walked over to have dinner at the Lawry's Carvery on the corner. This is an informal dining experience that features some of the same foods served at my favorite dining establishment, Lawry's The Prime Rib. We each ordered a prime rib based sandwich, and a drink, as well as a dessert to share. The total was just over $60, that is until they ran my VIP card and discovered my accumulated points. The three of us ended up dining on .48 cents. That was a nice treat.



We walked back to the theater and enjoyed all the lighted marquees for the restaurants and events and movies and television programs that were being advertised. The Electronic marquee of the Nokia had the logo for the event on it in dramatic red, white and black. There was a minor glitch in trying to enter the theater. I had three sets of keys in my pocket and on two of the key rings I have small tools which include knife blades that are maybe an inch long. I hardly every think of these, much less consider them as potential weapons, but the woman at the metal detector was having none of it so I sent my wife and daughter in and I walked back to the car to unload my dangerous tools.

On returning to the theater, I sought my companions but I ended up on the mezzanine level instead of the loge level and had to be redirected. The theater is impressive in size and elegantly simple. It is not overly ornamented but it has some classic lines and there are subtle colored florescent accent lights on the loge boxes on the sides of the theater.  When we first sat down, the seats were nearly empty, we were almost forty minutes away from the start of the program. By the time 8:00 arrived, every seat was filled. Seven thousand people had shown up to see a movie that is forty three years old.That is the power that "The Godfather" still holds over cinema lovers.

Instead of one large screen, there were three. One located immediately above the orchestra on stage and then one on either side of the stage. You would have a very clear view no matter were you sat in the venue. The movie would be digitally projected, which must certainly simplify the process of synching up the score as played by the musicians with the images on the screen. It was never distracting to me, but I could see that the conductor had a computer screen on the podium in front of him, with the click track imposed on top of the film images so that everything would be timed perfectly. For three hours that is exactly what happened.

The score by Nino Rota, is filled with original music but also traditional Italian melodies and American popular jazz of the 1940s. The musicians moved seamlessly from style to style and they were all excellent. Special notice should however be given to the lead trumpet, the pianist, the mandolin player, and the principle cellist. They had to work the hardest and there are several sections in the movie where they are unaccompanied by any of the other musicians and their solo work was excellent.

One thing that is very noticeable when watching a film with an orchestra playing the music, is the number of times that there is no background music. The dialogue in so many scenes weaves a musical tapestry all by itself. At the convocation of mobsters, the voice of Marlon Brando, and the words that he speaks, flow smoothly through the scene as if they were a music passage. The sounds of gravel and crickets in Sicily, and the noisy children and gunfire on the New York City streets also fill the atmosphere a number of times with any musical sweetening. Of course when a dramatic act takes place, there is a powerful punctuation of the emotion with a fanfare or motif that fits just as it should.

One of the first dates I took my wife on, was a double feature of "The Godfather" and "The Godfather Part II", at the State theater in Pasadena, California. Together, the two films are almost six and a half hours long. At that distant screening way back in 1976, as the first movie ended and we stood up to take advantage of a break, the lights suddenly went down again and the second film stared almost immediately. We sat right back down and made it through both movies without a break. Last night, the screening inserted an intermission right after Michael assassinates Sollozzo and Captain McClusky. I know all too well that there was no intermission in the original film, but it worked well last night and I'm sure it was as much for the musicians benefit as it was for the audience. That gave us an opportunity to narcissisticly  have our picture taken in our seats. Those are very genuine smiles because we were having a wonderful time. The love song from "The Godfather", "Speak Softly Love" was the music we played at our wedding back in 1980. The minister at my childhood church questioned us about it a little but she understood that it was a love song and not really an endorsement of the gangsters in the film and she went along with our preference very easily.  

At the end of the film, when I was waiting in the lobby for my companions in the ladies room, I checked my phone and saw there was a message on my Facebook page. I'd posted that we were attending and an old high school friend messaged me that he was there as well. I would have loved connecting with him for a few minutes, we haven't really seen each other in forty years but it looks like the movies of that decade still hold sway over those of us who came of age at that time. Next time Ron.
Amanda heard someone in the bathroom suggest "Lawrence of Arabia" for a similar experience. I am already waiting for such an announcement, "long live classic movie music!". I know that this event played in New York last summer, I hope it makes it to your town so that you can share the experience of a great film with a magnificent score, performed right in front of you by professionals that really know how to bring it all home. Here in Southern California, we have the finest studio musicians in the world and they did this movie and it's score proud.

Wild

Forty years ago, as a young man, I hiked many sections of the Pacific Crest Trail. In my scout troop we had a guy who backpacked the entire length of the trail but he did not do it in one fell swoop like Cheryl Strayed did. The accomplishment of such a monumental feat by someone not trained, experienced or wise in the ways of the wilderness is pretty impressive and at the same time completely foolish. Walking into the wild by yourself is an invitation to self reflection, a strong communing with nature and disaster. Watching the event take place for two hours in a comfortable theater at a ripe older age made me nostalgic until the first snowfall encountered.

This is a highly personal story that will strongly appeal to the navel gazers among the cinema going population. It will serve as a travelogue for those who have never been from the depths of the Mojave to the heights of the Sierras and it will depress anyone who has lost a loved one. It will also confuse those of us who lack the personal tragedy gene that would drive someone to wreck their life when a loved one passes unexpectedly. I cannot sit in judgement of a person's emotional life, everyone is different in the way they cope, but this film left me empty at the experience that drove Cheryl to attempt this trip. I certainly appreciated the flashbacks that accentuated her relationship with her mother, but I was bewildered at how the level headed, bright young woman that she was when her mother is lost, became the bitter, drug addicted victim of serialized promiscuity, forsaking a man that seemed to truly love her. That it happened and that there was a reason for it I do not doubt, I just don't understand any better as a result of watching this movie.

The story unfolds as Cheryl hikes the 1000 miles of the Pacific Crest trail and thinks back on the life that had brought her to this point. The flashbacks give us detail in the way she grew up and the warm relationship she had with her mother, but they do not clarify the path that lead her to the self destructive behavior in the first place and there is not a very clear reason why she choose this task as a way of closure and repentance. Maybe there is a moment of clarity or an epiphany that brings this sad Minnesota girl to the West Coast and the Sierra Nevada range of mountains, but without a context it felt like an arbitrary odyssey to set out on.  Reese Witherspoon is effective as Cheryl, both in her moments on the trail and in her earlier life. The struggle of the wilderness is however the thing that brings out the most impressive parts of her performance. She plays awkward, fearful and frustrated at various moments. In two sequences you can fathom the possible human dangers that a young woman on a mission like this could face. The dangers from the wilderness get a little bit less attention but she does present a woman struggling with an obsession very clearly.

Laura Dern is the mother who inspires and maddens her. This is the third film I have seen her in during the last year or so. She has the reverse role of a mother losing her child in "The Fault in our Stars" and she is much more grounded and less showy in "When the Game Stands Tall". As Cheryl's mother, she shows us in brief moments the kind of love and fortitude that would make her a hero to her daughter. There is also an implied sense that her early life with the abusive father of her children is a source of some of Cheryl's anger, but Dern never played the mom as a doorman. She was cautious and had limited options but as far as we can tell she ultimately did the right thing by her kids. Some of the film editing might make the performance more meaningful by contrasting the adult Cheryl with her younger self in some places.


Cheryl encounters a variety of obstacles along her path. Some of those are natural, some man made and many are self inflicted. The people she meets along the way are occasionally interesting but they rarely get much opportunity to sparkle and take focus away from the story we are watching. I suspect that the book delves deeply into some of the philosophies that are represented by the variety of fellow trekkers on her march. I am not at all surprised that the spiritual descendants of hippies are prevalent in the story. Yurt living, Jerry Garcia worshiping, iconoclasts populate some of the outskirts of civilization in the forest. Whether they are free spirits to be admired or outcasts to be puzzled over is not clear from the story. What is clear is that if you can look deeply into a Grateful Dead lyric or jam, or if dead poets and writers are inspiring to you, than you will get more out of this film than the rest of us.

Taken 3

This should not take too long. This is a perfunctory sequel to a sequel to a terrific movie. It has little to offer on it's own, except for standard action sequences and interminable car chases and crashes. The story is convoluted nonsense that  fits into many of today's thrillers where criminals lurk around every corner and there is a convenient betrayal behind every door. All the actors do their jobs but it is mostly going through the motions rather than creating something memorable or essential. None of this is a surprise after the lackluster second entry, also directed by Olivier Megaton. When I looked back, I was more enthusiastic than I remember, and I know I must have been somewhat blinded because I have never revisited the sequel.

There are three things that make this movie worth a visit. Forrest Whitaker does a nice job playing a sharp LAPD Detective. At some point in his career, someone decides that he would make a good cop. I think he has been an FBI agent or a cop in the last two or three things I saw him in. The part is not especially well written but he adds some thoughtfulness to it through his performance and especially his voice. The second element that makes this somewhat worthy is the use of Bryan Mills team of buddies. That actually get to do something in this movie and they show they are pretty clever also. They still could have been utilized more but at least they don't just show up and drop something off for him.

The third thing that makes this somewhat worth seeing is the star himself. Liam Neeson can now play these parts without breaking much of a sweat. Whether that is a good or a bad thing depends on your view of Neeson. I have always liked him as an actor, my family jokes a little that I have a mancrush on him. I'm a fan, and I will probably always be available if Liam wants to show up on screen and kill a bunch of people. I do think it is interesting that he became an action star at the point in life when other action stars who have been doing these kinds of movies much longer, are sometimes mocked for being geriatric. He did star as "Darkman" in 1990, but his career did not really become littered with action roles until maybe ten years ago. I suppose he still feels fresh enough to the audience that we can still go with it.

Now the other things that made this movie a problem for me. I already mentioned the frequency of car chase sequences but they are problematic for some other reasons as well. The director shoots the car scenes in such frequent close ups that at times you might forget that the characters are in cars. The action of the cars is also so tight that you can't really get a sense of what is happening to whom, except that there is a lot of mayhem in most of these parts. The ubiquitous shaky cam is present in all of these scenes as well, and once again instead of creating tension or a feeling of being in the action, it creates a sense of vertigo that made at least one member of our part nauseous enough that they had to leave the theater. The action sequences also have that problem, but they suffer from a bigger deficiency, "sanitized brutality". There is a minimum of blood, the broken bones and cracked skulls don't jump out and make you winch they way they did in the first film. There is something too "PG-13" in the way the material is being put together. I did however appreciate Bryan's impromptu waterboarding sequence. It can't hold a candle to the electric shock scene in the original "Taken", but it does show what a nasty customer Bryan can be.


I liked the movie a little more than the second film, but neither will be very memorable. If you are a connoisseur of Liam Neeson action films, than you can't really skip this one. It is a part of a Neeson Franchise and so it is necessary for you. If you are interested in an average action thriller for a date night, this will suffice. If you wanted a good movie, move along, this will not give you what you need. The fact that i enjoyed it probably says more about my faults than it does about the quality of the film.