The Lord Of The Rings The Two Towers Extended Edition.

The extended editions of the Lord of the Rings films continued this week with the second in the series, "The Two Towers". For many fans, this is the pinnacle of the series, because it features the true introduction of Gollum, the tragic mirror of what both Bilbo and Frodo may have become. Gollum is a technically created creature that still had the acting skills of a very talented Andy Serkis to bring him to life. The character is divided between the shadow of Smeagal, one of the river folk distantly related to hobbits and Gollum, the surviving flesh and tortured soul of evil that has already been consumed by the ring. One of the best known scenes in the film involves the character basically arguing with himself. Sometimes in single shots and sometimes facing a second version of himself. It was a very effective piece of acting and a well planned piece of film making. In the brief introduction to the film, Peter Jackson tells us that he was not even there to film the scene since he was scheduled with the actors for another shot. The scene was done with stand ins substituting for the sleeping hobbits, and the motion capture directed by someone other than Jackson (He mentioned Fran Walsh but I don't remember if she wrote the scene, or if she wrote it and directed it as well.)


There are many things to love about The Two Towers; the chase of the Uri-kai across Rohan, the restoration of Theoden and the casting out of Sauraman, the appearance of the Ents and their fateful decision to cast their lot with the men of the west. Whereas in the first film, we followed one group of adventurers on their quest, in the center part of the story, the group has been divided into three distinct units with their own narratives. The film cuts back and forth very effectively between the three stories, and builds tension in each section that leads to a reasonable climax for the film. One plot development was postponed until the last film, but I think that makes the final film more effective and it lets this story stand a bit more independently as a result. There are great bits of humor used to keep things flowing as well. I think that the middle passage of this massive story could have languished if great care had not been taken with the screen play. The character of Gollum/Smeagal gives the movie a narrative drive that is far stronger than if had simply been focused on the journey and quest. Theoden, King is one of my personal favorite characters. He resists the obvious, chooses the dangerous and rises to the occasion sufficiently to make the resolution of his story and those of the riders of Rohan much more meaningful. Next week I suppose I will weep again at the defiant words of Eowyn as she confronts the witch king and defends her Uncle, but without the setups provided here it would simply be a plot point.

The extended edition also give a character that has already been killed off, a chance to deepen and create greater empathy for. Boromir is so much more clearly valiant as a result of his scenes in Gondor with his brother and father. The weariness with which he sets off to meet his fate is matched by his determination to save his land. The roll out of Farimirs character is more complete and again, the intertwining tragedies that all of these people must face in the course of the great conflict reflect the real nature of war and politics. There is so much going on in these worlds and not all of it is about the main quest. In the original theatrical releases of the movies, the story telling is tighter but not always complete. These extended editions do justice to the complexity of the world that Tolkien created.

The Battle at Helm' Deep is the climax of the film. It is loaded with dramatic action, humor and sacrifice. The desperate sense of doom that nearly overwhelms the forces aligned against Mordor does tend to hang over the film and make it the hardest of the stories to get through. Just as we reach the end of our strength, a character makes a breakthrough, or a tipping point comes down on the right side. Merry figures out a way to motivate the Ents, Aragorn restores King Theoden's faith in his family history, Farimir chooses a path that his brother could not. We get to see these things happen when we did not before. Sam grows and shows us more signs that he can be the hero, not just the side kick, that he will need to be in the final chapter. Frodo's fragile balance between savior and fallen is demonstrated by his charity towards Gollum and his impatience with Sam. Again there are dozens of seeds planted that will germinate and come to fruition in the last film. Those seed do have to be planted though and the film makers made that process a lot more interesting with the choices they made of what to add to the movie for the special edition.

I will need to go out and get the soundtrack for the movie, because in addition to the fanfare theme set up in "Fellowship", the sad violin based theme for the scenes in Rohan are featured. There are stirring action themes and character motifs in the rest of the movie as well, but the repetitive lament of a simple people, nearly wiped out and still holding onto their dignity, is one of the strong points of the film. My knowledge of music is scant, but my appreciation of it is immense, and this music made a real emotional difference in the film. As I said last week, this is one long commercial for the Blu Ray set that is coming, and the anticipation is heightened a couple of additional ways. There is a long promo for "TheOneRing.net", the fan driven site that will remind people of the coming version of "The Hobbit", there is the aforementioned introduction by Peter Jackson, and there are pre-film screen cards with trivia from the films. I have included some phone snapshots of these to add to your experience here. I promise, if there is a teaser for the Hobbit next week, the internet will meltdown with commentary and I will be part of the flood. I don't expect it, but all of the Lord of the Rings film experience have exceeded my expectation before, so we can hope.

Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

http://www.fathomevents.com/originals/series/lordoftherings.aspx

So last night we went to a three and a half hour commercial and paid $12.50 for the privilege. Next week we are doing the same, and then a week after that we do it again. Why, you might ask. It could have something to do with being big geeks, but the real reason is that movies are made to be seen in a movie theater. I love that I can own a movie and watch it anytime I like. I have a thousand or so movies in my collection, but I cannot enjoy them in a theatrical experience, no matter how big the TV is. I am not going to get 300 people, who all want to see the same film, to crowd around my family room TV. I can make popcorn, but it will not taste the same. Seeing a movie in a theater is a tradition that I treasure and seeing a movie I love in a theater is a memory that embraces all of my senses.

"The Fellowship of the Ring" is the the opening chapter in the "Lord of the Rings Trilogy". This movie series has been awarded, analyzed, worshiped and loved for almost ten years now. The DVD's of the films have been available for almost as long, and the extended versions of the movies for just a little bit less than that. So why do we need it on the big screen? We need it there so that we can marvel at the full specter of Gandalf's fireworks, so we can know how truly terrifying the Nazgul are when they attack. We need to jump at Bilbo's two second possession. A Balrog can only be fully respected when it is forty feet high and everyone in the theater is in awe. I grew up in the seventies, before home video was available. We waited for movies to play on television, and you had to schedule your time to see them. You could not shift times, skip commercials, step out of the room or rewind. If you were lucky, a favorite film would play at the college or at a revival house, and you could see it again on the big screen. Some films were periodically re-released and you could catch up with a Disney movie or a James Bond triple feature. Today we are spoiled by the wonders of technology that allow us to carry a movie like "Avatar" around in our pockets and watch it on a three or four inch screen anywhere. Last night was an embrace and a rejection of that technology all at once.

Digital magic created the world we were watching, and the Blu-ray experience will preserve that vision for as long as the technology is around. However, by not waiting for the home version, I got to be thrilled once more to a movie screening of a film I'd dreamed of for thirty years before it showed up. I remember saying to my friend, Dan Hasegawa, after we saw "The Empire Strikes Back", that the puppetry and set design in that movie were the way to go in putting Lord of the Rings on screen. Although that version might be wonderful, I doubt that it would stand up very well to the rigors of the story that Peter Jackson told over the course of three films, that when viewed in their extended editions total twelve hours of movie. I'm glad they waited and I'm glad I get a chance to talk about it.

In 2001, when The Fellowship first opened, I was not blogging and it never occurred to me that I could share my enthusiasm with anyone not right in front of me. Here we are ten years later and I hope that some of you that I don't know, or at least don't know personally will find my comments motivational. You should all look for a chance to see this movie on the big screen in whatever form you can. Most of you have probably done so already, but you need to go back, because it is just as inspiring again, even with the passage of time. "Fellowship" is my favorite of the three films. Most of the fanatics I know prefer "The Two Towers", and of course "Return of the King" won a bucket-load of awards including Best Picture from the motion picture academy. The opening film though is a promise made and a promise kept. There is great fidelity to the original story created by Tolkien, and it showed us that the film makers were taking this project quite seriously. I have to admit, I sometimes still dream of Sean Connery as Gandalf, not because Ian McKellan had any fault but because that is the casting I had in my head since the late seventies. Once Sir Ian takes the screen, there is no doubt he is the wizard we want. Fellowship contains his most dramatic moment, his fall in the mines or Moria. When Amanda was in middle school, reading the books a year or so before the movie came out, she got to that part, and came out of her room crying and sat on my lap weeping at the tragedy. Last night, despite my having read the books a dozen times and seen the movies at least as much, I was moved almost as much. The other big emotional moment for me is the brief fall and sad but honorable resurrection of Boromir. Capping the end of the first film, we know that there is drama in these movies and not just action visualized for the masses.

Peter Jackson gave a nice three or four minute introduction to the film, and then the extended version played. There were probably differences in the prologue, but the first visual distinction I saw was that the titles come up not on the green fields of the Shire, but the warm interior of Bag End. Bilbo is working on his autobiographical adventure story and maps, notes and writing implements are scattered around the room. He becomes a more important character in the story by this earlier placement and it also reminds most of us geeks what we have to look forward to in December of 2012. The other changes add details that make events clearer for anyone who had not read the books. We understand Aragorn's self imposed exile better, the treachery of Sauraman is more vivid, and the gifts of Galadriel are more clearly placed in the story. My favorite new inclusion is the stanza of verse that Sam adds to the lament for Gandalf. His character is deepened even more by this one or two minute scene. Sam is the heart of this movie, and it is the first glimpse we get of how deeply he feels about everything that is happening. It may decrease the emotional impact of the late scene as he and Frodo separate from the others, but it makes his heart seem not only stout but warm as well.

You all have seen the movies I'm sure, but you ought to see them this way to get the full measure of the story. The extended versions on the big screen, with an enthusiastic audience is a great way to spend an evening. I know that it is largely a promotional tool to sell Blu ray copies of a film most of you probably own. Well it works, and it comes by that effect honestly. Next week when we see Two Towers, I am sure there will be similar inspiring moments that remind me of the magic of Middle Earth but also the magic of the theatrical experience.

Super 8

Once upon a time, there was a world when movies focused on story, character and inventiveness. That was the world that many people claim was changed by George Lucas and Steven Spielberg with the one two punch of Jaws and Star Wars. Many cinema lovers have bemoaned the influence of special effects and self conscious references to pop culture and other movies that have come along since. While there were clearly thousands of movies to love prior to the end of the 1970s, they are loved as films of their time. Historical epics and personal dramas always seem dated, simply because styles change. It does not mean that the films are worthless, It means that they become pieces of their time and place. The end of the 70's brought new styles, that were substantially more ambitious and at the same time simpler. Visualization could not go back to pre-2001 standards, but stories needed more personal and warmer ways of making those fantasies and reality based stories work. While Lucas pursued the technology that will eventually lead to virtual characters and scenery, Spielberg thrived in the storytelling of the everyday, using visuals as a counterpoint to the narrative on the screen, not as a replacement for it. The period between 1975 and 1993 is the era of the true Spielberg touch. Don't get me wrong, I think Spielberg has made some amazing films since then, but they are stylistically different and of a new era. J.J. Abram's "Super 8", is a film that could fit into this Spielberg golden age with ease.

Many of the touchstones of a Spielberg film of those times are on display here. Children are the main protagonists, many are missing a parent or have a parent in the stages of arrested development. The movie plays in a small town that could easily be a Spielberg suburb. The lighting comes right from the template of such films as "Close Encounter of the Third Kind" and "E.T.". All that is missing is a poignant theme and a dramatic fanfare from John Williams to complete the picture. That said, although the film harkens back to the classic period of Spielberg films, it is very much an Abrams film from the get go. The classic set ups are interrupted and highlighted by screen flare. The action sequences are intense and fast, without the slow build up of many of the Spielberg films. Characters are not always likable, even when they are our heroes. There is however one more important similarity in "Super 8" to those Spielberg classics. The child actors are one hundred percent dead on. The director has gotten performances out of the kids that no one else seems capable of doing these days. There are moments in the movie when the acting is so polished and right for the tone of the film, you might wonder what planet these kids came from. There is a scene where the female character has to play a character in a movie, and be so effective at performance that we forget we are watching a performance inside of a performance. The boys respond like real boys would in that situation. Later on there is the right amount of jealous petulance to make the friendship here seem real as opposed to artificial. The screenplay by Abrams works well but it has to be sold by the best ensemble acting by kids since "Stand By Me".

Earlier, I said that the action scenes are quick, without the slow build of the old Spielberg. I don't mean that the movie does not have any build up. Everything leading up to the train wreck is paced well and builds character naturally. But when the crash happens, there are no double takes, moments of pause to set up another stunt or build more tension. In "Jurassic Park", the T-Rex attack takes ten minutes and has a dozen bits of business in it, "Super 8" does it's big set piece in half the time, without any heavy objects dangling precipitously, or any slowly deteriorating rope, glass, walls or trees. Tension in this movie comes from sudden surprises, and some dramatic violence that doesn't feel like the old master. This is where you can see J.J. Abrams style is dramatically distinct from Spielberg's. There were a bucket load of films produced by but not directed by Spielberg in the 80's time-frame;"Gremlins", "Goonies", "Poltergeist" and "Young Sherlock Holmes" all come to mind. This movie feels like it could be part of that pack.

Anyone who loves movies should appreciate that a big part of this film is dedicated to young filmakers trying to put together a movie. Chuck, the kid directing the zombie movie within a movie, is conversant in story telling. He has an idea of what production value means and he cares about the performances of his friends, the amateur actors of his movie. Joe, is our main character and hero. He is a jack of all trades on the movie set and does whatever his friend needs him to do, the perfect production assistant. The idea of trying to accomplish something good with very little resources, is something all film students will recognize. The location is exactly right, it looks like it could be Ohio, without having to run to Canada to film the town. The music soundtrack is populated with songs that would be mixed very much the way they were in this film, a power pop rocker, followed by a disco themed New Wave dance tune and then throw in some ELO. Abrams is probably aping himself with these characters since he is of the right age and place to be one of them. His recall of the spirit of the times rings pretty accurately.

There are only a couple of reservations that I have about the film. I know it is a long standing practice to make the military the bad guy in science fiction films. Those movies like "The Day the Earth Stood Still" or even "E.T." showed authorities as the real danger to us. Those dangers seem to occur not because of maliciousness but out of ignorance or a misguided way of trying to manage a problem. This movie makes the military, in particular the Air Force, evil. The colonel in charge is not just a bureaucrat, he is single minded and mostly indifferent to the people he swore an oath to defend. I don't know how they could crack the nut of the story without having an organization like this in charge, but the reckless way the Air Force is referred to left me saddened that some kid somewhere is going to think that is what soldiers and airmen are like. It bugs me. The other element that I thought was a bit weak was the quickness of the resolution of the story. There are seeds planted of course, early in the film, but they germinate much too quickly in the last fifteen minutes of the film. Everything else was well developed, from the bitterness of the two dads, to the romance that is hinted at from the beginning. I think there is five more minutes of story needed to work out the resolution with the "secret" in the story and the adult characters. Other than these two things the movie is pitch perfect.

If you are a fan of science fiction, Steven Spielberg, action horror, and good story telling, this is a movie for you. The actors make it all work and the writer director has taken inspiration from his producer to bring us one of the best films from Hollywood this year. This movie works and will satisfy the movie goer and the film connoisseur at the same time. This is the most Spielberg like movie since Jurassic Park, and it comes from a writer-director we are seeing hit his stride in the last three or four years.

X-Men: First Class

I forget sometimes how much I like going to the movies in the middle of the week. The crowds are less, it is a distraction from the obligations of the work week, and it gets me out of the house and out of my rut. I can usually see something that was not high on my list of priority's after some of the other big films have dominated my attention on the weekend. This week is a little different, I saw X-Men First Class, tonight because I had not rushed in over the weekend, so it was not a second tier choice but it was something that got put off for other reasons. It is nice to have something that was this well put together on the regular week agenda, instead of some movie I chose because it was what started next. I'm sure some of the pleasure I took in tonight's viewing is a result of not having to be in class at the end of the term, but most of it is due to the quality of the movie.

Ten years ago, we saw the first of the X-Men movies and were also impressed by how well a fantastical story had been translated into a real movie. In a cartoon, you can believe almost anything because it is so unusually imagined in the first place, one more step seems small. When you translate it to film with actors, the results could be laughable. When I was a kid, I was not a big comic geek, but I did prefer Marvel characters to those of the D.C. Universe. However, I have no memory of X-Men at all, my knowledge came only from the animated TV show that my kids watched occasionally. Like I said, we really liked it, but the second X-Men movie was the pinnacle of the story and remains my personal favorite. This new version is an attempt to launch the series anew, which seems strange for a movie franchise that has only been around for a decade and has four successful films to it's credit. It is true that the last two films were a bit pedestrian in nature, in part because of new directors and a continuing storyline that needed to be wrapped up. This movie works well as a prequel, telling us of the origins of characters we met in earlier films and setting up the conflicts that will make up much of the story we have already seen.

The director on this version, is Matthew Vaughn,who made two of my favorite movies of the last few years: Stardust and Kick Ass. This movie is a larger scale than those things but there are some elements that made him a good choice for this movie. He has a good visual sense when it comes to character and location. He is also solid in getting as much out of a story as possible without too much exposition. Both Dolores and Amanda thought the movie was a little episodic and too quest based. I did not feel that way, I thought there was a pretty natural evolution in the story. There is one sequence that seems a little unnecessary, the capture of a renegade X-Men character in the Soviet Union. I thought there was otherwise good economy in telling us how the X-Men were gathered and how the sides ended up being divided. I have no doubt that there are literature majors and philosophy students that could go into all the allegories that the whole series sets up. This movie does not dwell on those points, rather it acknowledges them and moves on to develop the narrative. The setting of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis works well at providing a danger to the world, but not yet one posed by the war of the X-Men to come.

As I have done in a number of other posting, I would like to recognize some of the character actors that make films work, even if their names do not put butts in the seats. Oliver Platt has been a favorite around our house for years. I had no idea he was in this movie until he showed up. His role looked like it would be significant, but it finished somewhat unsatisfactorily. Michael Ironside is a face everyone will recognize but most will not know by name. He shows up and does a small but effective take on a military commander, a part he has done many times before, and probably why he feels well cast in the bit role. One of the X-Men is played by the kid from "About a Boy", which remains an always watchable, perfect film, here at our house. I did not recognize him at all but Dolores spotted him pretty quickly.

This is a solid entertainment that raises the quality level of the X-Men franchise back to the peaks that it reached in the first couple of movies. There will be more films in the series as well, but to succeed they will want to take the time necessary to develop a good story, not just a new entry in the franchise. Studios always want product in the pipeline, and a film every two or three years from a pedigree series fits the ticket. Audiences will turn away from most of these films if they fail to meet the standards set early on. The reason the Batman series needed a re-boot is because the movies just became product. X-Men First Class does not feel like an obligatory entry in a franchise based on timing, it feels like a well thought out film and it plays like one that the makers cared about enough to get it right,

Summer Movie Projects 2011

Last summer, exactly a year ago as a matter of fact, I started this blog with the 70s summer movie retrospective. I covered a lot of odd films but also some well beloved popular movies. I am going to continue posting reviews of films I see in theaters this year, but I thought I would add some occasional theme posts for the summer. I may do an 80s retrospective but I hope to pull in a few of you who read the blog periodically by asking you to respond to certain movie prompt postings. For instance, listing your favorite movie poster for a particular film genre, or guiltiest comedy pleasures. The family is driving some of the topic ideas but I want the community to offer suggestions as well.

Here is an example of what I am talking about. I love this movie poster, it is from a wonderful adventure film set in the 1930's. If you are looking forward to the Spielberg "Tintin" movie this Christmas, you should love this movie.



Even if you don't care for the film, you have got to love the poster. This is an art deco, sci-fi retro dream come true.

Is there a poster that you think is as beautiful? Let me see it. Please post a link or the image itself. If I get enough suggestions, I'll put together a slide show and we will all discuss together.

In Defense of Seeing Movies Alone - The Atlantic

In Defense of Seeing Movies Alone - The Atlantic

This was an interesting article. The author made several valid points but I think he might be a little over sensitive to being in a theater alone. I have done that for 40 years and felt singled out not once. Lonely a few times, but mostly satisfied that I did not have to share my popcorn with anyone.

Harry Potter - Through the Pensieve

Found this and in anticipation felt the need to share.

Kung Fu Panda 2

It is a bit disconcerting that the third movie in a row that I am writing about is a sequel. Has all creativity gone out of the Hollywood dream factory when it comes to summer movies? I know it is a business, and the costs now a days are out of control. We can usually depend on Pixar for something original, but they have Cars 2 coming out next month so that is off the table for the year. Ultimately I know there are some fresh projects and new ideas coming, but the frequency of the sequels and the remakes is getting me down a bit. Having said that, I can follow up with something a lot more pleasant. This is the best of the sequels that I have seen so far this year. Although there are some plot elements repeated from the first Kung Fu Panda, this new edition does exactly what a sequel ought to do. We revisit characters that we came to love, in a new story and expand on the components that made us fans to begin with. This movie does the opposite of Hangover 2, instead of remaking the same story, we get a new story that follows the trail of the original characters.

Since the first movie came out, I have caught some or all of it many times on the satellite. It was a gorgeous movie and done with a style that made it seem authentically Asian but still accessible to Western sensibilities. This sequel is equally beautiful in the art direction and animation. There are several spectacular sequences that make use of the colors and cultures of old China, or at least how we imagine it might have been. The scene where the Furious Five and Po, sneak through the town disguised as a Chinese Luck Dragon was witty and used some great perspectives to bring us into the action and to show it from a humorous perspective. While three animated films have been nominated for best picture over the last twenty years, none of their directors were included on the list of nominees for best work by a director. I don't know that this movie is a worthy nominee in the general category, but I saw several things in the film that reminded me that this had to be put together by someone, and the director is the one that makes those artistic choices. I know their work is going to be evaluated in a different way, but they face the same difficulties and consequences that a live action director must deal with. So here are some props for Jennifer Yuh. I looked her up because I was unfamiliar with her as a director. This is her first feature, but not her first experience with Kung Fu Panda. She was the story artist for the first film, which helps explain the continuing look of the movie. If you see this film, be sure to sit through the credits, not because there is a teaser or stinger at the end, but because the background drawings are so beautiful, it would be a shame to miss them.

Since I am passing out the compliments, let me offer some to all of the talented actors that make the movie work as an emotional and dramatic piece of fiction. This is not just an action cartoon, there are some deep themes that touch on friendship, family and even some zen ideas. It takes creative effort to make drawings and paintings come to life as characters. Jack Black has been great in a lot of things but he has also been overexposed. I skipped the Gulliver movie last Christmas because if a trailer can't make it look interesting for two and a half minutes, there is not much chance a movie that is two hours will be worth seeing. Black's work here appears to be more subtle and contained than in some of the live action comedies he has done. I really liked his interplay in this movie with Angelina Jolie's Tigress. It is an awkward friendship, but one that works for characters from such different paths.

The biggest kudos belong to character actor James Hong, a guy I have seen in movies forever. He looked old and wise in "Chinatown" back in 1974. Thirty-seven years later, he sounds the same. Here he is given a chance to do more than usual in the movies he has made. As the adopted father of Po, he is loving, and domineering and fearful in a very honest way. I love that animation can bring out dramatic emotions as well as the humorous. Voice work in the animation business has got to be carefully cast. Too many times, stars are put into roles because they bring a name with them but they are not right for the part. There are dozens of movies in which we lose investment in animated characters because the voices are bland or ill cast. Hong sounds like a father goose, and he has the weary but knowing voice that every father worried about his child would have. His biggest performance on screen may have been in "Big Trouble in Little China", but his best acting role is in this movie. I hope there is a group out there that gives awards for animated voice work and they need to pay attention to the great work done here by James Hong.

This is at least the fourth animated film I have seen this year, and while it may not rise to the level of "Rango" as a movie, it does make the film world a better place to hang out. There is plenty of humor, action and a nice sense of pathos to hold most movie goers. There was a particularly sad moment in the movie involving Po being separated from his mother. There was a little girl behind us crying inconsolably over the events on screen. It took me back twenty years to the El Capitain Theater in November of 1991. We had taken our two little girls to see "Beauty and the Beast", and Allison cried out loud and shouted at the screen when the townspeople are marching up to the castle to "kill the beast". She was taken away by the experience just as the little girl yesterday was. I hope movies will always do that for the young and the young at heart. We want to be entertained of course and we certainly want to be dazzled. More than anything else though,we want to feel. Stories should move us in some way. I judge movies in large part on the emotional reaction I have from them. By that measuer Kung Fu Panda 2 is a success.

The Hangover Part II

Anyone planning on seeing this movie should know that if you saw the first movie, you have already seen this story. It does not quite qualify as a shot for shot remake, but it is pretty close. The comparison between "Evil Dead" and "Evil Dead II" seems most appropriate. Same story, same characters, same general events, bigger production values and a little more pushing of the edges of the envelope. I looked forward to this film because the first Hangover was perfect. If you never saw the first film, then this one will be amazing for you. Having enjoyed the first move at least a dozen times, the second one here is entertaining, but it is not as memorably magnificent as it's predecessor.

We already know the characters to start off with, so there are very few surprises about their reactions to the events that befall them. Phil will be overconfident that he can handle things and he will be wrong more often than not, Stu will be desperate and panicky at unpleasant memories as they come flooding back, and Alan will be clueless and inappropriate at the worst possible times. Since we can anticipate the reactions they are not fresh, and half the fun of the first movie was that we were learning new things about these guys on a regular basis. For example, in Stu's story arch he suffocates under the demeaning thumb of his fiance in the first movie and then crawls out to be a new man at the end. Well, replace the horrible fiance from the first movie with the future father in law from his new fiance and you have the same story.

Alan was weird in a charming, sort of naive way in the first movie, here he is annoying in the same little boy mode. He starts off as a sympathetic character, but in the course of the movie we have more and more reason to dislike him. He still says and does funny things but the tone is darker and less friendly. In the end, a lot gets forgiven, but it is not quite as clear why in this go round. Phil is still a handsome prick, but a guy you would like to have as a friend simply because he is audacious and demanding. Without him as a catalyst, the other guys would wander in circles and the bachelor party really would be a short stack at IHOP.

As much as the Vegas version of the Hangover was a nightmare scenario for the wolfpack, Bangkok is a darker and more disturbing locale for this bad dream. Everything is a little more twisted and dangerous even though the event sequence seems to follow almost beat per beat the pattern of the first movie. We wake up in a hotel room, check. A wild animal is a part of the story, check. We discover another person is missing, check. In pusuit of that other person we cross paths with, gangsters, hookers, cops and Mr. Chou, check, check, check and check. It all works but not as brilliantly as it did the first time out. I have to admit, that the original Hangover grew on me with each subsequent viewing and I suspect that this version will be the same. There was just so much to take in that I missed things I know I will enjoy more the next time though. It is definitely something I will have to revisit to have a firmer sense of my feelings on the subject.

The first movie finished with a slideshow of pictures that reveals many of the blank spots in the story. This one repeats the trick. If it sounds like a bad idea to use the same rouse as in the first movie, wait until you see the pictures and how they are staged. You will get some of the biggest laughs from the film here, just as you did the first time. So the movie is a carbon copy, but still a very entertaining one with enough laughs and disgusting ideas to make you glad you saw it despite the headache you might have to live with.

Compare the teaser above with the one below. High anticipation.

"Green With Envy" - Trailer

Stick with it, there is something nice coming.

Pirates of The Caribbean On Stanger Tides

Announcement
I've had a couple of people from my classes tell me that they watched the video review I posted on "Thor", but they did not find time to read any of the other movie postings. So what I'm going to do for this entry is write a few comments and also post a video review so that both parts of my brain get a little exercise. I hope that will also encourage some of you to try both formats as you follow along. Maybe you can leave a comment about how you perceive the two media differently.










Review/Comments

In 2003, I looked forward to the original pirates immensely. Other theme park movies had not worked but "Pirates" was going to be different. It was a natural adventure film, with a swashbuckling theme, backed by some supernatural influences. As a kid, the pirates ride at Disneyland had always been my favorite. I remember going in 1967, and my great grandmother being wheeled to the exit side of the line to wait for us and then helping her in and out of the gondola for the ride. She was in her 80's at the time, but everyone wanted her to be part of the adventure. I was not disappointed one bit by the film version, which had a magnificent performance from Johnny Depp as the quirky lead character. This movie had surprises and also felt familiar. I know I saw it several more times in theaters and it was on my top five list for that year. When the film succeeded so well that two sequels were announced, I also had high hopes. As everyone already knows, the follow ups were not as endearing, charming or memorable as the first. There were some terrific sequences and characters. I think Davey Jones is an amazing synthesis of actor and CGI. The three way sword fight was ingeniously choreographed. At the end of Dead Man's Chest, when Captain Barbosa is returned from the dead, although it made no sense, I felt a thrill in anticipation of the third movie. Both "Dead Man's Chest" and "At World's End" were bloated, at times incoherent, and ultimately mildly entertaining but letdowns. The story line was wrapped up and we had a Trilogy that did not feel organic but it did feel complete.

Here we are, five years after the last of the pirates movies and Captain Jack Sparrow is back for another episode. The character remains fun, but in "On Stranger Tides", he is overwhelmed by a story that should take an hour and a half to tell but instead takes almost two and a half. Much of it is shot in the dark, which is probably needed to make the 3-D images pop more clearly. It has many of the same problems that the two sequels had, too many shifts in loyalties and uncertain rules for the supernatural elements. It often feels like it is being made up as we go along. That is not a bad thing if you are playing pirates but if you are making a movie, the structure of the story should drive the action rather than the other way around.

Don't despair me hearties, there is still plenty to enjoy in this new adventure, but it is not the return to the sharp movie making found in the original film. The action is fine, there is a nice daylight chase though London on carriage tops that was reminiscent of a similar chase scene in "Sherlock Holmes Smarter Brother" back in 1975. The murkiness of the settings undermines the sword duels in the first two thirds of the movie, but you do get a pretty good fight near the end of the film. Again, there are some clever escapes and humorous bits of by-play in the action sequences, but they are not set up as well as the theft of the English Ship in the original pirates, and they often make less logical sense than the sneaking around that dominated the third film. The Mermaid attack sequence is very nicely shot however, and it does have some of the charm that we got from the skeleton crew in "The Black Pearl".

The three biggest assets besides Johnny Depp in the character he will always be referred to as in his obituary, are Penelope Cruz, Ian McShane and once again Geoffrey Rush. A couple of years ago I saw "Nine" with Ms. Cruz, and well I had always thought she was beautiful, it was there that I saw how sexy she could be. She brings a lot of sex appeal to the film, but we need more by play and story focus on her and Captain Jack. Ian McShane, looks the part of Blackbeard like no one else, but he needs a little more development as well. There is an element of supernatural about him that is not really explained and seems to exist only to allow a couple of set pieces and a story element to work. Geoffrey Rush, basically can do no wrong. His character is still black-hearted, but now he has a vengeance story line that makes the last third of the picture work. Rush was great in "The King's Speech" which won the academy award this year. I saw "Mystery Men" on the satellite a couple of days ago and he was great in it. I get the feeling, he is just damn good at what he does. In this movie, what he does is bring the story to life and make it a real pirate film rather than just a zombie, mermaid, action adventure.

I enjoyed the movie but I did not love it like I did the first film. I miss some of the characters that added charm in the original trilogy, not Will and Elizabeth, but the background pirates and soldiers. There was one character piece in this film that was not a featured player. One of the pirates plays and sings and his interaction with the mermaids adds to the fun in the movie. We needed sharper bits of humor like this from all of the players and a much tighter rein on the storytelling. This movie will do good business, and maybe they will follow through on the plot threads that set up more sequels. I can tell you though, no one will be sitting on the edge of their seat waiting for that to happen, and if it doesn't, no one will really miss it.

They May Be All Right, But Are Kids Running Away From the Multiplex? | The Wrap Movies

They May Be All Right, But Are Kids Running Away From the Multiplex? | The Wrap Movies

This story scares me because it follows several recent experiences that made me feel like the movies might be trending down. The multiplex I usually go to has dropped 13 of their 30 screens. The theaters never seem to be packed. The time waiting in line at the concession stand is usually complicated orders and slow service rather than long lines. There are not a lot of movies that people are passionate about. And movies are on DVD/Blu-Ray, just weeks after they play in theaters. The narrow windows are another contributing factor. Heaven help us.

Bridesmaids

I will have to surrender my "mancard" for seeing this film. All you have to do is look at the poster and you know this movie was not made for any guy. This is clearly a chick flick, but one that has been danced up with sufficient raunchy humor that a man can see it with his date and not feel like a total sell out. Truth be told, my "man" status has been in doubt for years because I love musicals and thought "27 Dresses" was charming. This film meets the usual standards for a chick flick, but with some very funny twists along the way. I don't know how it can be a complete girl film when one of the main pieces of humor is based on bathroom material that would mostly please an eight year old.

As I write this, I must say that I am probably something of a pig for the next comment, and I apologize. Maya Rudolph, who plays the bride to be in this movie,is not an attractive woman. She is interesting, but there is something about her that makes me want to get to the jokes quicker and spend less time in her company. Kristen Wiig, the star of the movie is not unattractive but she is definitely on the lesser side of the glamorous scale. While she might disagree with me on my assessment of Rudolph, I know she clearly sees herself in that "average not beautiful" mode because of the character she has written for herself. One of the things that sells this movie is that the people that populate it are for the most part, not "movie star" attractive, but average to less than average looking characters. The rest of us that fit into the same category are not going to be taken out of the film because the characters we are being asked to sympathize with are not so clearly better off that we sound like hypocrites for feeling their pain. Wiig's character actually conveys this feeling really well when she is first introduced to the antagonist character, a beautiful women who seemingly takes over the role of maid of honor from her fellow bridesmaid. The jealous visual summary and the quivering, self loathing vocal inflection, suggest immediately that she resents this woman. While in the long run the resentment boils over and is later moderated, we are still never given any reason to feel dramatically different. She is beautiful, and will get away with so much reprehensible behavior because her good looks let her slip by. Except we in the audience get to continue hating her for her behavior and her looks.

This movie will be widely viewed as a female version of "The Hangover". That is a pretty fair assessment, except the dude movie was plot driven and the chick flick is character driven. There are however a lot of parallels. For example, there is an oddball member of the wedding party, who is there because of a family connection rather than an organic friendship. Like in the guy film, this character ultimately helps reconcile plot points and relationships that get strained. Both characters are initially unappealing, but despite their weaknesses as human beings, they have a natural sweetness that overcomes all else. There is a trip to Vegas, but that is as far as I will go without spoiling some nice moments in the film. And, of course there are romantic moments for the ensemble characters that lead to happier moments than those with the original romantic partner of the character. I laughed at a lot of the jokes in this movie, but I did not have the same kind of gut wrenching laughter that I experienced in "The Hangover". There are differences in what can be funny for men or women, and here the differences have to do with the realities of the circumstances rather than the outrageousness of events.

An actress appears in the movie and for the longest time I kept thinking to myself, wow, she sure looks like Jill Clayburgh. I am sure I've seen her somewhere else. I know Clayburgh is dead so this other woman must be someone else. In the credits, there it is, "Jill Clayburgh". This has got to be her final film, and I did not hear any press about it or remember it being mentioned in her obits back in November. Having been a child of the 70s, she was an actress that I remember fondly and she was an important icon of the woman's movement. It's kind of nice she went out with a film so clearly driven by female sensibilities and she had a nice part as well. As usual, a movie that succeeds like this is supported by fantastic performers who are not the leads. The loutish bootie call buddy of Wiig's character is handsome Jon Hamm. There is a girl that goes toe to toe with Wiig's Annie in the jewelry store she works in, and she was great. The very familiar face of Richard Riehle shows up for a brief scene, but his voice and smile sell the idea planted by that scene really well.

My daughter is getting married in a month, her sister is the maid of honor, and I can tell you that there is plenty of tension going on that is mirrored in this movie. Anyone that has been close to the wedding preparations of someone close, will appreciate the humor and situations that pop up here. Some of the humor is painful, so be warned. I have a low tolerance for humor based on throwing up, because I am a sympathetic vomitter. There is one scene in "Stand By Me", "Monty Python's Meaning of Life", "The 40 Year old Virgin" and now this, that I have to close my eyes for. Most everyone else was laughing, I was gagging. You may cringe at some of the awkward moments, but you will also recognize them as being based in the truth. I expect the wedding next month will go more smoothly than in this film, but there will certainly be pain and laughter along the way.

Thor

http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif




A Video Blog for This Entry in A Movie A Day.


http://youtu.be/-goYW5ibvhc

This is a You Tube Link if the above video fails in your device.

Is That Your Boy? Private William Hudson in Aliens

This was very entertaining and an interesting way to see the character develop.

Water for Elephants

I was going to try to see Atlas Shrugged Part 1 this weekend, but Allison my Ayn Rand follower did not show up today, and I remembered that I had promised my wife I would take her to see this. She is a "Twi-Hard" and so was drawn to the movie by Robert Pattinson, but she had also read the novel that the movie is based on and had very high expectations for Hal Holbrooke playing the older version of Pattinson's character. I liked the idea of a circus movie, since my family was involved in the live entertainment business and my Father played with circuses on numerous occasions. So there was a lot to live up to.

My biggest surprise was that our young actor acquitted himself quite well as the lead in the story. He does do a little too much of that smoldering burdened look, but that seemed appropriate for the part. I think it ended up that he was pretty well cast. The main focus of the story is set on the growing attraction between the lost soul young man and the star of the circus played by Reese Witherspoon. She is an accomplished actor and I have enjoyed her in other films but here she seems a little miscast. I think she is slightly too old for the part she is playing and there is something much to contemporary about her mannerisms. She did not detract from the film, but she is the first lead and she never really held the screen the way a star is supposed to.

As is often the case, the most memorable performance is turned in by the actor playing the heavy in the story. In this case it is Christoph Waltz, seen earlier this year in "The Green Hornet" as the bad guy, and last year indelibly as the Jew hunting Nazi in "Inglorious Basterds". I look forward to the day when he is cast in a different kind of part, but he was once again the center of attraction for a movie. His character can be immensely charming one moment and murderously obsessed the next. So clearly they cast for type and it works. As the delusional and autocratic ringmaster and absolute ruler of this 1931 circus, he is believable and very frightening. I think I need to read the book myself, because if the story in the film is correct, I can't understand why anyone would stick with this circus for more than a day. The brutality of the way of life seems far too great to sustain a long term commitment, even in the tough economic times of the depression. There is a parallel character in a movie from the 70's called "Emperor of the North". Ernest Borgnine is a sadistic railroad conductor, and the brutish means he uses to enforce his will reminded me of the tools used in this movie.While the Borgnine character was an unpleasant monster, Waltz's Gus, at least had some personality to compensate for his inhumanity.

The other big co-star of the movie is the elephant, Rosie, who becomes the fulcrum by which our hero is going to pry loose his lady love from her evil prince. The elephant is very sweet and shown as a clever animal that has been underestimated by nearly everyone. I won't spoil anything by telling you that Rosie gets some of the best scenes in the movie, especially in the climax of the story. Hal Holbrooke was fine, but I get the feeling his part was cut way back by the screenplay so that he basically becomes a bookend for the main plot. James Cameron got a lot of crap over the screenplay for "Titanic", but he made the character of old Rose a big part of the events of the film. Bookends don't get the kind of attention Gloria Stuart got for her part in that earlier romance. Mr. Holbrooke does very well with what he has been given but there was room for more depth in the part.

The music in the movie was well placed and there are two particular spots where the songs of the times are worked into the story very effectively. I'm sure there is CGI, but it was incidental to the storytelling, the background sets and the train came across as real places in time. The setting feels very much of the place and time it represents. There were several incidental characters that could have been stronger and made the story less of a potboiler, it basically ends up that they become scenery for the three main characters to move around during the romance. This was a solid adult romance that was not insulting to the audience. It had the potential to be much more, but the focus on the love story steps on the mood and setting of the film. Everyone did a good job with the film and audiences should enjoy it for what it is. To me though, much of the romance should derive from the circus atmosphere, and in the last half of the movie, that was missing. In baseball parlance the film is a ground rule double.

The Greatest Movie Ever Sold

The actual title of this movie is "Pom Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold", I would not want them to be cheated out of their million dollar investment by my omission of their sponsorship. That is the primary purpose of this movie, to explore the relationship between product marketing and the motion picture business. The conceit of the film is brilliant, the cost of making the movie will be covered by investors who are paying for product placement in a movie about how product placement gets done and the impact that it has. Morgan Spurlock the director of this film, is best known for the movie "Super Size" me. A movie that was equally creative in it's conception but from my point of view not nearly as entertaining. Having listened to speeches for almost ten years now that try to quote the narrative of a documentary as proof of claims, I've gotten a little tired of students seeing the material from the singular perspective of a provocateur like Spurlock or Michael Moore. The muckraking aspect of their films is the least appealing part of the movie.

This film contains some of those same elements. There are the usual talking heads that have insight that only they can manage to come up with. I about bust a gut when Noam Chomsky shows up in one scene blithering about capitalism and Morgan's soul. There are several other pieces that insert academics into the exposition of the process of marketing. Almost all of their intellectual analysis sounds like a parody of some academic double speak. I appreciate the need and desire for humans to ask questions about how things work and the attempt to interpret events in a manner that seems sound. I simply have little patience for the tortuous process that some University types go through to find a way to interpret the world through their shade of spectacles. The more relevant insights in this movie are provided by people that actually make movies, market products and produce goods that some of us might actually use. The "Channel One" controversy that showed up twenty years ago is repeated as a canard of capitalism run amok in the class room, brainwashing students to become mindless consumers. The high school students interviewed deconstruct this nonsense in about 30 seconds. They understand entirely what is going on and are such sophisticated consumers of information, they make the academic pundits sound positively ancient.

I wanted to get the negative parts of my reaction out of the way as quickly as possible so that the deck is clear for the rest of my comments. As much as I thought the talking heads of the scholars was silliness, the rest of the film works like gangbusters. The same points can be made by showing the process that is used to put products into a movie. Spurlock does exactly that, with more charm and charisma than most snake oil salesmen had more than 100 years ago. He is upfront about what he is trying to show and funny and thoughtful at the same time. He doesn't need Ralph Nader to make the points that come up, but he does need Nader to make the points humorous. He basically turns the high priest of consumerism into a shill for shoes. How's that for a piece of reductive analysis? His movie does exactly what he is talking about to one of the moralists that is preaching against this process. The Nader bit is not even the best example of this. Let me say that I will be flying Jet Blue whenever I can, just because of the one interview in this movie.

It takes a lot of people to put a movie together, all you have to do is look at the credits of any film (including this one) to see that hundreds make a contribution to what ultimately ends up on screen. The vision of a movie though is usually the responsibility of the director. Here the director and the star are the same person, so the focus is sharp and it is a chance to see how really involved the film maker is with the process. This guy is not a fluke. He did not get lucky with one great idea a few years ago with the concept of eating every meal at McDonalds for a month. In fact, this movie is not just another lucky stab in the dark either. When you watch how Morgan pitches his ideas, shows his advertising concepts and visualizes some sequences, it is clear this is a talented and creative man. His concepts for selling some of the products are so original and funny, I am sure he could be working for any of the big advertising firms in the country.

As a movie, these concepts are shown in creative ways that are pure cinema. When the fleet of Mini Coopers shows up, you will smile. Even something as simple as a talking head scene in a drug store becomes interesting, the way our hero puts it together. Maybe I am biased because outside of my work, the movies are where I put most of my focus. I am so worried right now about the future of motion pictures that it depresses me a little. Technology and a dearth of original material is draining the business of creativity. I like comic book movies but holy mackerel, we have a dozen super hero movies this year. I'm not sure that any movie series (with the exception of James Bond), should have several follow ups. This movie gives me hope. Not because the product placement issue is exposed ( which it really isn't, we are just much better informed about it then we were before) but because some one has had a creative idea and made it work.

There are at least a dozen big laughs in the movie, most of them intentional but a couple that may be unique to me (Noam Chomsky, really?). Even if you don't laugh out loud at all the things that are so ridiculous, you will smile at Spurlock's chutzpah and the enthusiasm he has for his own project. I did think there were too many forays into the political waters involving advertising. Did we really need a trip to South America to see the billboard ban in San Paolo? Overall though there is just too much fascinating behind the scenes content to be worried about the occasional burst of righteousness. The best part is that those hand wringers are not the film maker himself. He commits to the idea of the movie and lets the process of putting it together tell us the story. This is a fully satisfying comedy that takes down the pretensions of people on both sides and allows us to enjoy the process as a movie ought to do.

My daughter Amanda did an internship at a product placement firm. She is interested in working in this field. When I heard about the movie a year or so ago, I was interested but she seemed indifferent. Maybe she thought the movie was designed to blast the movie product placement business, or perhaps she is like me, a little worried that the field we immerse ourselves in was being attacked. She went with me last night to see this film. She enjoyed it nearly as much as I did. It is not a hard hitting expose of product and film marketing, it is a movie first. It raises issues that seem exaggerated to me, but that others deeply care about. If you want your documentary to be polemic, there is enough to satisfy you here. On the other hand, if you want to be entertained and learn some things along the way, this is right up your alley.

Rio

I like animals. We have had dozens of cats in our lives, several dogs, numerous rats, mice, hamsters and even a snake who lived with us for twelve years. Despite this,I have never owned a bird. My Dad had doves for the magic act but I never thought of them as pets. There have been many times I've encountered someone out in the public with a macaw or parrot on their shoulder and I thought it was cute but I don't know how anyone can bond with a bird. My guess is that it takes a special person and the right bird to make this connection. This movie sets up with exactly such a premise. A little girl finds a baby macaw and they grow together so that they are one another s favorite in the world. I have had that relationship with one cat and one dog,both of which I lost far too quickly. The emotional attachment we have for our animal friends can be as strong as any relationship we ever develop. I was surprised at how easy it was for me to accept the featured relationship in the movie so quickly, but it comes down to understanding how a pet can actually feel like a soul mate.

This is a charming kids movie with a warm human-animal relationship at it's core. The two friends get separated but in the process learn that there are other connections that can be just as rewarding. Don't think too hard on it, because that is as deep as it goes. Most of the story concerns slap stick action sequences and the traditional attempt to overcome the bad guys. It is all strung together with a variety of samba/salsa/South American music and it goes down like candy. The only knock I have is that it is not Pixar quality storytelling. Birds have been featured in other movies, and are even the stars in a couple I can think of, but they have never been displayed in the way they are here.

Several musical sequences involve tropical birds flying in unison, choreographed with an eye on the coordination of the colors. Yes, the colors deserve a special mention because this move pops with them. Although the colors are bright and cover a wide spectrum, they are not harsh the way the images from "Speed Racer" were a couple of years ago. This is a warm combination that while dazzling, still has a tone of the natural world to it. There are songs that go with the sequences, but I don't remember the lyrics distinctly. It may be that the musical form is just not familiar enough to me, or it could be that the music was a lot more enjoyable than the words. The city of Rio is also a lot more appealing here than in any movie I have seen with actual photography of the locations. The vistas are more in depth and again the colors more dramatic. Had I ever been to Rio, I imagine this is the way the memory would play in my head.

After the first act of the movie, our hero "Blu" is separated from his human friend and gets involved with a wide variety of other characters. A long section of the movie plays like an updated version of "The Defiant Ones", only with romance and birds instead of grit and Tony Curtis and Sidney Poitier. It will be quite satisfying to the kids you take with you. The fish out of water story works much better here than it did in "Hop" but not really up to the standard set by "Rango". Based on that last sentence you might think I am 11, since three of the films that I've seen this year are animated faire for children. I like animation a lot, but it needs to serve the characters and the story, and for the most part "Rio" fits the bill. (That's a toucan joke for those of you who did not get it)

Jesse Eisenberg, from the "Social Network", does the voice work for our hero. Every other voice in the film is fine but not particularly distinctive. If you look at the credits you will see a long list of well know actors in the cast. Almost all of them are interchangeable with some other "man/woman/ethnic" voice. Eisenberg though is the unique and most valuable voice because of what it says about his character. There is anxiety, innocence, naivete and hope all coming out of the voice. It is a lot more than a Woody Allen reference, because although he can be funny, Allen has never left me with a sense of warmth like this character voice did. Those are the kinds of things you need to get right to make an animated film work.

So, let's put it in a nutshell. Animals, animation, color and character make the movie a winner. I don't expect it to be remembered on the shelf with the great Disney films or Pixar masterpieces. It is a solid effort that does not leave an audience disappointed that they spent their time and money on it. By the way, we did not see it in 3-D so all of these positive comments apply for a standard version of the movie. If the 3-D is any good, the musical sequences should kick it up a notch or two. Have a nice time.

Scream 4

Some franchises wear out their welcome by going to the well once too often. That is the premise of this movie, which is in it's fourth incarnation and daring to say, "Yeah, I can do it again". Guess what, they pretty much do and get away with it. The thing that has always separated the Scream movies from other horror films is their self awareness. The killer is inspired by horror films, and follows horror film conventions up to a point. The characters are all aware of the conventions and basically act as if they are in a horror film, with the consequences being death for those that don't know or follow the rules. I've heard some mainstream horror fans complain that the movies are not scary, what I think they are really saying is, I'm not scared because the movie is doing exactly what I expect it to do and it wants me to know that. Like the previous films, Scream 4 is as much a comedy as it is a horror film. There is plenty of gore and suspense, but there is not much dread and the the surprises are usually not horror related but character based.

I saw the first Scream, by myself in the old Edwards Azuza Theaters, when they were going to seed and had not yet been taken over by the Regency Discount chain. There were maybe a dozen people in the screening and the theater was long and dark with the old style slanted floor for the seats to rise on. I was plenty creeped out by the film and jumped several times. The subsequent movies have not made me jump as much but let's face it, once the second film in a series shows up, you know what it is you are going to get. That has been the pleasure of these movies. Laughs, and an attempt to suck you in with a series of false leads as to where the resolution is heading. I saw the outcome about two thirds of the way though the movie. I did not think they tipped it too obviously, rather as the rules they set up say, you do have certain conventions that you have to follow.

All of the cast is back, at least those that survived the previous three movies. That becomes a joke again, as the seemingly unkillable characters face another chance at exiting the series. I saw one review on line that took issue with the portrayal of the cops played by David Arquette and his deputy (who I was sure was Heather Graham for the first half of the movie). The awkwardness of the acting is a deliberate attempt to make the characters feel less real so that we would suspect them as the killer in the film. There are a number of choices like this that lead down false paths. Every time there is a chase, it is designed to throw us off the scent of one suspect and onto another. As I said, it mostly works.

The characters keep talking about how the killer is trying to top the previous entries and that making it bigger and reversing the expectations is the way horror sequels work. This one works by taking the traditional "reinvention/re-imagining" of a film, and basically tells the same story with a new cast but without discarding all the previous films to reboot the franchise. Of course that is another one of the conversations that there are in the movie as well. The two false openings of the movie, play with our expectations but are delivered in such a way that we know this is not how the movie is going to develop. The characters make fun of the very things that they have done before and are trying to do again. When Courtney Cox's character actually uses a reference to meta-analysis, she turns right around and cracks us up by admitting that she doesn't know what the hell that is. All of the hipsters of horror out there, smirking because they have bought into the notion of the series being an examination of horror films themselves, have to choke on their popcorn because they just got tweaked for doing what the movie wants them to do.

The movie does not try to be too clever. The horror/slasher elements are simple, the characters are easy to keep track of, and there is enough humor so if you aren't shocked, you also are not disappointed. I jumped a couple of times, but not at the traditional scares. Those are the wand in the magician's hand that distract you from the surprise that is coming from the other hand. It is difficult to pull these kinds of tricks off a couple of times. Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson have managed to do it again. I was worried because the last couple of horror films from Craven were disappointments, but here he gets his card punched enough that he will be able to go back and make some other films instead of fading into irrelevance. He may not always find his groove but when he does the results are like a good run from an old pro.

75 Abandoned Theaters From Around The USA: Pics, Videos, Links, News

75 Abandoned Theaters From Around The USA: Pics, Videos, Links, News

Here is something that depresses the hell out of me. Hope it does the same for you

Hanna

Not Hanna Montana by any stretch of the imagination. This is a revenge movie with a high body count much of which is inflicted by a 14 year old girl. It is not comedic or as over the top violent as Kick Ass but there is gruesomeness and disturbing material. The violence here is not played for comedic effect but rather is done in a serious tone such as that found in most conventional spy movies. This is Bourne without the shaky cam effects and a protagonist that we sympathize with even though she is a pretty vicious killer. Once we get some back story, the sympathy level increases even more.

The young actress,Saoirse Ronan, that plays our lead character is not new to films. She was nominated for her role in the movie "Atonement" a couple of years ago and was featured in "The Lovely Bones" last year. She has startling blue eyes and a young fresh face that suggests she is a beautiful woman, but still carries the expressions of a child very effectively. The opening scenes of her training in the arctic forest are very effective as is a scene set in a CIA interrogation cell. The staging of later action is not as strong. One sequence that takes place among a dock full of shipping crates is not very persuasive. Earlier she has dispatched dozens of trained soldiers but has a lot of trouble with a slightly chubby effeminate spy and his hired jack boot thugs. They should have been like butter to her, but in one of the few slip ups in story telling, they make it to a later time.

The story is strictly straightforward spy conspiracy material from the 70s. A rogue CIA operative has a unapproved action go bad. Later there are consequences that involve revenge by former allies and the product of genetic engineering. Sort of like "Three Days of the Boys From Brazil". Hanna is unique because the victim/protagonist is a young girl. She has been well trained in many things but she is clearly not socialized for the world as it is today. She speaks dozens of languages but has little knowledge of electricity and technology. She is altered to lack fear and pity, but still has a need for attention and love that a girl her age might crave. Having been denied a Mother, she does not always have the skills needed to negotiate some basic elements of life like romance and friendship.

A few years ago, the rumor was that Eric Banna had been chosen to play James Bond in the new 007 film. We now know that was false and Daniel Craig got the nod, but it is interesting to see Banna in this part because it has many of the elements of the new Bond series. The spy is a tough and resourceful killer, capable of lying and violence in short bursts. There is a nice fight scene in a German subway station which plays like a fight from the new Bond films. Banna is very good in it and he could easily have fit the role of Bond if he had ever been cast. The Director of this movie is Joe Wright, who did "Atonement" and also our favorite around the house "Pride and Prejudice". He has a good eye for the stark visuals of the arctic and the deserts of Morocco. There are some solid action scenes in the first half of the film, but I thought the tension went out of the movie when it relocates back to Europe. Having been set up for the ultimate face off between Hanna and the Evil Step Mother that pursues her, we get a less satisfying but still appropriate resolution.

Cate Blanchette and Tilda Swinton must be running into each other at auditions all the time. Each has spent the last five years playing emotionless bitches in hard ass high heels. Their red hair and fair skin must make them particularly appealing for these kind of tough as nails women. Olivia Williams and Jason Fleyming are in the film as a sort of short term foster family for Hanna, both of them add some personality to what is otherwise a pretty grim story. Their two kids connect with Hanna in a way that no one could have before, and that "fish out of water" type relationship made for some real drama before the vengeance plot line kicks back in.

The music from the film is very effective and there is some terrific photography of some very beautiful places in the world. The movie does not hang together as well as it should a couple hours after seeing it. While it was on, there is a lot of emotional investment in the outcome. Looking back on it, there are some logical issues in the story telling and a few shortcuts that undermine some of the drama in the story. I liked the movie a lot, but it is not much more than an effective thriller. It has little to say about the world, or the characters. This is a movie about style that depends on the hook of a young girl as a cold-hearted killing machine. That ultimately is it's weakness, it is a little too cold hearted for an audience to identify with for long.

Hop

Hop is an Animated film that is directed straight at kids for the Easter Break. Unfortunately, those are the only audience members that will love the movie. Unlike so many other recent animated films, there is basically nothing here for adults. The talent all went into designing the characters and the Easter Island factory of the bunny and that's as much effort as there was put into the movie. Rango which came out a few weeks ago, is so much better written and thought out that it is a surprise
that people are not still flocking to it and skipping this.

The story of an Easter Bunny that has a dream of being a rock star is a little conventional but could be brought off with enough invention. There is basically nothing more to the story than that. We are barely in our seats when the bunny runs away from his responsibilities and heads to Hollywood. There we get a mix of live action and animation. At first the main live character is shocked to find a talking drum playing rabbit. As it turns out, he is the only one shocked. Everyone else in the movie takes it as a given that a rabbit can talk. This is one example of the short cuts taken in storytelling in this film. Pixar movies get all the story details right before they seep into our hearts with character and plot. This movie tries to wriggle in on cuteness but can't quite pull it off.

Russel brand is the voice of E.B. but he gets no opportunity to play up his outrageous persona, so it is basically wasted casting. James Marsden is more effective as the human star of the movie, but he is so stuck playing double takes and exaggerated reaction shots, that we never get much chance to identify with him. Everyone else is in the movie for such a short stretch of time that it is hardly worth mentioning the veteran cast. Hank Azaria does another of his patented character accents, for no reason what so ever except the character is named Carlos. Gary Cole and Elizabeth Perkins are fine actors that disappear two minutes after we see them and pop up for one or two more scenes that have nothing to do with the plot.

The look of the movie is rich on the animated side and TV production level everywhere else. It is not badly made but there was not much care in putting it together to become an Easter perennial. The music cues are not that interesting and the big dance number set to "I Want Candy" is not very extravagant. There are some charming moments but not enough to recommend it to anyone except those with pre-teens who need some time out of the house during the Spring Break. It is not as dunderheaded as the Alvin and the Chipmunks movies, but it certainly misses the mark. We had hopes based on the visuals and the subject matter, but it turned out the egg was hollow.