Signs of life in the 3rd dimension: 13 recent films that show 3-D shouldn’t die | Film | Inventory | The A.V. Club

Signs of life in the 3rd dimension: 13 recent films that show 3-D shouldn’t die | Film | Inventory | The A.V. Club

A Nice List that makes a case for 3D in the right circumstances.

The Lion King 3D

I know that the 3D boom that has hit in the last few years is about to burst. Too many films have used the effect to try and sell an mediocre movie as something special. It worked for Disney's Alice in Wonderland, which became a big hit despite being a big mess. There have been a number of movies in the last few months that have not increased box office because of the presence of 3D and they have alienated the audience with the unnecessary intrusion of the optical glasses. However, just because it is a gimmick that is too often unwelcome, does not mean that it can't be used in select circumstances. This is one of those cases. The truth of course is that "The Lion King" did not need any real buffing up for an audience. When it came out seventeen years ago, it was the first animated movie to make over three-hundred million at the domestic box office. It was the culmination of the Jeffery Katzenberg era at Disney and the start of animation box office avarice ever since. Dreamworks exists because the vacuum created at Disney by the death of Jeffery Wells, Disney's then President, was not filled by the guy who was largely responsible for the revival of the animation studio. His acrimonious departure and lawsuits, set the stage for other animation studios, particularly Pixar, to step in and steal the marketplace away. "The Lion King" was the last great roar of traditional hand-drawn animation before the thunderbolt of Toy Story and the dawn of the computer animated age.

So it might seem ironic or blasphemous, to use digital tools to turn "The Lion King" into a 3D special presentation. I did not find the 3D effect disconcerting during the viewing we went to this morning. In fact there were several traditionally drawn scenes that the added depth made more beautiful without becoming simply a novelty. The flock of flamingo like birds flying over the savannah looked more spectacular with the 3 D. The elephant's graveyard seemed a more dangerous place as Simba and Nala tried to flee the hyenas. The wildebeest stampede did not seem more threatening to me with the added 3D, but Rafiki's tree, and the vision of Mufasa in the water did seem richer with the extra depth. So much of the movie is bright, that the drawback of dim projection, which is inherent in a 3D presentation, was not noticeable. The best reason for the release of the movie in this format however, is to get parents to pull their kids into a theater to see a classic, animated movie on the big screen. I know I just paid to watch a commercial for the Blu-ray release of the Lion King, but I was glad to do it because many movies deserve to be enjoyed in a theater. The added 3D will not be enough to make me commit to a 3D television. Life is already complicated enough. There is no anger however from having been hooked into the theaters by the 3D gimmick.

We originally saw this movie in it's release in 1994. That was the year all hell broke loose in our lives. My mother had passed away, my Dad was living with us and he was suffering Alzheimer's related dementia. We were buying a house, and the move is beyond almost anything you can imagine. My parents had a three bedroom apartment filled with the equipment from their lives (having been professional entertainers for nearly fifty years). We had our own three bedroom apartment to move as well. Also, every storage unit in the apartment building we lived in was filled with my parents possessions as well. As were the two large storage rooms in the garage. During the escrow process, my wife and I spent every week night packing material. I moved hundreds of boxes back and forth from our apartment to the new house twenty miles away. Sometimes I made two or three trips a day in our overfilled mini van. This was all in advance of the real moving day that would not occur until late July. Father's Day weekend however, we took off and went to see this with our fiends ans my Dad in tow. It was a great break from all the work we were doing. The story of Simba, losing his father really pulled at my heart at that time. My Dad no longer called me by name, and he did not know exactly who we were most of the time. He did however love all the kids we went to the movie with, and it was a little bit like Mufasa in the stars when he was laughing and talking to us that day.

Revisiting a movie that you love and have not seen for a while is a wonderful experience. There is so much about the Lion King that is memorable and worth enjoying again. The exuberance of "I Just Can't Wait to be King", is energizing. The whole sequence of Scar and the hyenas plotting a take over of the pride land was so reminiscent of a Nazi rally in Germany of the thirties that it is a wonder it made it into the film. Of course the humor of Timon and Pumba is broad but also very clever. The story works it's wonders from the very opening. In fact I remember that the trailer for the Lion King in it's original run was not really a trailer at all. They simply ran the first few minutes of the movie with the "Circle of Life" section ending with a crashing title card to punctuate at the end. Today, I heard the people behind me, suck in their breath, just as I had done we we first saw that opening.

The songs from Elton John and Tim Rice were just as charming today as they were seventeen years ago. Hans Zimmer did the score and the African themes are so effectively used that they sound familiar, even if you don't listen to world music on a regular basis. I had completely forgotten that Johnathon Taylor Thomas provided the voice of the young Simba. I don't think I ever knew that Moria Kelly was the voice of the adult Nala. Like most animated movies, the voice actors are the key to making the images come to life for us. Everyone was well cast and I don't mean to diminish their work, but Jeremy Irons and James Earl Jones just completely own this movie. Iron's Scar is one of the truly evil characters in the Disney stable of villains. His oily delivery and bored indifference to the suffering that comes later in the film is just right. Jones had already cemented the title of world's greatest voice casting in the Star Wars movies. It seems unfair that he should get to be the voice of Mufasa also, but there could never be anyone else that would have been right.

I understand if you don't want to give in to the Disney marketing machine and see this in 3D in the theaters. It may appear to be manipulative to add the unnecessary third dimension, and it takes hutzpah to ask people to pay to see a commercial. I however can live with my choice because I got to relive a wonderful movie, remember my father in better times, and I did not even get a headache from the experience.

Warrior

Over the years, I have seen a lot of movies that were successful that are largely bits and pieces of ideas. There is so much crap out there that a certain amount of it is likely to draw flies if it meets some minimal elements demanded by today's audiences. The last three "Pirates of the Caribbean" films are all gassed up by the presence of Johnny Depp in the role he has played so perfectly. I myself am willing to give into a sloppy film if there is something about it that I can hang onto. Those kinds of movies come out nearly every week and they drain my wallet almost as often. I can't begrudge the machine it's due too much, since I am a willing participant at times in feeding it, despite the fact that it is delivering inferior entertainment.  That mea culpa aside, I get incredibly frustrated when the opposite happens. Good and even great films get ignored by the movie going public way too often. Sometimes it is because they are small films that will need to be sought out. Very often it is the marketing of a movie that keeps people from going to see a movie that is worth their time. Once in a while, it might be that a great film has a tough subject matter that people can simply not wrap their head around.  Today however, we have the most frustrating of all such experiences. A movie that has been marketed well, is available on all your local theater screens, and has a setting that is widely popular in the culture; mixed martial arts.Despite these things going for it, "Warrior" is likely to be out of theaters in another week, and hoping to do some bushiness on video.

This is one of the two or three best films of the year. It is a high quality production which tells a solid dramatic story, and it is told in a crowd-pleasing dynamic manner which should have people lining up to see it. Instead, Amanda and I saw this in a nearly empty theater. Three other people came in just as the movie started so five of us got to enjoy it together. I don't think the movie would be better if more people were there, but the experience would have been terrific if the audience was packed. There are moments of high drama, tension, and an occasional light humored touch that would all go down together as a collective moment if more people were there to share it.  I really wanted to stand outside the theater after the movie and tell everyone who was buying a ticket to something else this weekend, to open their eyes and go see this film.

I am making an exception to my usual format for these posts. There is no trailer included for this movie, because the trailer gives too much away. You will like this film more, the less you know about it. I loved it and I knew quite a bit about what was going to happen. It still worked for me, but if you are not clued in to the story as much, there will be more suspense and pleasure for you as a viewer. I can say that it is a film that focuses on family dysfunction in a way that seems really accurate for the events that are supposed to have occurred outside of the timeline of the story. We get hints here and there, and large pieces fall into place as the narrative moves through the events of the film, but there is not a huge amount of exposition. We find out what has set all of this up in pieces of character, or dramatic dialog in an active context. I really like the tools the screenwriters used to fill us in on the characters. It feels much more organic and it build to surprising emotional reactions.

This is ultimately a story about the redemption of a family, not just a single character. We know what has happened and we largely know who's fault it is. In another movie, that characters story arc would be the main focus. Here, we see some of that characters attempts at making things right, but we are not lead to feel that his restoration is the key element of the film. Nick Nolte has aged, and not entirely well. His skills as an actor are used well here and I suspect that his performance will be remembered at the end of the year, even if the film is not. Yet, it is a testament to casting as well as acting that makes him so perfect for the role. His beefy frame, and bloated facial features, are a perfect match for the character and circumstances.

The two younger actors are not familiar to me, I am sure they have passed my radar before, but they did not stand out in whatever roles I might have seen them in. I will definitely remember them in their future movies because they are both terrific in this movie. I have never watched a mixed martial arts match in my life, and I probably will never become a fan of it to the degree that so many others have. The work it took to stage the bouts and the physical prowess of the actors to pull it off are awe inspiring. I know how movie magic can work and that editing can fix a lot of problems, but these guys need to be in the ring for the fights and they had to sweat to get the performances that I saw. Sometimes there were pieces of business that I did not understand, but there was never any confusion about what was happening and what it all meant.

There are strong themes of family, responsibility, determination and country in the movie. There were moments when I could not keep my face dry, and there were moments when I would have wanted to engage in the same kind of smackdown with some of the characters that I saw on screen. There is so much anger in the characters that it might seem like the movie is going to be unpleasant, and then a moment of tenderness shines through. All three of the main characters go on a journey in the story. It has many traditional elements that any sports story would have. The best sports movie however are rarely about the accomplishment in the big event at the climax of the story. The best sports movies are about the challenges that the character faces, the demons that drive them, and the ways in which they try to reach their goals. If "Rocky" had just been a boxing movie, no one would remember it today. If "Miracle", had only been about hockey, I would never have seen it. Warrior is a Mixed Martial Arts movie, the same way that "Pride of the Yankees" is a baseball film. If the idea of Mixed Martial Arts is what has kept you out of the theaters, KNOCK IT OFF!!! This is a film that is much more than some kickboxing Jean Claude Van Dame crud. Let's all celebrate that a real movie has sneaked into theaters and see this while you have the chance.

Twin Towers in Movies

Twin Tower Cameos from Dan Meth on Vimeo.



This is a different movie related post on the 9/11 events. Appearances by the Twin Towers in Movies. It did not include the Spiderman Teaser that disappeared right after the tragedy.

9/11 Tribute

This has the Jerry Goldsmith music I mentioned from my post a couple of weeks ago. I have added some images in memory of that day. I wept for a week and still feel pain in my heart every time I hear about the families that had to go on without a loved one. Thousands have stepped forward in the intervening years to stand guard and protect us in a number of awful places. Each of them deserves our respect for the valor they have shown on our behalf. Please feel free to share this with anyone who might appreciate it.

Shark Night 3D

The end of summer is the perfect time for a stupid, gore laden horror film that involves animals attacking humans just for the fun of it. Five years ago we had Snakes on a Plane, last year there was Piranha 3D, and now the highly anticipated "Jaws" rip-off "Shark Night" in 3D. It's Labor day weekend, let the mayhem begin. This movie was directed by the same guy that did "Snakes" and you can tell by the performances and the cheesy set ups and payoffs. David Ellis may not be an Auteur, but he can tell a solid scary story with broad enough appeal to bring in the audience for this kind of movie and satisfy them. I think he also did the first "Final Destination", so you know he can make a gruesome set up work.

I doubt that this movie will do a great deal of business, it is Labor Day weekend and one of the slowest dates of the year in the film business. This kind of silly horror is an acquired taste and there may be limited appeal to a mass audience. It is my oldest daughter's birthday however and she and her sister have learned well in my shadow. They enjoy the heck out of this kind of stuff. Allison is a little more discriminating than Amanda on these things. Amanda will watch all the cheap SyFy made for cable movies with me, in fact, she is now usually the instigator, but Allison likes the cinematic extravagance of a visceral disembowelment. Last year, at the Midnight Showing of "Piranha 3D" we were the only three people in the theater and we still laughed and hooted like you could not believe.

There was a slight hesitation on my part in queuing up for this movie. It is rated PG-13, which means that the gore level will be very low, the cursing will not exceed one or two F-Bombs, and there will not be any nudity, (or it will be racy TV from the side nudity). All of that was required last year because that is all there was in the killer fish movie. This movie does try to tell a little bit more of a story. It is a stupid story, but it does have one. The plot helps create a lot of the suspense because without all the bells and whistles of an "R" rated horror film, you need something to hold stuff together. The performers here are not thespians, most of them come off as pretty people hired for the shoot. They are however ten times more effective than any performer in one of those SyFy movies, so this is at least tolerable. I will also add, that at the very end of the credits, there is a stinger section that made me appreciate the actors a helluva lot more. If you do manage to see this, make sure to stay for the extra at the end. It does not add to the movie plot, but it does add to the movie experience.

The characters are cardboard but each one at least has a function in the story. The two leads are not bad, they just have little to do beyond reacting to the CGI sharks and assorted other bad guys. I was a little let down by the lack of additional gore when some of the truly evil characters get their comeuppance. We have been given good reason to want to see some of these characters die, and their deaths while appropriate, needed to be done with more flair and panache than the deaths of characters with which we are supposed to sympathize. It is limited by the rating that the movie makers were seeking. I understand but I yearned for more dismemberment. The shots of the sharks are fine, they never look as frightening to me as "Bruce" did in Jaws, but they do sometimes look more real.

The makers of this movie are having a laugh. They know that the plot is not serious and they treat some of the scenes with the appropriate tone. I don't want to give too much away, but I will say that when a shark attack victim, who has lost too much blood to transport on a boat, walks out into the water with a spear in his one hand and swears to kill the shark that has wronged him, well, it is a moment of absurdity to savior. To me, this is exactly the kind of movie that should be in 3-D, viscera is splashed in the screen and explosions launch pieces of wreckage at the audience. We get a corny experience that draws attention to how corny it is. No one is pretending that the 3-D here is anything other than a gimmick, and they use like a gimmick should be used.  I enjoyed this thoroughly despite the limitations of the rating. It is exactly what you want, if you are attracted to this film at all. It is a sign of mental health if you avoid it, but if your sense of humor is twisted like ours is, you will be waiting for the sequel.

ScriptShadow: 10 Screenwriting No-Nos you can learn from Indiana Jones and the Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull

ScriptShadow: 10 Screenwriting No-Nos you can learn from Indiana Jones and the Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull

Here is an excellent analysis of action screenwriting as it failed in the last indiana Jones picture we are likely to see.

Jerry Goldsmith-A Few Notes

I just finished watching a concert that was a tribute to Jerry Goldsmith and I can think of no finer tribute to make than to say every piece of music played made me want to go and watch those films.There are dozens of film makers that I admire immensely; actors, editors, cinematographers,directors writers and more. The only fan letter I ever wrote however was to a musician/composer that had made me wish I had tried harder with Mrs. Liggett and my piano lessons. I love music as most people do, but I understand very little of the complexities that are required to make a piece of music work. Film music must be especially difficult because it has to match up with a visual reference, enhance that visual but at the same time remain subtle so as not to distract from the screen. Jerry Goldsmith is the film composer that I have enjoyed and admired the most in all the years of my movie going life. I would not want this in any way to detract from my admiration of other great film score composers. All of us who love movies know a dozen composers off the top of our heads that we can say " Yeah, he's the best", or "I love that guy, he's my favorite." I do love them all, but the first composer that I ever listened to separately from the movie was Jerry Goldsmith.

When I was twelve years old, I saw the movie "Patton" and I was convinced it was the best movie ever. In 1970, there was no waiting for the video release of the movie to relive that passion. In those days, unless you had a thirty-five millimeter projector and a friend in the business, you were only going to see the movie again on television. It would be played on one of the three networks (most likely ABC) and it could not be paused, rewound, or scheduled for another time. Things in those days happened in real time. So, how could I get my Patton fix if I had to rely on some future network programmer to run the movie when I wanted. The answer came in the form of an LP. For you younger readers, that is the format before the format that was replaced by the digital format that you listen to music on. The record version of the soundtrack started off with the George C. Scott monologue from the beginning of the movie. I had that speech committed to memory within a short time. It is followed by nearly ninety minutes of the most fantastic music I had ever heard. I knew movie music before this, but mostly just songs from movies, not the scores. The Jerry Goldsmith score for Patton was the first time I paid attention to the background music of a film. I could see the images in my head and feel the emotions swelling in my chest and it was as if I was seeing the movie again. When I watched the Academy Awards that next year, the biggest surprise to me was not that George C. Scott turned down the Oscar, it was that of the eight awards the movie won, the score was not included. What an injustice!

After that introduction to movie scores, I started listening to film music in my Dad's record collection. There were James Bond soundtracks, and some scores from war movies that filled many of my hours at home. As I look back on all the films I had seen before then, I know that I heard the scores but I did not always remember them distinctly from the films. Jerry Goldsmith is the composer that I remembered. The score from "The Omen", was the next time I remember hearing his name, although some of my favorite films of the early seventies were scored by Mr. Goldsmith. It was at that time I started to pay even close attention to the craftsmen that put movies together but did not appear on screen. As a teen, I realized that many excellent people worked behind the scenes and that is where film appreciation begins. My admiration for Jerry Goldsmith's work is what helped elevate my movie watching from pastime to appreciation. I became a more critical consumer of movies because of his work.

Others can comment on the process and technical accomplishment of Jerry Goldsmith's work. I can recognize a music cue, but I could not tell you the key, style or tempo that it is being played in. I do know that his work is what makes some of my favorite movies of all time so much more successful. The Wind and the Lion, Alien and Poltergeist all lead me up to the moment that I officially became a movie geek by writing a fan letter. When I saw "Gremlins" for the first time, I was stunned by how much I loved that movie. What was really gratifying to me was that I could recognize the work of Jerry Goldsmith immediately. I'm not sure how, because I am musically illiterate, but something in that score hit me as his distinct creation. It had a wild exuberance to it, and the joyous mayhem  of the creatures in that movie were matched by a carnival like soundtrack that came across to me as if it were a circus gone wrong. Again, I acquired the soundtrack immediately and listened again and again. My enthusiasm could not be contained and that is when I wrote the one fan letter I ever sent. I never received a response, I sent the letter to the studio, but I also never needed a response. My goal was merely to express my personal gratification at the work that Jerry Goldsmith did for that movie. Those of you who don't know, he is included in a quick shot of the inventor's convention that Mr. Peltzer goes to.

Of course there are dozens of movies that he did in the following years that are also memorable because of his work. There is not much point in listing them all, what you should do is seek them out and listen to the music. I can say that I was present at the Hollywood Bowl for an appearance he made, and then later, there was a tribute concert that he was too ill to come to in person but for which he joined all 18,000 of us on the telephone for. He also composed a very moving piece presented either by the L.A. Philharmonic or the Hollywood Bowl Orchestra, commemorating the 9/11 attacks just a few days after they happened. As we come up on the tenth anniversary of that tragedy, I need to make sure to find that piece of music in my collection. There was so much real horror to relive, that I think it will only be tolerable if there is some beauty surrounding it. Thank you Jerry Goldsmith for making movies better but also for making my life better.

Fright Night 2011

The original Fright Night is one of my favorite genre films of the 1980s. It featured a fantastic vampire, a terrific vampire hunter and a teen sex comedy combined into a nice tight horror film. If you have been to the movies in the last ten years, you know that 80s films are being strip mined for remakes on a weekly basis. We have had remakes of Halloween, Friday the Thirteenth, the Fog,Nightmare on Elm Street and a bucket load more. None of those remakes have been very good. They lacked the inventiveness, suspense and brilliant make up effects that made those 80s movies work so well. Most film makers today think that CG I effects can replace the inventive in camera work that was done on those movies, and they are wrong. There is a prequel to the John Carpenter's "The Thing" coming, and it will be next to impossible to match the crazy practical effects in the original, which leads me to fear a CG I crapfest. So you can easily understand why I would be nervous about a remake of "Fright Night". It turns out I had very little to worry about. This is exactly how you do a remake without desecrating the memory of the original.

To begin with, this version of Fright Night finds a vampire that is an equitable replacement for the original Jerry Dandrige. In the 1985 film, Chris Sarandon created a sensuous, wickedly funny, Lothario as the threat to all the neighborhood women. Behind his smirk lived a sad, lonely hedonist with whom many would be able to identify. Despite the fact that he is evil and the villain, we still like him. Colin Farrell does not try to replicate that. He has some of the same smarmy character traits, but he is more clearly a prick. He barely notices Charlie when first introduced, he is so busy licking his chops over Charlie's mother and girlfriend that he mostly just revers to him as "guy", like in "Hi guy". Later he is so sure of his superiority he does not think through some of the risks he is taking as he fights the vampire fighters. We get a good sense of his smooth ways early in the film but we also see his fierce hunting abilities even before the main story has started. Farrell is perfect as a contemporary "bad boy"who really is bad. Instead of the lounge-wear of his predecessor, this Jerry Dandrige prefers a wife beater t-shirt and jeans. An early and solid joke in the film is that Jerry is a terrible name for a vampire. Well that, and his wardrobe are some of the things that help mask his true nature. Farrell is all coiled menace, with an indifferent attitude toward the threats and the prey that he is confronting.

The second character that is so important to get right in this story is the vampire hunter "Peter Vincent". That name is a tribute to horror actors of the fifties and sixties Peter Cushing and Vincent Price. In the 1985 movie, Peter Vincent was a over the hill actor from those very films, trapped into repeating himself as the host of a late night horror film show. The very best thing about the 1985 movie was Roddy MacDowell's performance as a gone to seed hero, willing to make one more stand for self respect. I remember being outraged that he was neglected in the awards season that year. Sure it was just a summer horror movie, but his work was top shelf and made the whole story click. When I heard that the new movie would make the character a Criss Angel like magician in Las Vegas, I was not sure it was going to work. The script however is clever enough to give some background to the character and make it somewhat believable that a Vegas showman would care about vampires. David Tennant does a good job conveying the douche bag nature of the performer, but also the frightened well read vampire mythologist. Clearly changes had to be made to make the story work in current times, and the switch in this character is necessary and largely successful.

The story remains quite similar to the original, with a couple of good twists. The Las Vegas setting is perfect, because it justifies a lot of the night time activity of our vampire and it allows the real estate developments of the area to serve as a realistic background. Another change that works is the integration of Charlie's mother in the story. It makes more sense than her sleeping through most of the events in the story which is what happened in the original. That beefing up of the part also allows the casting a very strong actress like Toni Collette in this film. She is not the focus of the story but she is a good addition to the cast and the way the story unfolds. One other element that is slightly changed is that Charlie's friend "Evil Ed" has a much better background story, and his part in the film is advanced to a spot significantly earlier in the movie than the first movie. Christopher Mintz-Plasse has appeared in two of my favorite movies of the last three years, Role Models and Kick Ass. He is still young enough that he can play young and that baby face of his helps set up one of the emotional back stories in the movie. He is the friend that gets left behind, the one that Charlie might have helped in more ways than one. The character is nothing like the one from the 1985 movie. In the original, Stephen Geoffreys is a young Jack Nicolson knockoff with a sense of humor and a chip on his shoulder. He was the main comic foil in the movie. That role shifts to the Peter Vincent character in the update, and the Evil Ed character becomes the guilty conscience of our hero. 


There is a good combination of make up and digital special effects to create the monster images in the movie. We saw this in 3-D, which was a little odd since I did not know it was in 3-D until earlier this week. There were some good three dimensional shots that poke at the audience or spray us with blood. They are not necessary but they do not detract from the story and they add a few good moments on the screen. There are two very good scenes that did not exist in the first film and add to this one immensely. Ferrall's vampire is limited by the traditional rules on vampires and he can only enter a house if invited in. This limitation is used in a long suspenseful character segment in which Jerry wants to borrow a six pack of beer. Later, the convention forces the vampire to find a way to drive his prey into the open, and that scene starts a really good action sequence. The sequence includes a frightening shock or two, a very funny visual gag, and a really nice surprise for those fans of the original movie.

I am very happy to report that Fright Night 2011 is a superior horror remake. It equals the original in many ways but it is also it's own film and that is the real joy in a good summer horror film. After you see this, go check out the original if you have never seen it before. I can safely say that both movies should leave fans of real vampires delighted.

'The Help'

The trailer above is focused on a lot of humor and sells this as a light-hearted story of empowerment. Well there is a good deal of humor, the story here is far from light, it is a dramatic imagining of the stories that reflect a culture and attitude that we hope is well in the past. There are dangers nibbling around the main characters, there are civil rights murders in the background, and the choices that everyone is making in the story are often much more somber than would be expected from the marketing. My guess is that readers of the book might be worried by what they see, but if the movie holds as true to the book as I have heard, they should not be afraid to go and embrace this movie.

It is sad but true that the events depicted in the movie take place in my own lifetime. I don't live in a southern town, so I cannot say that the attitudes reflected here by some of the white characters are all in the past, but we can rejoice that much of the official endorsement of those attitudes has been eliminated. The movie is probably perceived as a chick flick because of the dominance of female characters in the story. Why would a guy want to see a movie where there are no featured male leads? The two or three men that do appear are ineffectual and primarily comic in nature. While the reason to see it is that history is not all about men and the wars they have fought. It is about ideas and the changes in the world that they achieve. This story illustrates the reason those changes were needed on a human level. When people speak of racism, the phrases are often bandied about without much definition. Here we get to see what racism is up close and personal. We see how it robs the dignity of the oppressed as well as the oppressors. It is not always hatred of a group that creates racism, but fear of change, uncertainty and the opinion of our peers that create this sort of world to thrive.

The main criticisms of this movie that I have heard and read about are twofold. First, it is suggested that this film is nothing more than a made for TV movie, being shown in theaters. Second, the movie commits the unforgivable mistake of allowing a black story to be told through a white point of view. The first criticism is easy to dismiss because of the production value, photography and performances of the actors. There are many great TV movies made these days that are far better than some of the crap that passes for films made in Hollywood. You don't have to start making those kinds of comparisons though because the polish on this movie lets you know immediately that it is quality. The care in the performances and attention to production details help immerse us into Jackson Mississippi in 1963. If you think that only special effects make a movie theatrical, than maybe there is an argument, but I don't know anyone that sees that as the criteria. The second criticism is more complicated because it is social/political in nature.

I know that film makers from a variety of ethnic groups, have a legitimate complaint that their cultural stories are filtered through a white sensibility. In the last few years many of those film makers have been able to focus on the issues they see as important, without having to cater to the needs of a white audience. If you want a film to be a broad success and to speak to all movie goers, I think you miss a trick by excluding access to the subject by whites. That access should be provided by an appropriate narrative channel and it should not overwhelm the story but supplement it. "The Help" features a white character that initiates the process of writing the book, but it would have to be so in the world of the South in 1963. It would be unrealistic to suggest that the main characters could get their stories out in a widespread manner which would have an impact on the world, from the social positions that they occupy. The white woman journalist is a catalyst, but she does not become the focus of the story. The good, bad and weak white characters are a part of the story. How do you tell the story of oppression without looking at how that oppression occurs? The young journalist played by Emma Stone is not the hero of the piece. She is one cog in the process that allows us to see the true hidden heroes.

Viola Davis is the real star of the movie. She is the moral center of the story and a key player in the events that occur. Her performance is also the kind of thing that tells you this is the star of the movie. It is subtle and honest. There are no histrionics in her speeches No yelling, or over emoting about another character or injustice that she has had to endure. She shows us the face of a woman of courage, one who has been worn down by the world but still has love in her heart, despite the crushing treatment she receives in everyday events. Her eyes convey sadness, her voice humor and her shoulders the weight of too many disappointments. This is an award caliber performance and that is not a piece of tokenism in a white film, it is the legitimate accomplishment of the actress as a professional. Octavia Spencer steals much of the movie as the sharp tongued and vengeful Minny. She proves to be a  desirable friend and a fearsome enemy, and her character is a nice counter point to her friend. She gets most of the laughs in the movie but also earns them with an ernest voice and an expressive face. The great Allison Janney is also wonderful in a two sided role which ultimately helps us see that racial injustice is an affliction for all of us, and not just the population that is put down.

This is not the greatest movie ever made on these subjects, but it is a worthy entry and deserves it's audience.  You should not avoid this movie because it looks like it is social medicine, or that it is a film that uses whites as rescuers of blacks and is therefore demeaning. It is a well told tale of a world that most of today's film audience will be only vaguely familiar with. I admit I was a little hesitant about seeing this because it looked too much like a film that would be good for me rather than good. I am happy to say that it is good, and it did not hurt me to take the medicine because the cure was delightful.

The Captains 2011

This is a documentary that basically consists of William Shatner interviewing the actors that played the part of the Captain in the various Star Trek manifestations. There is actually more to it than that but not in the way of production. Shatner is an interesting guy and he is a little off center. If you ever see an episode of his interview show "Raw Nerve", you will see that he can come at an issue in a very different way. Most interviews are straightforward, asking specific questions about particular topics. That is not captain Kirk's style. He asks questions in a demanding almost metaphysical way. Sometimes it comes across as a bit obstinate, but most of the time he is just trying to get something original from his subjects.

The interviews here are inter-weaved by subject matter rather than performer. Each of the interviewees is given a good amount of time and attention, and the differences in which they relate to Shatner are what make this a more unique experience. Sometimes the transition material wanders around a bit without much focus. Usually we are brought back to the Star Trek universe with a clip from a convention or a short segment from one of the series. I watched all 79 episodes of the original Star Trek, dozens of times over the years. From when I was a kid and Star Trek was a new series, I have always been a fan. The next Generation series was consumed by me as it first unfolded. I saw all the episodes but I don't know them as intimately as I did the Original series. Voyager and Deep Space Nine held my attention for a while, but I did not complete euither series and I have that to look forward to. I have seen only one episode of Enterprise, and I am a little ashamed that I was not more involved in supporting the legacy. From the things all of the subjects said, It was clear there were worthy elements to each permutation of the show.

Much of the interview process is charming and there is a great deal of warmth from the actors toward their legacies and the other actors. You can see from the movie that Shatner and Patrick Stewart have a very warm friendship and a health analytical view of their history. Avery Brooks and William Shatner are just weird together. They are doing jazz infused interview riffing. Sometimes it is uncomfortable but it often ends up as charming and a nice smile will finish a segment. The movie is not for everyone, but if you like Shatner and you love Star Trek, I don't see how you could miss it, or not love it.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Here is what you would call a thinking mans science fiction film. There are ideas and themes that are explored but they are done so in the context of an involving story that plays with variations in science. There is drama, humor and suspense and it all ends with a lot of visual fireworks. This is one of the best films of the summer and it was one that I was largely indifferent to until I saw it. Ten years ago, 20th Century Fox tried to revive the "Planet of the Apes" franchise with the Tim Burton "reboot" of the story. While it made money, it failed to inspire further development of the idea and actually ends with a very stupid revision of the first Planet of the Apes final shot. "Rise" does not attempt to mimic the original story and get the same emotional effect which the original films kicker left audiences with. Instead, it does what a "reboot" or "reimagining" of a movie story should do. It takes the idea and runs with it instead of trying to recreate the moments from the original. The idea is the driving force of the story in this movie. That and the relationship story that develops between our human star and the special effect star of the movie.

As usual, I will try to avoid merely recapping the movie for you but there are a couple of story points that I do want to discuss. The story of man's folly in playing with nature is as old as the hills. In science fiction, Frankenstein is the touchstone for this concept. The basics of this story are laid out almost exactly the same as in a summer picture from 1999, "Deep Blue Sea". There we had sharks that develop intelligence, but that movie is mostly about a horror action plot. "Rise" uses the same pursuit of a drug to fight Alzheimer's disease, and turns it into a mediation on what it means to be humane or intelligent. For the first two thirds of the movie we are treated to a story dealing with family and devotion. Both the humans in the family and the chimp Caesar are warm and caring and faced with matters concerning the functioning of the brain. One character is going backwards and one forwards and it puts immense pressure on the scientist at the center of the story to try to do the right thing. James Franco's character does not want to put his father in a home, he sees that as giving up. When he has to put Caesar into a facility, he basically is mirroring the pain and process that he needed to go through with his dad but could not. No one is a clear bad guy in this situation.


We are expected to empathize with Caesar and we get good reason to. His interaction with the family is warm, and his loyalty to the father suffering from Alzheimer's is admirable and sad at the same time. When he ends up separated from them in a facility with other apes, we can sympathize with his plight because we have all been the new kid on the block and we have seen enough prison movies to know how the system can be oppressive. The hardest plot point for me to get by is the rejection of a chance to return to his life with Franco. I guess at this point, we are to understand that Caeser has made an intelligent decision that his mind is more important than his heart. Once the events that lead to an ape uprising begin to unfold, Caeser is still admirable, but our sympathy for him is diminished a bit by some of the emotional baggage. There are some points late in the film where that sympathy needs to be recalled and it does not quite get there. From my point of view the last act is the weakest emotionally in the film.

The revolution of the apes is not as strong as the evolution of Caesar. While the story of Caesar's maturation and growth all seems real and well developed, the follow through with the other apes seems rushed and overly dramatic. That is not to say it is not exciting and frightening because it is both of those things, but it seems to be in a slightly different movie. The original series of films in the 1970s often ended up as cheap ways to bring an audience in and use a brand name as a way of keeping us coming back. "Conquest of the Planet of the Apes" was the best of those sequels and it had the most valid themes. This version tries to tell the same story in a different way using very different themes but still covering the same territory. It is far superior in believability to any of the earlier movies, and is only out-shined by the first "Planet of the Apes" due to it's originality and lead character. There are a couple of lines that are mimicked in the current movie from the first. The change in context makes them punch lines for a joke rather than effective homages to the original. The screen writers should have had enough confidence in their material not to go for those two lies. I won' tell you what the lines are but I will say that they are spoken by a human in reverse of the original intent. Tom Felton, the actor who played Draco Malfoy in the Harry Potter films, gets more opportunity to show his acting ability in this movie than he did in most of the Potter films (Half Blood Prince being his opportunity to shine in that series). He gets stuck doing the two lines and it takes away from the performance.


James Franco is solid, and John Lithgow is excellent as the father making the long goodby. The true star of the movie are the special effects folks and the actor Andy Serkis, whom may become ghettoized in motion capture performances because he is always so good. The setting of the film is San Francisco, and the wild animal sanctuary and the research lab and corporate offices seem like they could be part of the city by the bay. The music is strong but not nearly as distinctive as the Jerry Goldsmith electronic score from more than forty years ago. My minor reservations about the third act aside, this film should go a long way to erasing the memory of the Tim Burton version of the story, and it can easily inspire additional films in the series or stand completely alone. If there are more "Apes" movies to come, I hope they are as intelligent and competently put together as "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" is.

Crazy Stupid Love

Once upon a time, a movie would be classified as a comedy. or a drama, or a war picture or western. In these days in which a science fiction film is presented as a western or music videos are sliced together to create a drama, it should come as no surprise that a movie largely billed as a comedy would also have the poignancy of a heartwarming drama. There is a history of movies that manage to accomplish both things, "It's a Wonderful Life" is the first example that pops into my head. So many movies today are billed as romantic comedies, when there is either to much romance and not enough comedy (Letters to Juliet) or there is comedy without any romance (Bridesmaids). They sometimes try to force a little bit of one or the other into a film so it will be easier to market to the current film audience. "Crazy Stupid Love" is a romantic drama with comedy elements. You can clear see in the trailer that the emphasis is on the humorous, but the movie actually emphasizes the human. It does rely on some basic film cliches in the story telling but the dialogue, and the acting manage to overcome those weaknesses to make the film work pretty well.

Steve Carrell is cast so often in the roll of schmuck, that he has an edge as an actor from the beginning of the story, we do not need to be convinced that there is something of a loser here. 40 Year old Virgin, Little Miss Sunshine, Get Smart,  Date Night, all create an atmosphere that allows us to accept his character without much work. The question is never is he believable as a sad sack loser, it is whether or not he can be redeemed into something more worthy. His character in this movie is Cal Weaver, a nice enough guy whose wife confesses to cheating on and wants to divorce him. His pitiful circumstances would elicit sympathy for the most part except he goes overboard on the self pity and and he annoys a local Lothario, who responds by trying to make over Cal. Jacob is played by the always excellent Ryan Gosling. He appears to be a man in charge, and maybe he will be able to rescue Cal from his circumstances. Of course, this is a dramatic story, so there is actually more going on and the plot thickens.

The developments that occur as the story goes on will not surprise anyone who has seen a few movies in the last twenty years. Some plot twists are straight out of a Cary Grant movie, while others will be familiar to fans of John Hughes. There are cliches galore in the way the movie is told. For instance, we get a foreshadowing shot of a dropped photograph with Cal and his wife and the glass has shattered to suggest a division between the two of them. Movies like Babel and Crash, have used parallel storytelling that ultimately comes together at the end to reveal connections between characters and their situations. So those kinds of developments are a big part of the film here as well. Most of the convergence is designed for a laugh, but there are a couple of dramatic lines as well and they do a good job at pulling at the heartstrings.  I think we would be better off if we knew more about why Cal's wife succumbed to an office affair, and  even more importantly, why she wants a divorce. Julianne Moore plays Emily as if she were as sad as Cal is. The only real motive I see for her claim that she wants a divorce is guilt over the betrayal of her husband.

This is an ensemble piece, with excellent work done by all of the actors in the movie. John Carrol Nash is a favorite at our house, he has a small role as a friend of the family and he gets two big scenes that provide excellent laughs, one very subtle and the other over the top. Emma Stone is in one of the parallel stories and she is quite charming and beautiful. The kid who plays the son of Cal and Emily is an actor that I was not familiar with, but he has to be solid because the heart of the movie really depends on us believing some of the feelings he has as his parents marriage is crashing and he himself is facing love.  Lisa Lapira steals every scene she is in with Emma Stone, playing her funny and opinionated best friend. Marisa Tomei is also worth a special mention because she is in a small part that develops the plot, and she is so funny in it that the term comedy can be legitimately applied to the movie.

The climax of the movie occurs in the biggest cliche setting of all. As a Speech Teacher, I can tell you that the events that take place here can only happen in a movie. The town would have to be so small and the residents so patient and caring about the family, for this device to really happen. The thing that saves it from itself is the dialogue. If the words coming out of the characters were not compelling and warm and funny, the movie would be groaned off of the screen. We can forgive the ridiculous nature of the event as shown because we are listening to good actors doing lines that we want to hear, despite the fact that the way events unfold is so darn impossible. It is entertaining as all heck, and the characters are real even if the stories are not. We want them to be true because of the actors and their lines. So we will suspend our disbelief and live with the imperfections because so much of the rest of the movie is what we want; intelligent and heartfelt and interesting.

History of the Title Sequence

A History Of The Title Sequence from jurjen versteeg on Vimeo.


A brilliant little film showing major innovations in Movie Title in a simple graphic format.

Cowboys & Aliens

When we saw this trailer months ago, it was pretty exciting. James Bond and Indiana Jones in the same movie and they play cowboys. Then you add on a layer of WTF, just to make sure that the geek in all of us is salivating for this. The concept is fun, just saying the title. You would have to do serious damage to screw this up. I am pleased to say that no serious damage is done. This is the movie that you expect it to be, it relies a lot on the appeal of the stars but more than anything, it is the concept that makes this payoff. Cowboys on horseback, shooting guns at aliens in spacecraft.  Yep, it is as simple as that.

One of the reasons I like doing the blog is that I have been burned by professional reviews and critiques on a number of occasions. If a storyline or actor or concept is appealing, I think I should give it a chance. Sure I may end up seeing something that pisses me off, but at least I am pissed off because I made my own judgement. If I stay away from a theater, because some one else"s opinion scared me away, I am putting a lot of trust in that other persons opinion. Once upon a time there were critics that mattered and I would listen to.  I have found though that I am much more satisfied being driven to a film by criticism than being driven away from one. Positive comments have brought me to movies like last year's "City Island". The negative commentary on a film may be accurate but if it contradicts my natural instincts, should I trust it?  There were a number of weak notices for the current film. One clever writer subtitled their Review, "Cowboys shoots itself in the foot." I sure don't want to be disappointed but I also don't want someone else telling me to ignore my core instincts. When they are right, I have only myself to blame for spending money on trash, but if they are wrong and I listened to them, then I blame myself, and them for missing out on something that would have been a pleasure. I can find things to like in most films, when something irritates me I'm glad to share. I don't think people should read my opinions and deny themselves a movie they would enjoy, but I do want others to know how I feel and I am happy to have them share with me. Reviews in mainstream papers and other media outlets could discourage you from seeing Cowboys and Aliens, if they do, you are missing something you probably would have liked.

One of the professional reviews I read said that this movie adds nothing to the western genre and it uses a lot of western cliches to simplify the storytelling. Except for a movie like last years remake of "True Grit", there are nearly zero westerns released most years. I can think of a half dozen over the last five to ten years. So who is going to be overly familiar with those western cliches except old guys like me that used to see westerns in theaters and still watch them on video? My daughters best friend watched "Silvarado" at the house a few weeks ago, she is twenty three, it was the first western she had ever seen. "Cowboys and Aliens" is made for casual viewers of the western genre, not John Wayne enthusiasts or obsessive viewers of Sergio Leone. You get a solid set up of the western conventions, and then a huge twist is thrown in to make it different and fun. The term "mash-up" is being used to describe this film, but I think a mash up is more about genres that make no sense together. This movie is told as if it were a straight action film, and the events could have actually taken place in the old west. Now if Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford started dancing and singing, that would be a mash up. Here, they are conventional western archetypes, put into a different kind of conflict. Very little of this is science fiction. The aliens could simply be a different Indian tribe the cowboys are encountering.

There is a central mystery, several character lines and an action story being told in the running time of the movie. Harrison Ford is so grizzled, he could be playing the Gabby Hayes role in the movie. Daniel Craig is more stoic than Clint Eastwood. My guess is he has fewer lines than just about any Eastwood western ever. Some good character actors get to play in a western movie. Keith Carradine belongs in a movie like this, it would be nice if there was a little more for him to do because he is so good. Walter Goggins is an actor we have found in the TV series "Justified", which is basically a modern western. He is doing the Strother Martin prairie scum part very effectively and has some of the funniest moments in the film. Sam Rockwell is just good in everything he does, his part does payoff here but it would be nice if there were more to it.

The alien stuff is fun, but they do not dwell on scientific explanations, or drool over the technology that has been invented for the movie. Yes the aliens are the antagonists but we do not really need to know much more about them than they are nasty and see humans as little more than insects. This is a shoot em up, with some fun images, a wacky idea and some terrific actors. everybody has fun for a couple of hours and then we go home. My oldest daughter said when the movie was over, "That's exactly what I wanted from this movie." I must concur. If you are interested in the premise and the combination of the actors, you will get what you are looking for. If you want groundbreaking genre transforming cinema, then I guess you might be disappointed. I would only have been disappointed if I had let weak word of mouth keep me out of the theater. It's pretty much exactly what you think it's going to be, and that's why you are there in the first place, right?

Horrible Bosses

Some movies are not designed to be analyzed or valued. They are to be consumed and then disposed of. "Horrible Bosses" is one of those movies that is like a Big Mac, it is not good for you, if you think about it too long you will feel guilty about consuming it, but while you are in the middle of it, it goes down pretty well. Nowadays, most films are in one of two camps; great big blockbuster or esoteric indie material. There needs to be room in the middle for movies that are entertaining to a larger audience but do not require the entire budget of a small South American nation to produce.

This movie is in that middle area. It is made by professionals, it looks good for the most part and it does not involve six months of CGI to make any scenes work. So it has to work on the basis of the premise, the script and the performances. The premise is high concept comedy. Oppressed workers consider killing their bosses to get out of their misery. Murder is often used to comic effect in movies despite being a serious subject and socially taboo. If we buy into the concept that this is just a comedy and that the actions that follow are not an endorsement of the behavior, we should be able to laugh at the complications as they come up.  When I was a kid, I remember watching a Glen Ford movie called "The Gazebo" which focused on the efforts of a largely likable man to hide the body of a murder victim. It was hysterical when I was nine or ten, so that must be the point at which we can distinguish real from imaginary crimes.

There are sufficient plot complications to make the story amusing, although sometimes the complications are a bit of a stretch and do not advance the story. We get plenty of reasons to share the view of our protagonists in the story. The bosses are indeed horrible. The explanations concerning why each of the characters feels murder is the only way out are adequate but not always realistic. It sound silly to discuss realism in what is essentially a Three Stooges movie with an R rating. We don't need too strong a reason to buy into the plan, but if we think there is an obviously rational alternative, it will not be the comedy of desperation but instead the humor of sadism that moves us forward. There are a couple of sustained sequences of humor as each of the three desperate employees participates in  an information gathering break in at their bosses house. On joke from Annie Hall is repeated but with enough of a twist to make it amusing. There is also some broad physical comedy involving a pert, and they manage to get three laughs out of it.

The performers are ultimately going to be responsible for selling this and making us laugh. The three bosses are a little underdeveloped but they are actually played by the three biggest names in the cast. The marketing for the film does point out their presence but it never suggests that they are anything more than supporting players in the movie. The leads are Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis, and Charlie Day. Bateman is a solid actor who has been in dramatic films but ism largely familiar as a comedic actor. The other two I am unfamilar with but I suspect they are in some comedy show that I have not seen. They seem to be solid at playing the humor for what is in the script pretty well. There are a lot of throwaway lines that have a kernel of humor in them, and they get just enough attention to make us hang on. I had about five or six big laughs in the movie, and a dozen or so smiles and chortles. It is not brain surgery, it is a ninety minute summer comedy that plays well enough to entertain for a while.

We need to continue to have films that play to a broad audience so that our social system continues to function. Shared communal experiences give us something for small talk and common references. You can recommend or warn people away from a movie, but it helps if it is a movie that enough people have seen that they might be drawn to it, and it can't be something everyone will have seen because then there is limited interest in the discussion. I don't mean to suggest this movie will save Western Civilization, but the fact that it exists means that couples can go out on a date. They can share the experience, and they can forget about it quickly if it interferes with their lives. It also means they can laugh together a couple of times and not feel like there is too much riding on that silly ninety minutes.

'The Undefeated'

I like politics and I know that many of the people that read this blog enjoy a good political debate as well. This documentary is clearly going to provoke some strong emotions on the part of viewers, regardless of the point on the political spectrum they fall. I want to talk about it as a movie first but it is a subject that is impossible to separate from from the medium. I have seen a number of documentaries that I have disagreed with politically, but the form that the filmaking took was clever and entertaining. I have also seen documentaries that are nothing more than a political agenda masquerading as films. "The Undefeated" falls into a middle ground for me. It is competently put together and it is a fascinating subject.  If however you are not interested in Sarah Palin at all, then the film is unlikely to keep your attention because it is so traditional in the way that the talking heads are overlapped with the visual images. This is a political film and not an entertainment. That might actually make it superior to a number of other movies because you are never in doubt about the viewpoint of the film maker.

The structure of the movie is simple. It is a chronological look at the political career of the most charismatic political figure on the public stage today. This is a woman that gets attention because she is expressing her views in a clear and interesting way, and she is not shy about who she is. The President was seen in his campaign as charismatic, but I think his charisma is largely a part of the symbolism he represented. As a speaker he is dry, long winded and has a tendency to talk in a condescending manner to his audience( although not nearly as condescending in tone as Al Gore). Palin's charisma is tied into her political philosophy true, but she has personality to burn and it shines on camera and on stage. This documentary uses clips of her speeches and narrative audio tracks from her book to give us an image of the person she is.  We get very limited images from any time before she was in the public arena. In large part the opening section of the movie is more about Alaska than Palin.

The issues that are outlined early on in the state's history, become focal points for the accomplishments of the Governor from the 49th state. There are ethics issues,oil issues and environmental issues that are the highlights of the terms that Palin served in Alaskan government service. So while the movie marches in a straight chronological line, those are the markers along the path that indicate where we are in the story. There is one element that is outside of this basic structure, and that is the opening sequence. For nearly two minutes we are subjected to a string of sound bites and video clips of pundits, celebrities and media figures saying the most vile things imaginable. They toss off the insults casually with little consequence, and the degree to which it becomes part of the political narrative of the media is astonishing. I thought the film might be focused on the way the political media has tried to erase her from the map. There is a John Ziegler film that covers that territory so I should probably seek it out. This movie focuses more on what Palin accomplished as a public servant. Politics is a background but government is the main focus.

Her time as Mayor of Wasilla is covered very briefly but in as much detail as you are likely to need. She was aggressive about growth, focused on limited government and she was re-elected by 75% of the voters in her town. A large portion of time is devoted to the Alaskan  Oil and Natural Resources Commission that she served on. There was quite a bit of corruption there and she rose to public attention statewide because she challenged the way that business was being done. The political enemies that she hurt the most were fellow Republicans. She is clearly not a political hack and is largely involved in this process to do the right thing by her fellow Alaskan citizens. She resigned from the job, which payed in the six figures, to an uncertain future, because she would not put up with the backroom deals that were short changing the citizens. Seven members of  Alaska government regulation agencies resigned in protest of the actions that the then Governor Frank Murkowski was taking in regard to oil company leases.  Later, several legislators were charged with public corruption by the F.B.I.. Palin's campaign for Governor was based largely on reform of these corrupt practices.

Her term as Governor is covered very completely by the documentary. It highlights the reforms she pursued and the substantial accomplishments she achieved. Her success was largely bi-partisan, with near unanimous support of changes from the Legislature. The complexities of the oil leasing business and the tax regulation system are explained in clear and concise segments of the movie. Everything leading up to the naming of her as a Vice Presidential nominee is pretty boiler plate history with a little bias in the manner of the storytelling.  This takes us two thirds of the way through the movie. We have had a largely mechanical description of her rise to power and the success she she made of that power. If it could be used for political purpose, that is not because it was cut in a dramatic way or elements of the story were changed to make it more dynamic. Any political use of the film up to this point would be the equivalent of taking a high school history documentary film and trying to turn it into a political message.

Once we get to the late summer of 2008, the nature of the movie shifts. It does become more clearly a political biography with a battling central figure. The first appearances of   conservative political commentators like Andrew Brietbart and Mark Levin, signal a shift to image building by the film makers. This is where the controversial stuff gets started and the connection to the Tea Party Movement is made. I think it is largely accurate in the conclusions that are reached, but here the agenda is much more deliberately political. If you want Sarah Palin to be presented as an effective political figure, I think it makes more sense to let the V.P. Acceptance speech and the Wisconsin speech on the labor unrest from last April do the talking for her. We can hear the radio folks most days of the week, let's watch Sarah work the crowd at a Tea Party Rally, talk to more of the people who make up that movement. We needed to hear from those candidates that she helped by her endorsements and appearances.  This is one of the places where the skills of the film makers are not up to their ambitions.

The cliches of documentaries are present in the movie in a number of  places. The music is frequently too urgent and dramatic in the background. It sounds unremittingly tense when all that is happening is people are on screen talking. There are a lot of talking heads and they are shot to build energy by pulling in and moving back or shifting from one side very quickly. It was quite annoying. I also don't get why they are all against a white background. They ought to be in their offices, on the steps of the state capitol, or sitting at the microphone in their studios. It seemed a weak film making choice to me. I did like the singing of the Minstrel Boy  hymn at the start and finish of the movie. That did set a tone of combativeness and resolve that the director wants to emphasize about Sarah Palin. There are many interesting transition and signpost images in the film. They work at signalling the subject but they sometimes take us out of whatever drama there is and remind us that this is a movie.

From a values perspective, I probably agree with Sarah Palin  ninety percent of the time or more. I never thought she was stupid but I know people who were convinced she was by the coverage she received in 2008. Her qualities as a foreign policy leader may be less than some, but they are certainly equal to the current occupant of the White House. This film attempts to show that Palin was also a competent and skilled public servant, and a critical voice for a segment of public opinion. It accomplishes that but it is unlikely that doubter will seek this out to discover for themselves her qualities. If you do get a chance to see it, "The Undefeated" is a effective but somewhat tame approach to selling Sarah Palin. I liked it a lot but I wish it had been better executed and I would not mind some red meat to go along with the meal.

Captain America: The First Avenger

Joe Johnston is a director that has made some fantastic movies and my guess is that most people would not know his name. He tried and largely failed to make "The Wolfman" a marketable film  after the original director and the star Benicio Del Toro fell out on the vision of the movie. My favorite of Johnston's films is "The Rocketeer" with maybe "October Sky in second  place. Both of those movies have something that "Captain America" needs in spades, and that is a heart that is set in traditional values. Those movies were set in the past and Johnston knows how to evoke that past really well. The first thirty or forty minutes of Captain America consists of images from America, in the process of fighting World War Two. These are not combat images, but looks at the homefront.  New York City is shown to be a tough place to live but also the sparkling jewel that nostalgia wants us to remember. There was not any 1943 World's Exhibition that I know of but New York did have the World's Fair in 1939 and the invented World Exhibition clearly took it's inspiration from the futurist visions of the 39 Fair. The sleek looks of the future were started there and in the movie we are talking about now, they come to life in the laboratory of the American Project, the munitions plants of the Nazi spawned Hydra organization and the cars and planes that are featured throughout the story. The style of Johnston in those places is reminiscent of the Hugh's factory featured in "The Rocketeer", the lighting and angles are evocative of an earlier time when the world was more direct in the way we saw ourselves.

The sense of accuracy starts with all of the usual things that make a movie work. Let me start with something that I can't remember writing about extensively in any of my blog posts before, costumes. The look of America in WWII is found in a thousand photographs of the times. Check a high school yearbook, or view the family album of your parents, or more likely now, your grandparents, and you will find the distinctive clothing. Steve Rogers, our hero appears in simple street clothes that were visible in those photos. If you have a picture of your dad or grandad in uniform during the war, he probably looks like Bucky Barnes, Captain America's best friend. The tweed of Dr. Erskine fits an academic of the day and the military uniform of Peggy Carter is as sharp as the ones worn by Dinah Shore in "Up in Arms" from 1944. Schmidt's car is not real as far as I know, but it looks like a nightmare of power and Teutonic arrogance that could easily have been made in those times. The Bowler hat with the Sgt' stripes worn by one of Roger's team is of course silly, but it looks like it could be real. This is a fantasy that is being run through a prism of reality and our memory of what the reality was. The costume that Captain America conducts his War Bond sales shows in, is the way a hero would be imagined in a 1940's comic book. When the suit gets changed, the alterations are not dramatic but they are practical and they keep the patriotic spirit that the comic character and the movie need to have to work.

The tone of the movie is set early on by the undefeatable spirit of a young man, desperate to contribute to his country. He is not trying to prove himself to anyone, he wants to be like everyone else, a contributor to the defeat of the enemy. There is a key point in the film when Steve Rogers is questioned and asked if he wants to go kill Nazis like all the other men, his answer is what makes him a real hero. The earnest motives and morals of the American spirit are contained in a young man that is not physically able to match those feelings. This is the sign that he is the right man to give this power to.  Everything that precedes the transformation of Steve Rogers into Captain America, is needed to make this story soar as a real character we can root for and not just another super hero to turn loose on the movie screens of the world this summer. There were some hints months ago that the movie would downplay the American exceptionalism that makes Captain America what he is. There was even talk that the movie would simply be titled "The First Avenger", to broaden the international audience. I don't know how the marketing of this movie is going in the rest of the world, but this movie sells American ideals and spirit. Yes, many of those are ideals shared with other nations, as is indicated by the Captain's team, but it matters that he is American and you cannot disguise that in this story or movie. Just as he did in "October Sky", Johnston manages to get real American ideals on the screen, without having to wave a flag. Unless you take a close look at that big ass shield that Cap is throwing around.

My knowledge of Captain America prior to this film is limited to the few comic books I can recall from when I was nine, ten or eleven. There was a limited movement cartoon version of Captain America that I watched along with all the other Marvel characters in the 1960s. I have been singing the theme song for forty plus years, but I am not an expert on the character.



This is the memory I have and if this is not accurate don't tell me. I want the current film to be my standard for what Captain America is.

There is plenty of action in the movie, but the action all seems to serve the story and reflect the world that these characters are supposed to exist in. The pacing of the film is steady, it is an origins story so it has all the classical elements of the super hero early narrative. They are not in a rush to get to the slam bang action, instead the story builds and leads us into action that we will appreciate all the more when it finally does show up. The two super hero films this most feels like are "Ironman" and "Superman". We get a clear logical development of the powers that we are going to see like we did in Ironman, and it is backed by the down to earth goodness of our hero and the world he comes from like "Superman". Next year Marvel Studios has a Hero all star film coming out called "The Avengers". We have been getting hints of it in the Ironman, Hulk and Thor films of the last few years. The addition of Captain America makes me want to see this movie more than I ever had before. They have great potential with this character and I hope they don't muck it up and let him get lost among all the other heroes.

The actors do a good job in their parts. Chris Evans is cast perfectly in his role as Steve Rogers/Captain America. The effects work used in the first part of the film is a couple of steps beyond what we saw in "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button". It is much more convincing and less obviously computer generated. Tommy Lee Jones just has to show up and be himself to make his part work, but he does get all the best one liners in the movie so pay close attention when he speaks, all of the verbal humor is in his dialogue. There are some visual jokes but nothing that will take you out of the movie. Everything fits together really well and makes this so far the highlight of the summer (along with Harry Potter).  Watch the credits all the way through for the Avengers teaser but also watch them for the spectacular WWII era art work that is meshed into the film so well. The show tune that is featured in the movie is a perfect fit for the kind of entertainment people would have sought out before Television and the internet. This film recreates a time and place that only the oldest of our parents and grandparents will recall, but it will make it an era that you wish you could have lived in an fought for. It is a comic book tribute to the greatest generation. We can never do them any justice for the burden and sacrifice they bore, but we can cheer on their spirit and the values they tried to save for all of us. This movie absolutely rocks and I can't imagine anyone would not enjoy it.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

A few years ago we stayed up till all hours of the night to go to a Mid-night screening of the first Transformers movie.  The toys were well after my childhood and came mostly before my kids time. Also, they were girls and we had a lot of pound puppies and unicorns around the house. We did not know what to expect except space robots that turned into vehicles. That movie turned out to be loud and stupid and much more fun than it had any right to be.  Shia LeBeuof was starring and we barely knew who he was much less how to say his name. Megan Fox was just a picture on a poster, who knew she was about to become an "It" girl. Here we are six years later and I'm sorry to say, Shia is a household name, but not yet a great actor, Megan Fox has dropped off the radar, and the Transformer movies are as stupid as they ever were but they have lost the charm they once contained.

Many on line sites have been very supportive of this film, especially in comparison to the second movie. As far as I was concerned they both had the same weaknesses that made them inferior to the first film. The stories are overly complicated, the action is bigger, louder and less clear. The humor in the movies has gotten overdone and does not seem genetic to the films or the characters. "Dark Side of the Moon" starts well, goes off the tracks and then recovers a little with some spectacular scenes of Chicago being destroyed. Other than that it has little going for it.

I always knew the formula for Michael Bay photography and storytelling. I've seen almost all of his movies and those that he has produced but not directed himself. After watching "Team America", it is hard to get out of the formula and just concentrate on the story. Since the Transformer Movies largely consist of the same story repeated over and over, there is not enough to distract from the overdone slow motion, sun drenched heroics with matching score. It has become a exercise in watching the cliches and wondering if they will stick out too much. They stuck out plenty in this movie, but fortunately we waited until enough other films were in 3D that we could see this in a standard screening. Otherwise the visual hokum would be intolerable. This movie has been out for three weeks and I was surprised at the number of people there for a weekday afternoon screening. It was not packed but the audience was enthusiastic. The kids behind us were not taking any of it seriously, but they did suck in their breath at some robot punches and they cheered the destruction of the appropriate Decepticons.

John Malkovich is in this movie for no reason whatsoever. Francis McDormand is also in the film and while she is a little more relevant as character, I am not sure why they needed her as an actress. She brings little of the steely resolve she is known for, she is slumming in an underwritten comedy part. However compared to Malkovich, her part is complex. He has no relevance to the story, adds nothing interesting to the film, and his mugging which can be hysterical in the right movie (Burn After Reading) was just annoying here. John Turturro was on the radio the other day promoting another project and he sounded so bright and engaging. It is sad that he has to pay the bills doing nothing work like this. There was a humorous story line with his character in the first movie, but here it is stretched to buffoonery.  The one great appearance in the movie is by Buzz Aldrin, a real American Hero. The Apollo program is integrated into the story in a clever way, and then all the inventiveness goes out of the movie.

There is nothing wrong with a dumb summer movie, but this one just feels redundant and convoluted. I like watching stuff blow up as much as the next guy, but there ought to be a reason for it. Here the only reason is to get your money. We get a sucker punch joke about Obama being the one to award Sam his medal, and there is a quick Star Trek joke based on Leonard Nimoy's voice work in the movie and a line from some of the Star Trek films. Except for the set up and Buzz Aldrin, this movie makes only a token effort to be better that the widely flogged Revenge of the Fallen, and is not close to the first movie in gee whiz charm. Enjoy it for what it is but don't expect to remember anything about it afterwards, it is quickly digested. I hope for better with a couple of upcoming big summer flicks.

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2"

We came a little late to the Harry Potter books, but we had started them by the time the first movie came out 10 years ago. It has been a journey that marked the childhood of both of my kids and reminded me so much of what it was that I loved about reading when I was young. There is adventure and heroism and the fantasy that the world around us had secrets which at any moment could change our lives. The accomplishment of the books is one of the great stories of success that an individual writer can take credit for. J.K. Rowling's imagination grew with each volume and the story came together in a coherent way that made the previous stories more meaningful. That it became a worldwide phenomena and that she became the most financially successful author in history, will deserve it's own books and movie at some future date. To take the next step and create the films was a shrewd move on the part of Warner Brothers and the producers. I don't think that it was as big a gamble as many would believe because of the incredible impact the books had, this was a series of works far more likely to have a wide audience than any other literary work that had come along before.. For me, the audacity of the project was to attempt to film it using the same group of young actors as they grew up. There have been eight movies over the course of 10 years. Rowling was able to take her time getting a new book out, and the audience would be waiting and begging for the next installment. Because there were already three books written when the film series started, there was plenty of time to develop each screenplay and plan the next movie. The books promoted the next movie which created anticipation for the next book until all of the novels were written and we could hardly stand the wait for the movies to catch up. Now that we have, it is a meal to savor but one on which there is the foreknowledge that no dessert is coming. That means we should eat this up as much as we can now.


In preparation for seeing Deathly Hallows Part 2, I went back and watched the earlier seven movies. It is clear how the story started off and a children's fantasy and grew darker with each chapter. Kids grow up, and the simple world they lived in fades each day with new challenges. The Potter films did the same thing. There are the uncertainties of social status and friendship in the first two books. The threat is an indirect one, where the kids challenge is slow to build and fast to finish. When we got to the third story, it was a long threat that Harry faced, and it was part of everything he did in the film. Quidditch became less a game and more a moral challenge to the hero. It disappears entirely in the fifth film and returns briefly as part of a adolescent growth story for Harry's friend Ron. Up to this point he has been a sidekick in the whole story. Sure there were important things for him to do, but it was always Harry's story. With the fifth, sixth and seventh films, the characters of Ron and Hermione become equal parts of the story. It is right that they choose to leave Hogwarts with him and go in pursuit of the Horcruxes. To do so though, they have to have stories on a level with Harry to make us care. For me, the saddest part of the whole film series is the pre-title sequence on Deathly Hallows Part one, when Heromine erases her very existence from her parents lives. It will be as if she never existed, this was a grown up sacrifice to protect them from the dark Lord, and a step into a story where it is not certain that everything will come out OK. From the time Cedric Diggory's story is completed in the Goblet of Fire, it is never clear that there will always be a happy ending. The fifth through seventh films all end with the loss of important characters. They are not going to be magically resurrected like Spock in the science fiction films of Star Trek. We see them briefly in many other contexts, but it is clear they are gone and it is the work of Voldemort.


The first time I saw part one of Deathly Hallows, I was uncertain about how I felt about the movie. It does not feel complete, there were many sections of introspective sadness hanging over it, and the friendship of our three heroes was tested in dramatic ways. It really is a lot of set up for the final movie. The more I watched it however the clearer it became that it was an excellent film. There are some great sequences and the actors step forward as adults for the first time. It is an adult story that is only possible if you went on the journey through the previous stories as well. Thursday night, we went to a screening of Part One at nine o'clock, to be followed by the mid-night screening of part two. This was a smart choice on our part because it really is one long story and they fit together so well. There are payoffs that come in part two that mean more because you just saw the first part. The characters growth was easier to see and the drama is more satisfying.

Speaking of long set ups, it is now time to get to our current film. If you have read any of my postings before, you know that I go out of my way to avoid spoilers. I don't want to recap the whole story in a couple of paragraphs and then give you a thumbs up or down. I will stick to that formula, but be aware that some elements of the films quality can only be discussed in the context of story. I don't want to be the tool that drives by a Harry potter Book Release line, shouting out that "_____________ dies". So, there is a fairly quick but very well conceived raid on Gringott's to retrieve another Horcrux. The visuals on this actually exceed my imagination from reading the book. The sequence does not have a huge amount of suspense in it because it is happening so early in the film, we know that it is a step and not a destination. It was still quite exciting and it resolved the plot points of Olivander and the Goblins, quickly and efficiently. There were so many stories from the book that were essential to the action, I was not sure they could do them and make the movie work. Dumbledore's brother and family background are covered in the minimum amount necessary. The whole issue of his connection to the Deathly Hallows and his victory over the Dark wizard Grindlewald are basically expunged. The movie ships large segments of Hogwarts activities to keep the story on Harry but we get some fantastic visualizations of a student life under the cloud of death eater control of the Ministry of Magic and the school. Just a couple of long shots of students marching to the Great Hall, convey the essentials of what has been going on. The back story of the Hogwarts resistance is also lost and we dive into Harry's return to the school and the final confrontation very quickly.


Two fast audience rousing moments occur almost immediately. Harry reveal himself and McGonnagal shows us that she is a formidable opponent not only for the students but adults as well. There was a great cheer when Snape is driven out of the Hall. It is also so interesting that within a short time we reverse our positions and our view of Snape is altered forever. I wanted the sequence with Snape and his memories to live up to my imagination, and the screenwriter and actor do that exactly. This film series has been top notch but has largely been ignored by the film industry when it comes to awards. It is my hope that Alan Rickman will become the actor that receives recognition for his work in the series at next years award season. He has built this character so carefully and in line with the books that when his chance to make it comes, it pays off in spades. As powerful as Harry's story is, and the tears that came with Hedwig and Dobby, this is the most emotional plot element in the series. The coda segment in the book is one section I cannot read out loud without my voice breaking. The few sentences we get 19 years after the end of the story are the most moving tribute to a character I can imagine. If all of us could see the past as clearly we would all be better people.

I looked forward to several moments in the film, and not all of them made it into the story. The battle for Hogwarts actually takes up most of the movie and there is still not time to tell everything. I will say that Mrs. Weasly lived up to my imagination in her fury at Belatrix LaStrange. Malfoy's situation was actually more satisfying to me in the film than in the books. He is still not anyone that you would love, but Harry and Ron's capacity for goodness is illustrated in the most difficult of curcumtances and there was a final benefit that plays it's part in the ultimate confrontation with harry and Voldemort. Neville Longbottom is a character that is so much richer in the books and was largely shunted aside in the movies. He does however get to be the figure he deserves in a key role in the battle. Remember the sword of Griffindor can present itself to any worthy Griffindor in time of need and we know definitively that Neville is worthy after what we see here.


The whole sequence of Harry's confrontation with Voldemort is done in great style and give Daniel Radcliffe a chance to show he is a real actor. He has grown immensely as a performer, and his maturity has matched the stories very well. He needs to be the central Hero and he comes off as heroic, not like someone playing at being a hero, but like someone ready to make an incredible sacrifice. Ralph Finnes, invisible behind the make-up and digital magic, makes Voldemort a more complete villain. There were several points in the eight movies where we got a chance to see how he became what he was. At an early point in the series, Dumbledore tells Harry that it is our choices that define us. We see several places where Tom Riddle made the wrong choices and sealed his doom as Lord Voldemort. Fiennes make an all powerful dark wizard frightening but also incredibly needy. There is a skilled performer there that is not just cashing a paycheck or working out of a sense of obligation to a project he was invited to be a part of. He works the part and gets results that lesser actors would make into a cliche.

Back after the third film came out there was talk that Emma Watson might not do the rest of the films. We are so lucky she stayed on board because the chemistry she and Radcliffe and Rupert Gint have together as Heromine, Harry and Ron, sustains a lost of exposition and quick storytelling. Ron's character is a grown up at the end as well, and another one of those satysfying audience moments is the kiss Hermione and Ron share briefly during the battle. It did not come off as contrived but rather quite genuine. The one key player in the ten year span of the films that had to be replaced was Richard Harris as Dumbledore. I would never say his death was a blessing, but it did lead to a strong actor being cast in a role very effectively. In the long run Michael gambon will always be the Dumbledore that I see in my head as I re-read the books. He was here in the pensive and in a sustained sequence in the afterlife. All of those moments were stronger because he was there.


I am incredibly happy with the way the films have come out. I do like some better than others but all have been amazing. To tell this story as we see the main charcters actually grow up in front of us is one of the great serendipitious achievements of all cinema history. To mount these movies in a ten year period and sustain the quality and committment to the stories is something we may never see again. I am very sad to be saying goodby to everyone in this series. When we were seated in the theater, my wife and I sat next to each other but to be in the row we wanted, we ended up seperated from our kids (now 23 and 24)by the wheelchair spaces. Dolores asked Amanda if she wanted to sit next to me, but she said that she wanted to sit next to her sister as her childhood came to an end. I am so gald we all got to share this experience for the last ten years together. We will see this again with some friends that we have gone to all the other films with, but our family history with Harry potter is now complete. My heart was full but a little heavy as my fatherhood with just kids also closes.