JUST TED'S OPINION

January 12: R.I.P.

2010-01-12T21:03:00.001-05:00

While I wanted to celebrate the birthday of the oldest living Academy Award winner, I could not let today pass without noting the death yesterday of two individuals -- one of whom gave us some of the most marvelous films in world cinema and the other who, despite her protests, was the true embodiment of that overused word "hero".

Monday marked the passing of French filmmaker Eric Rohmer -- one of the last surviving members of La Nouvelle Vague (The New Wave) and also a genius writer-director. In a career that spanned some six decades, Rohmer was a novelist, a critic (for Cahiers du Cinema), an author (he and Claude Chabrol co-authored one of the best studies of Alfred Hitchcock) and filmmaker. His movies were eclectic, challenging, talky but never dull. Others have written more eloquently than I about the man and his work and I won't even pretend to try. I have enjoyed many of his films (which admittedly can be an acquired taste) and I'm sorry that there won't be one more. But we can savor the legacy he has left us.

I also want to note the passing at the age of 100 of Miep Gies, the woman who helped to shelter Otto Frank and his family in Holland for several years during World War II before their whereabouts was betrayed by person or persons unknown. Mrs. Gies in an interview claimed that she was not a hero, but I know I'm not alone in saying on that point she was wrong. What she did took enormous courage and strength and determination and a sense of morality that is lacking in many. Mrs. Gies was the one who collected the papers on which young Anne Frank composed the now famous diary and if it weren't for her we would have been deprived of that voice. Not only do we have that work of literature but we have a biography of Mrs. Gies, Anne Frank Remembered: The Story of the Woman Who Helped to Hide the Frank Family. It may seem trivial to do so, but I'd like to also point out the above average TV movie "The Attic: The Hiding of Anne Frank" in which Mrs. Gies was portrayed by Mary Steenburgen. There's also Pat Carroll's beautifully rendered cameo in Freedom Writers. And we have the lady herself in appearances in the documentary Anne Frank Remembered and in video clips on the Miep Gies Web Site.

Two very distinct individuals, both filled with humanity, who passed away on the same day.

Requiescant in pace.

January 12: Happy Birthday Luise Rainer!

2010-01-12T20:36:00.002-05:00

Does anyone nowadays know who Luise Rainer is? Well today happens to be her birthday -- her 100th birthday.

For those who don't know or don't remember, Luise Rainer was the first actress to win back to back Best Actress Academy Awards -- for her performance as Anna Held in The Great Ziegfeld (1936) and as O-Lan (which she played in yellowface) in The Good Earth, an adaptation of the Pearl S. Buck novel.

Rainer began her career with Max Reinhardt in Germany as a teenager and she rose through the ranks to become a leading lady with his company. She also made a few appearances in German films and was scouted by American companies -- notably MGM which was always on the lookout for the next European who might be able to replace or, at least help keep in line, their temperamental star Greta Garbo. Rainer had to campaign to land her first leading role in American films in 1935's Escapade, a romantic comedy remake of the German Maskerade (1934). The film paired the actress with William Powell and she was to co-star opposite him in her next feature, the extravagantly produced biographical drama The Great Ziegfeld. While her role as the impresario's wife, whom he seduces, marries and abandons, isn't particularly large, Rainer made quite an impression on Depression-era audiences with a particular scene in which she telephones him to congratulate him on his marriage to Billie Burke. From the perspective of contemporary audiences, Rainer's performance might be considered a bit emotive but at the time it was enough to earn her the Oscar.

MGM set out to capitalize on her appeal but with her light German accent (even though the studio encouraged the notion that she was from Vienna) and her decidedly non-Hollywood approach, Rainer was difficult to cast. The studio teamed her Paul Muni to portray Chinese peasants in The Good Earth. Her character had little dialogue so Rainer had to rely on movement and her expressions to convey the character. Again, to contemporary audiences having Caucasian performers enact Asian characters borders on the racist, but it was the studio system which did not really allow for the grooming of leading men or leading ladies of ethnicity. Rainer once again impressed critics, audience and the Academy and picked up a second Oscar -- the first woman to win back-to-back awards, a feat not duplicated for thirty years.

Now that she had achieved that honor, the studio was at even more of a loss as to what to do with the actress. Offscreen, she had married playwright Clifford Odets and their relationship was tempetuous at best. Her feistiness spilled over into her work life at MGM as she often refused the roles the studio wanted her to play. After her double win, Rainer made a handful of films, of which only The Great Waltz (1938), about composer Johann Strauss was the best. By 1940, her Hollywood career was over, she divorced Odets -- the couple often worked on opposite coasts and his infidelities were fairly well-known -- and attempted to launch a stage career, appearing in Paris, London and New York, but to no avail.

Rainer made a one-shot return to movies during World War II with 1943's Hostages, before retiring from the big screen, In 1945, she married publisher Robert Knittel and divided her time between England and Switzerland while raising their daughter.

Over the years, there were rumors of returns: she had befriended playwright Bertolt Brecht who reportedly conceived a stage role for her -- but the story goes that the part was virtually a cameo and Rainer balked at playing it. Fellini had offered her a role in La dolce vita (1960) but Rainer and he clashed over the part and he dropped the idea. The actress continued to make occasional television appearances ("Combat" in 1965; "The Love Boat" in 1984), and a one-shot return to films (The Gambler, 1997) but Rainer found a new outlet for her talents after studying painting in London in the 1950s. After her husband's death in 1989, she settled in London.

Happy Birthday, Miss Rainer!

January 7: Centenaries in January

2010-01-07T20:39:00.004-05:00

Happy New Year!

Now that the holiday season is officially over (yesterday was Twelfth Night or the feast of the Epiphany -- I get really annoyed when people don't realize that the song "The Twelve Days of Christmas" actually starts on the 25th of December NOT the 13th) ... but I digress.

On an earlier blog, I got a lot of positive feedback when I posted pieces on the year's centenaries. So I figured I'd try to do something each month. I'm a day late for novelist nad photographer Wright Morris, who would have turned 100 yesterday.

Today marks the 100th birthday of a notorious politician (isn't that an oxymoron? aren't all politicians notorious?). Maybe it's because I've spent the last two years working on a project dealing with the history of the civil rights movement but Orval Faubus' name is not one that I would rank as one of the good guys.

He was the governor of Arkansas in 1957 when Central High School in Little Rock was set to allow African American students to attend, three years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the doctrine of "separate but equal" and paved the way for integration. It was certainly slow in coming, especially in southern states. Governor Faubus called out the state National Guard to prevent nine African American students from attending high school. The situation reached such a critical level that President Eisenhower was forced to send in federal troops to escort the students into the building. In hindsight, Faubus appeared foolish, but his actions won him the support of the people of Arkansas who kept him in office until 1967. He even made the cover of Time. Married three times, divorced twice, Faubus died of prostate cancer on December 14, 1994.

On a far lighter note, next week marks the centenary of funny woman Patsy Kelly who won a Tony Award in 1971 for the revival of "No, No Nannette". Born in Brooklyn as Bridget Sarah Veronica Rose Kelly, she was one of six children of a Irish immigrants. Her father became a New York City policeman and her mother encouraged her to sing and dance. One of her contemporaries in dance class was Ruby Keeler, with whom she would strike up a life-long friendship and with whom she would appear on Broadway in 1971. Kelly's brother Willy was working with comedian Frank Fay but once Fay met Patsy, he chose to work with her. Their working relationship was tempetuous at best -- Fay tended to ad-lib; Kelly preferred to work from a script. The pair was hired to perform their act as part of "Harry Delmar's Revels" in 1927 which marked her Broadway debut. While on tour, Fay made a romantic pass at the tomboyish Kelly who turned him down. Eventually they parted ways -- there are stories that Fay fired her after she refused his advances and then had the temerity to address him as "Frank" rather than "Mr. Fay".

Whatever the case, Kelly bounced back working alongside Will Rogers in "Three Cheers"; William Frawley (who later appeared on "I Love Lucy") in "Earl Caroll's Sketch Book" and later Jack Benny in "Earl Carroll's Vanities" and Al Jolson in "Wonder Bar". During the run of the latter, she was "discovered" by a film scout and began making comedy shorts. She returned to Broadway for the first time as a star in the revue "Flying Colors" in which she appeared with Buddy and Vilma Ebsen, Tamara Geva and Clifton Webb.

When she left Broadway in 1933, it was with a contract with producer Hal Roach. Moving west, Kelly was certain her film career would be a bust. But Roach saw something special in her and teamed her in a series of short films with Thelma Todd. The pair worked magic together and they might have gone on to greater things had Todd not died under mysterious circumstances in 1935.

In the meantime, Kelly was allowed to work in feature films and she earned critical praise for her comedic work in "Going Hollywood". But as with many of today's actresses, the studio was not happy with her weight and the actress struggled with the issue throughout her career. Even more detrimental was that she lived as an open lesbian. By the mid-1940s, her Hollywood career was over.

Kelly returned to the stage, touring in stock production and found work in the nascent television industry. For much of the 1950s, she lived with actress Tallulah Bankhead, sometimes pretending to be her maid as a cover for their romantic relationship. She returned to work in feature films as a housekeeper in "Please Don't Eat the Daisies" (1960) and worked extensively as a guest actor in television. In 1968, she had a supporting role in "Rosemary's Baby" and then came her triumphant return to Broadway with childhood pal Ruby Keeler in "No, No, Nannette". After appearing as Debbie Reynolds' mother in "Irene", Kelly returned to California and appeared in "Freaky Friday" (1976) and was featured in the comedy "The North Avenue Irregulars" (1979).

In 1980, Kelly suffered a stroke and was forced into retirement. In September 1981, she died of pneumonia at the Motion Picture and TV Country Home and was buried in a plot near her parents in New York.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Other notable figures who would have celebrated 100 this January are:

Baseball Hall of Famer James Hanna "Dizzy" Dean (January 16)

     Born Free author Joy Adamson (January 20)
         (Photo: © Yevonde Portrait Archive)

jazz guitarist Django Reinhardt (January 23)

five time Academy Award winning costume designer Irene Sharaff

and Hogan's Heroes co-star John Banner

December 31: Happy New Year!

2009-12-31T20:48:00.000-05:00

I'm refraining from writing a full out movie review because frankly I'm tired and my head is swimming because I did see several movies in the past couple of days. Some were better than others and I'm still formulating my thoughts about some of them.

So instead, I'll just take the time to wish you a Happy New Year! I do hope that in 2010 we can move closer to a world that is peaceful and hopeful. We do need to treasure the days we have -- sometimes we -- well I -- forget that.

Take care all. Party responsibly and please DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE.

December 30: Middletown

2009-12-30T21:05:00.000-05:00

This one was supposed to be published on December 28 but somehow got lost in the shuffle -- so better late than never.

As I mentioned in a previous blog entry, one of the frustrations of some of the film festivals I used to cover was that there might be several movies screening at the same time that I wanted to see. Middletown was featured at the 2007 Tribeca Film Festival and while I kept seeing intriguing postcard advertisements for the film, I could never make any of the screenings. So when I saw that it was available from Blockbuster, I added it to my queue. Well, I recently got the film and watched it and all I can say is that maybe the spirits were trying to tell me something when I missed the film the first time around.

Middletown is an Irish film written by newcomer Daragh Carville and director by novice filmmaker Brian Kirk making his feature film debut. The director went on to helm episodes of the Showtime series The Tudors, Brotherhood, and Dexter and he enjoyed a bit of praise for the Daniel Radcliff vehicle My Boy Jack which aired over PBS stations.

The movie's plot owes a bit to the Biblical parable of the Prodigal Son. In this case, Gabriel Hunter (Matthew Macfadyen) returns to his hometown situated somewhere near the border in Northern Ireland. Gabriel was the chosen one who went off to study for the ministry and who has returned determined to clean up the town and right what he feels were the mistakes of the priest he is replacing.

That he returns to a place where his father Bill (Gerald McSorley) and his younger brother Jim (Daniel Mays) live is more than a coincidence. Of course, Gabriel doesn't seem to appreciate the sacrifices that these men have made that have allowed him to study and not work a day in his life. (In the opening scene, we seen a teenage Gabriel being told that he has been chosen by God to do God's work -- which should automatically set off warning bells.)

There's conflict between the brothers as well. Jim has always been seen as something of a muck-up and now that he's saddled with a pregnant wife Caroline (Eva Birthistle) who happens to be the daughter of the owner of the local saloon, he still can't seem to make things right. He and the wife live in a caravan on land next to a house that is being built -- but never seems to get anywhere near to completion thanks to Jim's inability to manage money. He'd rather gamble away the few dollars he has than pay the laborers to build a house for his wife and child.

Gabriel blazes into town like an avenging angel and sets about to "fix" things -- denouncing from the pulpit anyone who dares to cross him. First it's Caroline, then it's Jim. Unfortunately Gabriel only sees things in black and white and it soon becomes predictable what will occur. Well, I concocted a few possible scenarios and one of them was exactly how the movie unfolded.

I have to say that I understood what the screenwriter and the director were trying to get at -- the idea that fundamentalism -- or the embrace of any religion a bit too tightly -- can lead to a misreading and misinterpretation of the ideas that a religion espouses. Clearly, there's a very strong germ of an idea there. But in execution, Middletown falls fairly short. The setting is more or less modern day but there seems to be no police presence in the town -- not even a volunteer to enforce law and order. Instead, it is left up to the minister -- in this case Gabriel -- to serve as judge and jury -- and the fact that everyone in the town except Caroline and later Jim embrace his beliefs didn't ring true. I get that the filmmakers were trying for an analogous situation and all, but it just didn't work.

The performers do what they can with their roles, with Birthistle emerging as the most memorable perhaps because she's the only one to really show any gumption. Mays doesn't exactly handle the transition from whipping boy to man with spine very well -- but I think a lot of that is flawed writing. Macfadyen is even more lost, left trying to play an idea. Part of the problem is that the audience never gets a sense of who he was before he left the town or of what happened to him while he was away. He just returns and assumes this stance of vengeance. Since we know so little of him, we hardly care, despite the actor's best efforts.

Middletown ends in a conflagration that alters the lives of several of the key players -- but the audience is left wondering why we bothered. If it hadn't already been used by a much better writer, the title for this could have been Much Ado About Nothing.

Rating: D

December 30: Julie & Julia

2009-12-30T00:28:00.001-05:00

Confession time: I tried to read Julie Powell's book before seeing this movie but I petered out about half-way through. She's an okay writer and all but the book didn't grab me enough to hold my interest. And I guess that filmmaker Nora Ephron must have felt that way too because in making the movie Julie and Julia, she also utilized Child's memoir to bolster the story and to seek out more contrast and common ground.

Anyway, the film received a lot of attention because Meryl Streep was playing Julia Child. Now Ms. Streep is arguably one of American cinema's greatest actresses but I do have the feeling that sometimes she gets a pass when she shouldn't. I mean Music from the Heart was an okay movie but hardly Oscar worthy and yet she picked up one of her innumerable nominations for that picture. Undoubtedly she's headed to add yet another one for this movie but throughout I had the distinct feeling I was watching her do an impersonation as opposed to giving a performance. It didn't help that Ephron included Dan Ackroyd's famous sketch from Saturday Night Live. There was something a bit off about that moment and for me it marred Streep's work.
(Yes I know she's getting awards for this but I cannot fathom it -- the performance isn't one of her best. At this point I think she gets a prize as long as she shows up and tries out a new accent.)

The premise of Powell's book is that she decides to take on a project that she plans to see to completion and that is to make her way through Child's cookbook Mastering the Art of French Cooking, by making over 500 recipes in a year's time. Powell is played by Amy Adams who has an eternally chirpy and cheerful screen persona that was a bit grating in Junebug, used to perfection in Enchanted and here is somewhere in between. Actually, she's more unlikable than usual and the character even notes it by saying how much of a bitch she has become in one scene with her best friend (played by Mary Lynn Rajskub). When her self-centered attitude takes a toll on her marriage to her initially supportive husband Eric (Chris Messina), the audience is supposed to care, but frankly I didn't. In fact, I was a bit annoyed he decided to return and I just figured he must have gotten hungry and wanted a good home-cooked meal.

Ephron seems to have more of a flair for Child's life with her husband Paul (a fine Stanley Tucci). Those scenes have more life to them (which I think is where the critics go blind thinking that it is all Meryl Streep and not noticing that she's supported strongly by Linda Emond, Joan Juliet Buck, Tucci, Jane Lynch, and Helen Carey).

I was a bit disappointed by this movie, especially since this was supposed to be about food. Ephron would have done well to examine Tucci's movie Big Night for pointers. I left that one craving Italian food. After watching Julie & Julia, I wasn't in the least hungry.

Rating: C

December 29: Ragtime

2009-12-30T00:12:00.003-05:00

I had hoped to get to New York City in January to see the revival of the stage musical Ragtime. Back in 1998 when the show first opened at the new Ford Center for the Performing Arts on 42nd Street (the Hilton Theater since 2005), I sat transfixed watching the opening number. Frankly, it brought tears to my eyes and gave me goosebumps. It's probably one of the most perfect opening numbers for a musical I've ever seen in my long years of theatergoing. (The Tony Award telecast that features an abbreviated but no less thrilling version of the number can be viewed here -- and for fans of Glee, see if you can spot Lea Michele in an early stage role.). The rest of the show left me with mixed feelings -- I felt the direction was somewhat lacking -- more of a staging of a pageant or an opera rather than a musical. The performances were mostly topnotch and several were memorable -- Brian Stokes Mitchell, Audra McDonald, Marin Mazzie, Judy Kaye, etc.

So when I read about this new production that started at the Kennedy Center I was intrigued and then when I heard it was transferring to Broadway -- I really had hoped to catch it. My work schedule for the fall, though did not allow me the luxury of travel time and now that the show is closing on January 3rd, well .... I guess I'll have to wait and see if someone somewhere produces another version of the show before I kick the bucket. Or I'll just have to be content with my memories of the show.

As the next best thing, I rented the DVD of the 1981 Milos Forman-directed film from Blockbuster as a sort of consolation prize. This was Forman's follow up to Hair and he reteamed with screenwriter Michael Weller on the project. Having read E.L. Doctorow's novel, I was a bit surprised that someone decided to condense the project into a 2-1/2 movie instead of turning it into a prestigious television miniseries. The book was so dense and contained so many historical figures who interact with the fictional characters that Doctorow had created it cried out for a longform treatment. Nevertheless, Forman and Weller perservered and crafted a flawed but engrossing movie. What makes it so much fun to watch now in hindsight is to spot several actors whose careers were in their nascent stages -- blink and you might miss Fran Drescher (The Nanny) or John Ratzinberger (Cheers) or Frankie Faison or Jeff Daniels or Samuel L. Jackson or Michael Jeter. There's supporting work from Robert Joy (as Harry K. Thaw) and Moses Gunn (as Booker T. Washington) and in a DVD extra Mariclare Costello as Emma Goldman (although it's easy to see why that scene was cut).

The main family doesn't even have conventional names; they are known simply as Mother (Mary Steenburgen fresh off her Oscar win for Melvin and Howard), Father (James Olson) and Younger Brother (Brad Dourif). They are an upper middle-class family who has settled in the wilds of New Rochelle in the early 1900s. At the time, mixing with immigrants and African Americans just wasn't done. So when a black baby turns up on their property and Mother pushes to take in the child and its mother Sarah (Debbie Allen strinking a wrong note by channeling Butterfly McQueen), the times are a-changin'. Younger Brother develops a crush on Evelyn Nesbit (a fetching Elizabeth McGovern), the chorus girl at the center of a scandal due to her relationship with Stanford White (Norman Mailer sounding a great deal like Tommy Lee Jones) and her husband Harry K. Thaw (the aforementioned Robert Joy). The pragmatic and mercenary Evelyn sort of romances and then drops Younger Brother -- partly leading him to channel his anger and throw his lot in with Coalhouse Walker, Jr. (Howard Rollins, Jr.).

Coalhouse is an educated African American -- what some of the prejudiced characters term "uppity" -- who makes his living as a piano player. He's also the father of Sarah's baby -- the one she left on the grounds of the family's home. He drives to New Rochelle in his new Model T to woo her and eventually she agrees to marry him. On his way home from one of his weekly visits, he gets stopped by racist firemen led by Willie Conklin (Kenneth McMillan) who can't comprehend a black man being able to own a car like that. They foul it up and he complains to the police (Jeff Daniels) which leads to Walker's arrest and his quest for justice.
All he wants is restitution for the damage done to his car. Sarah intervenes and pays a terrible price for it which only spurs Coalhouse's determination and fuels his righteous anger.

There's also a subplot about a Jewish immigrant called Tateh (Mandy Patinkin), a man with a young daughter to flees the Lower East Side to reinvent himself as a movie director known as the Baron Ashkenazy. While he later directs Evelyn in a movie, he is strangely drawn to Mother who begins to return the favors.

Also in the mix is the police commissioner (James Cagney in his last screen role) who oversees the last third of the film when Coalhouse and his band take over the Morgan Library. Here is where the movie becomes a bit of a curiosity and may be why the audience for the musical was a bit reluctant to see the show. One might argue that Coalhouse Walker embraces what became known as the Black Power movement in the 1960s. He certainly doesn't embrace Martin Luther King Jr.'s nonviolent approach. Walker is pushed to the limits and the refusal by those in power in the Caucasian circle (he seeks the proper channels to file a complaint only to be given the bureaucratic runaround) as well as a rejection by his own people -- a black lawyer (Ted Ross) refuses to take his case and Booker T. Washington denounces him. When Walker resorts to violence, it is an outlet for the frustrations he has experienced -- and in Doctorow's novel it seems inevitable. In both the movie and the stage play, it becomes something of a choice. Judging him by today's standards -- he might be considered a home-grown terrorist -- and that may be something audiences don't want to see. The world has changed so much since 1981 when the film was released and 1998 when the musical opened.

The film's production values are suberb as one come to expect from Forman and his collaborators. (Special mention goes to Randy Newman's exquisite musical score.) In the general cannon of Forman movies, Ragtime falls between his two Oscar winners. It aspires to greatness but sadly falls a bit short. Weller's script tries to condense too much and some of the storylines are dropped or not followed through enough. I'm sure someone could write a thesis on the way Weller approached adapting the novel and contrasts that with Terrence McNally's approach for the book of the musical. McNally's version streamlines in a different manner and builds up aspects that Weller doesn't. (For instance, the relationship between Tateh and Mother in the musical becomes more organic -- and the intersection of the three stories is so beautifully laid out in the choreography of the opening number.) The stage show sends Father off on travels whereas the movie focuses on him (and James Olson does yeoman work -- I think he was terribly underrated when the movie first opened).

Anyway -- they are definitely two different animals. Arguably both only partially succeed (although I love the stage score by Stephen Flaherty and Lynn Ahrens).

Rating of the film: B+

December 27: Body of Lies

2009-12-29T23:02:00.003-05:00

I've had this DVD sitting around for awhile but couldn't seem to bring myself to watch it. Not really sure why. I mean, I admire Leonardo DiCaprio as an actor -- he's really trying to branch out and take on substantial roles (despite still looking about 21). And Russell Crowe ranks among my top 5 favorite actors. (I don't give a crap about the personal stuff -- what he does on screen is more important. Hell I'm probably one of only a handful of people who really liked A Good Year!) So Body of Lies reunites Crowe with Ridley Scott for the fourth time (number 5 Robin Hood is due in 2010).

In the film, Crowe is cast as Ed Hoffman, a slippery CIA type who seemingly has a permanent telephone connection. I mean, he's helping his young son go to the bathroom and he's directing an overseas operation. Same with watching his daughter's soccer match. It's almost humorous -- but somehow I get the impression we're not meant to think that. Instead, we're supposed to look at him and go - wow, this guy will stop at nothing to get what he wants. What exactly that is, however, well, it's anyone's guess.

DiCaprio is Roger Ferris, an operative with a speciality in Middle Eastern affairs. Of course, throughout the movie he's constantly referred to by his surname which only made me think of Matthew Broderick and Ferris Bueller. I know. I guess I'm either seeing too many movies or something.

So the plot has Crowe directing this operation in the Middle East that has DiCaprio making contact with a Jordanian official (Mark Strong in one of the best performances in the movie) and trying to get a bead on a terrorist (Israeli-born actor Alon Abutbul) meant to remind the audience of Osama bin-Laden and his ilk.

Of course there's also the requisite love interest -- for DiCaprio-- Iranian actress Golshifteh Farahani. (Actually her backstory is more dramatic than this film's plot -- which is pretty chockablock with action and dramatics. Farahani was not allowed to leave Iran for many months after shooting this film, despite offers for other film roles. She and her family were eventually allowed to leave and she now resides in France.)

Ridley Scott certainly knows how to stage an action sequence but as written by William Monahan, who adapted from a novel by David Ignatius, has a tightly plotted if somewhat convoluted structure. It becomes a bit difficult to figure out who is doing what to whom. But I suppose that may have been the theme of the piece. It's a bit of a mishmash -- sort of like American involvement in Middle Eastern affairs.

I wasn't blown away by the movie, but I wasn't bored either. It was an okay way to pass a couple of hours.

Rating: B-

December 25

2009-12-25T15:15:00.000-05:00

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

(Back to posting tomorrow)

December 24: The Girlfriend Experience

2009-12-24T13:56:00.000-05:00

The night before last, I had The Girlfriend Experience. No, I didn't hire an escort, I watched Steven Soderbergh's low-budget movie.

Soderbergh is something of a curiosity. He is perhaps the only director currently working in Hollywood who makes small films interspersed with big-budget movies. I particularly admire his skill with actresses, as he has elicited career-best work from several including Andie MacDowell (sex, lies and videotape), Jennifer Lopez (Out of Sight), Julia Roberts (Erin Brockovich), and Natascha McElhone (Solaris). To that list can be added Sasha Grey, heretofore a porn star, now a cross-over performer based on her work in The Girlfriend Experience.

Honestly, I'd never heard of Sasha Grey before this film, but she's remarkable and very talented portraying Chelsea/Christine, a professional in a committed relationship with personal trainer Chris (Chris Santos) whom the audience follows over a period of a few days in the fall of 2008.

Chelsea isn't a hooker, she's an escort who will provide the whole "girlfriend experience" for the right price. Meaning, she'll dress appropriately, go wherever, do whatever, listen to your troubles and offer sympathy and sex. But she's not entirely happy despite having a great apartment and a guy who seemingly loves her. She wants more, so she seeks out ways to expand business and runs into the competition. One of her regular clients is brusque after an encounter and a few days later she spies him out with a new girl. She wants to enhance her reputation but when she seeks assistance from a so-called connoisseur she runs afoul of him. Chelsea and her partner experience some bumps in their relationship as his frustrations with his own stalled career and the opportunity to hobnob with wealthy clients in Las Vegas presents itself. The capper is that Chelsea meets a client with whom she connects and who may be able to offer her something different and more fulfilling than what she has.

When Soderbergh does these low-key, no-frills productions, the results can be uneven. I happened to really like Bubble but wasn't crazy about Full Frontal. For me, The Girlfriend Experience falls somewhere in the middle. I was bored at times (particularly when the movie focused on Chris) but other times I really got caught up in the story -- which is told in a nonlinear fashion. (Soderbergh shot the movie on digital video with an outline and some dialogue and then sort of scrambled the timeline in the editing room.) Grey manages to captivate and enchant when she's the focus of the film. The rest of the cast ranges from appropriately creepy (critic Glenn Kenny as the sex guru) to adequate (Santos as the boyfriend). This is clearly Grey's show and she is more than up to the challenge. In fact, it's almost a shame she already has such an established porn career; she easily could be the leading lady in any number of Hollywood films. If she makes the transition, she can thank Soderbergh.

Overall my "Girlfriend Experience" was a pleasant one, so I'd say seek this one out and give it a whirl.

Rating: B

December 23: Southland Tales

2009-12-23T21:17:00.002-05:00

Salon has recently launched a Film Salon section and currently various people are contributing a list of movies they are calling "films of the decade". So imagine my surprise and pleasure when Thomas Rogers listed Richard Kelly's maligned Southland Tales as his choice. I'd watched the film on DVD shortly after its release and rather enjoyed it but because so many people had been so negative about it -- and by this time I wasn't regularly posting my reviews (even though I drafted versions to post) -- I sort of let it slide. So many times in the past, I've been an audience of one. So it was with some interest and a bit of a relief to learn that I'm not the only one who thought the film had merit.

There a great deal of ambition in Kelly's vision and from what I recall reading, he faced some financing problems so he wasn't able to fully realize his vision on screen. There's a graphic novel that covers three chapters that are basically the set up for the film which comprise the final three chapters. Even without having read the novel, I could appreciate that he was aiming for something -- which so many filmmakers today don't or can't because of budgets, studio interference, whatever.

Southland Tales is set in an alternate world Southern California on July 4, 2008. When the film opens, America had engaged in World War III and the result was the break up of the United States into zones, all overseen by US-IDENT, a Big Brother government agency with cameras everywhere and all the power created by the Patriot Act. Los Angeles -- part of the titular Southland -- is a mess and home to a series of very curious characters ranging from a movie star with amnesia named Boxer Santaros (Dwayne Johnson) whom several people are searching for, a former porn actress turned singer (Sarah Michelle Gellar) who has ties to Boxer, a policeman (Seann William Scott) with a secret, to a group of underground rebels (Amy Poehler, Nora Dunn, Cheri Oteri).

The cast is large and rangy (I haven't even mentioned Justin Timberlake, Miranda Richardson, John Larroquette, Bai Ling, Wallace Shawn, Beth Grant, Zelda Rubinstein, Lou Taylor Pucci, Jon Lovitz, Christopher Lambert, all of whom add something special to this ragout) and the plot is a mix of science fiction, spy drama, low comedy and action movie rolled together.

I've watched the film several times again recently when it was playing on cable and each time I think I gained more of an insight into Kelly's vision. This is certainly not an easy film and I can see how some critics might dismiss it outright without giving it a chance. The right wing types are the villains, but the left doesn't get off easily either. It's sprawling, ambitious and almost visionary. One has to open up and just go with the flow -- but there's so much to admire and appreciate from Dwayne Johnson's pitch-perfect comedy to Seann William Scott's heroism to the oddball cameos. Kelly's influences range far and wide and that seems to be what some find most objectionable -- that he takes from David Lynch and Ridley Scott and Kathryn Bigelow and on and on. But what they apparently can't see is that Kelly HAS a vision. It's refreshing to see a film that challenges you -- that forces you to use your mind and to pay attention to the details. There's an intelligence at work behind the camera that I certainly appreciated.

I was a fan of Donnie Darko, Kelly's first feature, when it was released and I actually thought the director's cut brought elevated that film to a close to being a masterpiece. Southland Tales did not succumb to the sophomore slump as I saw it. No, if anything it tried to do too much -- but I would rather see a noble failure than a pallid cookie-cutter feature film.

Rating: B+

December 22: Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day (2008)

2009-12-22T20:11:00.001-05:00

Adapted from a novel by Winifred Watson (what an alliterative name!) by screenwriters Simon Beaufoy (The Full Monty) and David Magee (Finding Neverland), Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day was a charming if fluffy way to pass the time.

Frances McDormand portrays Guinivere Pettigrew, a British governess in the 1930s who is a bit dour, very straight-laced and apparently unemployable. Despite repeated attempts to be placed by an agency, Miss Pettigrew gets the sack. The film's event unfold over the course of one day when everything changes. After losing her last gig and spending a night on the streets where she pretty much loses everything except for the clothes on her back, Pettigrew pilfers information about a possible employment opportunity and shows up at the door of flighty Delysia Lafosse (Amy Adams), a chorus girl with aspirations who is juggling a trio of lovers, including Phil (Tom Payne, handsome but shallow), the youngish producer who may be able to boost her to stardom, Nick (Mark Strong, debonair with a hint of cruelty), her sugar daddy who keeps her in apartments and fancy clothes, and Michael (Lee Pace, charming), a musician who knows the girl behind the dreamer she now has become.

The take-charge Pettigrew snaps to action. The one thing she can do well is size up a situation quickly and come up with plausible explanations. Along the way, she gets drawn into fixing another relatioship, that of Delysia's rival Edith (the always wonderful Shirley Henderson) and Joe (Ciaran Hinds, seemingly relieved at not portraying a heavy), her slightly older and gentler suitor.

On paper this is catnip and shortly after Watson's novel was published it was optioned for the movies to be a vehicle for Billie Burke as Miss Pettigrew. Personally I think that might have been a bit disatrous as Burke, like Alice Brady, tended to portray scatterbrains; she might have made a better Delysia. The project languished for nearly 70 years before it finally hit the screens and, frankly, McDormand is perfectly cast as the uptight governess/social secretary. Her Pettigrew is a masteful comic creation and she grounds the movie, becoming the placid center around which all the intrigue swirls. Adams is a bit chirpy and sacchrine at first but eventually she adjusts and plays her character in a less cartoon-like manner. As with many romantic comedies, it's painfully obvious which of her three suitors is more suitable just as the chemistry between McDormand and Hinds hints at an outcome that isn't too hard to predict.

Half the fun is getting there, though. The director, Bharat Nalluri (who helmed The Crow: Salvation), doesn't seem fully comfortable with the genre. The film lacks a certain panache. Still, the production design of Sarah Greenwood, the costumes of Michael O'Connor (who won an Oscar for The Duchess), and the cinematography of John de Borman (who shot Ella Enchanted, among others) go a long way toward creating the appropriate atmosphere.

The actors appear to be having a good time and that infectiousness eventually overcomes whatever shortcomings the movie has. There are some slightly darker elements as well, and the hints of the war to come layer this particular 24-hour period with a certain poignance. While not exactly a complete throwback to the old-fashioned studio produced romantic comedies of the time depicted on screen, Miss Pettigew Lives for a Day comes pretty close. It's an enjoyable way to spend an hour and a half.

Rating: B

December 21: Winter Solstice

2009-12-21T14:51:00.001-05:00

I've really been trying to keep up with posting something daily. Today will be one of those days when I don't post a review. As everyone probably knows, there was a massive snowstorm that hit the Eastern part of the US.

Well, it caused several things to be cancelled and/or postponed. One of those was a co-worker's holiday party, which I was going to have to miss because I had a family party to attend. Instead, I was stuck inside and took advantage of the time to do some design work on my web pages. The site is by no means completed as I've got a backlog of older reviews to post and link to Rotten Tomatoes. So it's going to be an ongoing project for a couple of months. I hope to debut the new look in the spring, maybe earlier if things go well.

Today is the first official day of winter, although the weather seems not to have gotten that memo. It's also the solstice which has been marked by various cultures in history and which eventually the Christians co-opted and established Christmas. It's a time of renewal, rebirth, celebration, gift-giving and hope. So my suggestion would be for everyone to try to concentrate on sending out "good vibes" and remember that in the hectic rush and hustle & bustle of this "holiday" season, to take a minute and really stop and think about what it all means.

Hopefully, tomorrow I'll be able to resume the reviewing. I've certainly got a ton of stuff to watch.

December 20: Snowy day -- Tom Kalin retrospective

2009-12-20T16:36:00.002-05:00

In 1992, at the height of the New Queer Cinema movement, Tom Kalin staked a claim to be included among the bright young things who were making films with his debut feature Swoon, a retelling of the famous Leopold and Loeb case. Kalin taught at Columbia's film school, made a number of short films and produced or executive produced films like Go Fish (1994) and I Shot Andy Warhol (1996). But he did not make another feature-length movie until Savage Grace (2007), another true-life drama that did not end well.

I had seen Swoon years ago, but because I had recently read Simon Baatz's For the Thrill of It: Leopold, Loeb and the Murder that Shocked Chicago (HarperCollins, 2008), I got my hands on the DVD to refresh my memory of it. Kalin, who worked on the screenplay with Hilton Als (who is now a theater critic for The New Yorker), put a new spin on the story which had served as the basis for Rope (1948) and Compulsion (1959), both of which fictionalized the case.

In the film, the relationship between Leopold (Craig Chester) and Loeb (Daniel Schlacter) is clearly a sexual one and the crime they plan is merely an extension of their feelings for one another. The amorality of the characters could be off-putting to audiences, but Kalin has couched the story in an intriguing manner. The film was shot in black and white by Ellen Kuras but Kalin and his associates Therese DePrez & Stacey Jones, who did the production design, and Jessica Haston, who did the costumes, add anachronistic flourishes that are at first jarring but eventually become part of the landscape. In so doing, Kalin and company invite audiences to view the events through modern eyes. It also has the balls to present the lead characters as sociopaths who happened to be homosexual, rather than depraved homosexuals who set out on a crime spree. In this way, the film is a spiritual brother to Gregg Araki's The Living End, however, Swoon is the much better film.

The leading actors are perfectly cast and deliver strong performances. Chester, of course, went on to have a career as an actor, writer and director. Schlachet, who had charisma to spare, forsook acting to pursue a career as an attorney. Together in this film, they create a perfect symbiotic relationship where sex is used as a controlling factor. Even after nearly a decade, Swoon hold up nicely and was the perfect complement to Baatz's book.

Rating: B+

For whatever reason, it took Tom Kalin almost 15 years to make another feature film. Again he chose a true-life story that had depravity as a theme and murder as a side note. Working from Howard A. Rodman's screenplay, which itself was adapted from the book Savage Grace written by Natalie Robins and Steven M.L. Aronson, Kalin directed this tale of Barbara Daly Baekeland (Julianne Moore) and her unhappy marriage to plastics heir Brooks Baekeland (Stephen Dillane) and her subsequently turbulent relationship with her troubled son Tony (Eddie Redmayne).

From all accounts Barbara was a handful, a fiery redhead who had once been a model and wanna-be actress. She also fancied herself an artist and strove to be accepted by "society", hence her marriage into the Baekeland family, whose fortune derived from Bakelite plastics. Brooks and Barbara hobnobed with the elite artists of the day, but cracks in their relationship soon shown through. Barbara was somewhat unstable, a heavy drinker who didn't censor her opinions and became noted for saying inappropriate comments and generally acting out. Trapped in an unhappy marriage, Brooks attempted to leave only to have Barbara attempt suicide. She was clearly a troubled woman and her life story could provide an actress with a meaty part.

Julianne Moore is perhaps one of American cinemas best actresses but oftentimes she is under-appreciated or unsung.
She has delivered consistently interesting and often memorable performances. So, it's very easy to see what might have drawn her to playing this unstable woman. Moore does yeoman work but Rodman's screenplay doesn't really delve into the psychology of the Baekelands and Kalin's direction is a bit superficial. He doesn't dig beneath the surfaces, but presents set pieces that are meticulously designed.

Moore dominates the screen and while that may be appropriate to a certain extent, she should find a match in Dillane, who is wan and a bit of milquetoast in his scenes, and in Redmayne, who is outright miscast. He has no screen presence here and while it might have served to have the character begin as a cipher, he needs to develop into something. Redmayne seemed lost as to how to depict the character's instability and eventual descent into madness. True, he is not assisted by either the script or the director, but a stronger actor might have at least been able to shade his performance better.

Savage Grace could have been a much better film. It's as if during the long gap between films Kalin forgot the basics. It's almost enough to prove the dictum that those who can't do, teach.

Rating: C-

December 19: Adoration & Ararat

2009-12-19T18:42:00.002-05:00

No Atom Egoyan doesn't only make films that start with the letter "A", it just happens that I recently re-viewed both of these movies so that I could review them. I had seen both in theaters, Ararat back in 2002 when it made my Ten Best list for that year, and Adoration last spring when it played for, like, a minute in theaters. I had intended to review the latter at the time, but things got in the way.

When I was watching season two of "The Tudors" on DVD (courtesy of Netflix), the actor portraying the musician Mark Smeaton looked familiar, but I couldn't place him. After consulting the Internet Movie Database, I discovered that it was David Alpay, who had made his feature acting debut in Ararat. So I had a desire to revisit that movie.

Ararat is a complicated and complex film that deals with several themes, but is particularly focused on the atrocities inflicted on the Armenian people in Turkey between 1915 and 1918. To this day, the Turkish government denies that a deliberate, systematic destruction of the Armenian people occurred, despite evidence to the contrary. Relatives of Egoyan's grandparents perished, so this story is clearly one that is close to him.

There are at least three main plot strands that eventually weave together to create the tapestry that is this challenging film. In one, director Edward Saroyan (Charles Aznevour) and his screenwriter Rouben (Eric Bogosian) are crafting a film about events that occurred during the Siege of Van in 1915. In their research, they discover that the painter Arshile Gorky (ne Vostanik Manoog Adoyan) was a boy who may or may not have taken part in the events, so they hire as a consultant an art historian Ani (Arsinee Khanjian) who is an expert on Gorky and his work.

Ani has a checkered history: her first husband died while attempting to assassinate a Turkish government official and her second husband committed suicide. Her son Raffi (David Alpay) from her first marriage and her stepdaughter Celia (Marie-Josee Croze) are engaging in a sexual relationship, despite Celia's fervent belief that Ani drove her father to his death.

The final thread involves a Canadian custom official (Christopher Plummer) about to retire who has difficulties relating to his own child (Brent Carver), a formerly married man now living with another man (Elias Koteas).

The characters cross in odd ways, which I realize some may feel are convoluted, but which I accepted. Plummer's custom official is first seen stopping Aznavour's director from entering the country because the filmmaker is carrying a pomegranate. Later, on his last day of work, he questions Raffi about the contents of canisters of film -- which may or may not contain drugs.

The movie shifts between these various worlds raising pertinent issues about the discrepancies between how historical events unfold and how people can put specific spins on them. Plot points unfold in counterpoint: Celia's desire to pin the blame for her father's death on Ani runs parallel to the Turks not accepting the blame for the genocide of the Armenians. In the film-within-the-film (also titled Ararat) the issue of Gorky's participation in the events at Van is open to interpretation. All that is really known is that he lived in that town during the time and that he was 10 years of age. Did he participate in the events as the filmmakers suggest? Or are they merely taking artistic license? Can these questions be answered? Not definitively.

Although there are some flaws in the film -- and there are certainly a few sequences that feel a bit didactic, overall, I was impressed with the movie. It was challenging, informative and for the most part extremely well acted. Everyone from Plummer to Alpay to Elias Koteas as an actor portraying one of the Turkish generals who perhaps identifies a bit too closely with the character he is portraying to Croze to Khanjian all do fine work. I was moved by the film and its themes and still feel it ranks as one of the director's best movies.

Rating: A-

To some extent, Egoyan continued to explore some of these themes in Adoration, but with a little less success. Inspired by the true story of a terrorist who planted a bomb in the luggage of his unwitting, pregnant girlfriend, Egoyan spins the tale of Simon (Devon Bostick) who identifies too closely with the true story which his French teacher (Arsinee Khanjian) reads to her class. Simon, influenced by his bigoted grandfather (Kenneth Welch) and equally prejudiced uncle Tom (Scott Speedman), concocts a tale wherein his father Sami (Noam Jenkins) becomes that terrorist and his mother Rachel (Rachel Blanchard) becomes the woman. Of course, that means that Simon was the unborn child. Years later, after arguing with Rachel's family, Sami deliberately crashes the car in which he and his wife are riding, leaving Simon an orphan to be raised by his uncle.

Some of his classmates come to believe the story and encouraged by Simon, word spreads, including in Internet chat rooms where people who were on the plane make their feelings known. Simon, abetted by his teacher -- who has an agenda of her own -- challenges his uncle's beliefs.

Once again, Egoyan explores how cultural identies are shaped and how lies and falsehoods can be presented in a manner in which they are taken for truth. Where Ararat explored the issue of communication within a familial structure by examining several groups, in Adoration, the filmmaker has trained his eye on a single unit. He shows how prejudices and misinformation can get passed down from one generation to the next like heirlooms.

I was struck in reading various reviews by other critics at how many failed to see the connections between these movies. Most did not like Ararat and called it confusing and overly-ambitious whereas they lauded Adoration. I had an opposite reaction. I felt Adoration was too small, too confined and a bit confusing. The big reveal about Khanjian's character felt false to me and undercut the film's power. Still, even second-rate Egoyan is better than a lot of other films.

Rating: B-

December 18: Last Call (2002)

2009-12-18T22:53:00.002-05:00

So today was the company holiday party and we had a relatively good time. Afterwards I went out shopping for last minute gifts and before I knew it, the day was practically gone. It's 10:45 pm, so this is going to be a short entry.

I've been a fan of F. Scott Fitzgerald's writing since I got turned on to his work when I was in high school. I had a wicked crush on a slightly older woman -- she was in college! -- and we did a play together that happened to be set in the 1920s. The director had suggested we read Fitzgerald short stories and so ... I was hooked. I've read a number of biographies, all his novels, most of the short stories, and a lot of related materials. And I've tried to watch whatever biographical films that were made, however terrible.

Which brings me to Last Call, a movies that premiered on Showtime in 2002. I just got around to watching it on disc and I have to say that it was rather disappointing. It's based on a true story set in the writer's waning days when he was trying to write The Last Tycoon.

Although purportedly about Fitzgerald (played by Jeremy Irons -- who seemed to me to be coasting through the job), the movie really is the story of Frances Kroll (Neve Campbell), a naive young woman who worked as the writer's secretary. Kroll, of course, later wrote a book and that served as the basis of this drama, written and directed by Henry Bromell. I haven't seen Bromell's debut feature Panic (2000) but I've read fairly good things about it. Bromell went on to work on several TV series, including Showtime's Brotherhood, which I'll get to in another post (after I've finished watching the 3rd season).

Last Call terribly disappointed me. It's a minor film about a fairly important writer and it fails to make him come alive. Sissy Spacek shows up as his wife Zelda, a ghostly figment of the fevered imagination of a dissolute writer. For some reason, Spacek earned an Emmy nomination for this performance which is not one of her best. (She lost the award to Stockard Channing playing Judy Shepard in The Matthew Shepard Story.)

The story is filled with cliches: of course Frances is enamored of Scott. Of course, he makes coarse remarks about her writing. Of course, they come to a detente. It's fairly predictable and somewhat boring. Irons and Campbell do not seem to connect at all, as if they are acting in separate films. Campbell tries hard to create a full-bodied character and she has a few affecting scenes, particularly with Paul Hecht as her father.

There's really yet to be a decent biography of Fitzgerald but his work defies filming (despite several attempts). He may be one of those writers whose novels and life is best left to books.

Rating: D+

December 17: Star Trek (2009)

2009-12-17T21:14:00.002-05:00

I recently got a Blu-Ray player to go with the new big screen TV. (I figured if I'm spending so much time watching movies at home, I'd better have the proper equipment.) So, I upgraded my Netflix and got one of my first Blu-Ray discs - the 2009 ~~remake~~ reboot of Star Trek. Now, I know that a lot of TV geeks worship at Abrams' shrine, particularly for his contributions to Alias, Lost and Fringe. On the big screen, some of his efforts have been less than stellar: Armageddon, anyone? Mission Impossible III? So his selection to oversee the "new" Star Trek didn't necessarily mean it would be a slam dunk. Even though that's pretty much how it turned out. I remember the original short-lived series; when it premiered science fiction wasn't really all that popular in primetime television but several of the episodes have stayed with me and one in particular that featured the gods and goddess of Greek lore led me to seek out and read Edith Hamilton's classic Mythology. Watching those episodes now -- with a more adult perspective -- I can see the cheesy special effects, the cheap sets and the terrible acting, but to a kid, it was revelatory. I wasn't all that pleased with the various spin-offs and the first round of movies. The rule was that only the even numbered ones would be pretty good but you had to try to sit through the others to know what was happening.

The idea that the franchise needed to be remade or rebooted or whatever creative term they are using nowadays was cause for concern. A lot of 60s television series that served as the basis for movies turned out badly (The Mod Squad, The Beverly Hillbillies, I Spy). We had the films that were made. Why couldn't we just enjoy those for what they are? Could they improve on the material?

Abrams and the screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman took Gene Roddenberry's basic concept and added his own special twist. While the characters on screen in this version were younger than the originals, they also exhibited slightly different traits. Parents who were alive in the series didn't survive in this version. Romantic relationships were skewed a bit. It soon becomes clear -- and indeed is a major plot point -- that events occurred that changed the universe in which the characters existed: they were in an alternate world, a parallel reality. If you went with the plotting, it all began to seem, well, "logical".

The plot is somewhat convoluted but revolves around a group of Romulans who survived the destruction of their planet and are led by Nero (Eric Bana, who isn't nearly as menacing as he should be). Perhaps in a nod to another of Bana's movies this year, Nero has time-traveled and is out to seek revenge against the man he feels responsible for his planet's being wiped away. (Hint: It's one of the members of the crew of the USS Enterprise.)

As the film opens, Nero is wreaking havoc on Federation vessels and the USS Kelvin is caught in this battle. One of the passengers is a woman (Jennifer Morrison) who goes into labor with the ship is under fire. It happens that her husband George (Chris Hemsworth) had just been promoted to acting captain and he must make a life or death decision that will have impact on their lives. He sends his wife and newborn son, James Tiberius Kirk, to safety while he stands his ground and, like a good captain, goes down with the ship. That's just the prologue.

Little Jim grows into a young man (Chris Pine) who likes his women (including Zoe Saldana's Uhura) and his booze and who isn't afraid of a brawl. It turns out he's also very smart and catches the attention of a Starfleet commander named Pike (the efficient Bruce Greenwood) -- the name is meant to pay hommage to Jeffrey Hunter who portrayed Captain Pike in the TV show's original pilot. Pike makes an offer to Kirk who accepts and trains at the Starfleet Academy. Gradually, we meet the various actors who will fill out the characters that fans have come to know. Karl Urban is superb as Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy, John Cho is fine as Sulu, Anton Yelchin does a nice turn as Chekhov, and Simon Pegg finds the right balance of comedy and seriousness as Montgomery Scott. Zachary Quinto has one of the more difficult tasks -- to step into the boots of Leonard Nimoy as the half-Vulcan, half-human Spock, and the actor does so completely and successfully. I would argue that he delivers the best performance in the film since a great deal of the time, he struggles to keep the human (read: emotional) side of his personality in check. He and Pine also balance one another well, going from dislike and mistrust to begrudging admiration to outright friendship. Theirs is the bromance at the heart of the film.

The rest of the large cast does yeoman work, although as I mentioned, Bana isn't quite in the pantheon of memorable villains. He's too timid, not theatening enough. He is capable of portraying a vile character as anyone who saw Chopper could attest, but here he is lukewarm. Ben Cross, Winona Rider and Clifton Collins, Jr. are also good in small but pivotal roles. The one jarring appearance -- at least, for me -- was Tyler Perry as a Starfleet admiral. I guess I just didn't expect to see this actor-director in a sci-fi film and it momentarily took me out of the movie. It was an example of stunt casting that backfired a bit.

Otherwise, I readily enjoyed Star Trek and am looking forward to seeing what will unfold in the inevitable sequels. Perhaps they can get it right each time and not every other time.

Rating: B+

December 16: Of Time and the City

2009-12-16T19:56:00.001-05:00

The annual run-up to the Academy Awards is in full swing with various critics groups announcing their prizes and while there seems to be something of a consensus on the major awards (The Hurt Locker, Jeff Bridges or George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Christoph Waltz and Mo'Nique keep appearing with regularity), I took note of one selection by the New York Film Critics Circle which bestowed its prize for non-fiction film on Of Time and the City, Terence Davies' meditative look at his hometown of Liverpool.

Years ago, I was priviliged to work at a company that had many erudite individuals who all loved movies and TV. It was always fun to chat with them, because I honestly learned something. One of my co-workers, the late Kent Greene, was the person who really introduced me to the films of Terence Davies. Kent had been an admirer of the filmmaker's early efforts and after seeing his infectious reactions to them, I sought them out and was not disappointed. I will grant you, though, that I can see how films like The Long Day Closes and Distant Voices, Still Lives might not hold popular appeal. I, however, find both of them to be wonderful, evocative of a recent past. Both films have strong autobiographical elements and both play almost like documentaries, although they are clearly fictional.

Unfortunately, Terence Davies is not a prolific director -- and I'm unsure exactly why. He has spoken of the difficulties he has faced in securing financing for his movies and that is just sad. Such an incredible talent -- with an unique voice and perspective. His last feature film was 2000's The House of Mirth -- in my estimation the best film of that year with an underappreciated and underrated performance by Gillian Anderson.

After nearly a decade, Davies has returned with a film
that in my estimation falls just short of being a masterpiece. There is much to admire in it but even at only 74 minutes, there are a few spots where it drags a tiny bit. As much as it pains me to say it, I did find myself becoming slightly bored.

Nevertheless, this film -- which is subtitled "a love song and a eulogy" -- posseses some vibrant and memorable images, from children playing to older women washing laundry to the sights and sounds of this port city. Davies was born and raised in Liverpool and while today most people know of the city as the birthplace of the Beatles, it is and was so much more. For many years, it was a way station for Irish immigrants fleeing the famine and hardships of rural life who were en route to something better in London or the United States. Indeed, a large number of Irish settled in Liverpool and the city had a notable Roman Catholic population, including Davies. In his voiceover narration that veers from seriousness to dollops of sarcasm, mostly directed at Mother Church or the queen, whom he calls "Betty Windsor" in a typically irreverant fashion.

As in his other films, Davies adopts a very impressionistic style. The film is born of memories and as such there is no particular linear storyline. Instead, we get glimpses of buildings and places or people and faces that cause the filmmaker to launch into a reverie, sometimes poignant, sometimes bitter, sometimes rueful. We see a life in Liverpool, whether it be a typical one or not is debatable. But themes of religion, sex and homosexuality, the arts as healer (particularly the cinema), violence, loss, death, decay, rebirth, all permeate this movie and mesh together. Davies has crafted a tone poem that is rifled with autobiography. It's devestating and uplifting, if occasionally marred by too much repetition. Davies is nothing if not a passionate filmmaker and I just hope it won't be another eight or ten years before he gets to make another film.

Rating: A-

December 15: Dentists and Christmas music

2009-12-15T19:16:00.001-05:00

So in a slight departure for today's entry, I'm refraining from doing an actual movie review (or two or more).
This was a very strange day for me. If you had asked me, I would have sworn that I had an appointment for dental surgery tomorrow -- Wednesday. However, when I awoke to my alarm and turned on the local news (I tend to gravitate to WBZ for some reason, even though it is a CBS affiliate), and someone mentioned the date, it resonated in my then very sleepy mind. December 15. I have a dental appointment, but it can't be the 15th because it's Tuesday and I made a Wednesday appointment. Then it began to penetrate and I went into warp speed. Showering, shaving and dressing in record time, I arrived a full 15 minutes early. And the doctor had an early appointment that ran late. Anyway, I got what needed to be done taken care of, got the prescription drugs (for pain -- which I ended up needing) and am making the adjustment to soft foods and chewing on one side of my mouth.

While I was sitting in the chair, though, I usually have flashbacks to the way dentists have been portrayed in the movies. One of the first things that springs to my mind is Marathon Man - "Is it safe?" Laurence Olivier may have been aged but he was damn scary and Dusting Hoffman may have required some Method work to portray terrified, but that scene is very scary to me and has colored how I see the profession.

Of course, I wish I could be more like Jack Nicholson in Little Shop of Horrors or to a lesser extent Bill Murray in the musical remake. In the latter, the dentist is played by Steve Martin and that wasn't to be his last take on the profession. He later showed up as tooth doctor suspected of murder in Novocaine. Then there was the dentist who was a murder victim in Compromising Positions. Do you see a pattern here?

Anyway, once I got back from the office, I put on some soothing music. Now I'm not much for holiday recordings, mostly because their shelf life is so limited. (I'm not the type to listen to carols in July.) But I actually did purchase a CD of holiday music recently and after a couple of listens, I can highly recommend it: "Christmas Mornings" by Brent Barrett.

Who is Brent Barrett you may be asking? Well if you don't know, shame on you, as he is one of the American theater's best musical performers. Back when soap opera mattered, he appeared on "All My Children" as the stumbling block between Kim Delaney's Jenny and Laurence Lau's Greg. But he's better known for his stage appearances in Closer Than Ever, Grand Hotel, and Chicago. He's got a terrific, rich tenor voice and the selection of songs includes standard fare ("White Christmas", "Winter Wonderland"), some lesser known gems (the title track), a few Broadway numbers ("A Place Called Home" in a medly with "I'll Be Home for Christmas", and "Lovers on Christmas Eve"), plus one that he has a sonwriting credit on ("A Star To Guide Me"). It's a charming, enjoyable selection that actually succeeded in putting me (who could give the Grinch lessons) into a holiday frame of mind. You can order it from Kritzerland or at Barrett's website.

Hopefully, I'll get back into the movie review mode tomorrow but my mouth is throbbing, there's a pill with my name on it and a strong need for some sleep. Till anon.

December 14: Humpday

2009-12-14T21:34:00.005-05:00

Well, maybe I should have saved reviewing this film for a Wednesday instead of Monday, but I felt it was necessary to write about it in a somewhat timely fashion. You see I won a Twitter contest sponsored by Magnolia Pictures and the DVD arrived on my doorstop fairly recently. I had a couple of other things in the pile to get through first but last night, with nothing to watch on the tube, I popped the disc in, sat back and watched.

Humpday, written and directed by Lynn Shelton, revolves around the relationship between two males: Ben (Mark Duplass, who with his brother Jay makes movies like The Puffy Chair and Baghead), and Andrew (Joshua Leonard, arguably the more successful of the people involved with The Blair Witch Project).

Andrew is sort of the quintessential Peter Pan -- the boy who won't grow up. He arrives at Ben's home in the middle of the night and ingratiates his way into the placid life that Ben and his wife Anna (Alycia Delmore) have built. At this point, I sort of felt I was watching a low-budget remake of You, Me & Dupree, but Lynn Shelton thankfully had other ideas.

Soon Ben is standing up Anna as he follows Andrew on his wayward adventures -- hooking up with a bisexual woman (writer-director Shelton) and her coterie of assorted polyamorous pals. While getting alternately drunk and stoned, Andrew and Ben hatch a plan to participate in an "art" festival where each entrant makes a porn film. After some discussion, the boys hit on the very weird notion of filming themselves having sex because in their minds there's no such thing as straight men having sex together on camera. (If they were to check out the Internet, they'd see that there's a myriad of porn sites that purport to show exactly that.)

That's the premise of this well-made and surprising little movie. I will confess, it took a while to hook me in. The first couple of scenes were somewhat meandering and a bit too loose for my tastes. But then, those appear to be the hallmarks of the genre dubbed "mumblecore" -- low-budget with a slightly improvisatory feel. (I have seen a couple of them, but only one other has made an impression on me -- I'm saving that review for a more appropriate date -- oops, I may have tipped my hand there.)

Mark Duplass and Josh Leonard in Humpday.
   Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.

Back to Humpday. Once it settles down a bit, it becomes a really intriguing character study centered on three people. Ben agrees to do this oddball venture because he feels he owes it to his best friend. There's no homophile vibe. No one is secretly gay or anything, but Ben has an affecting confessional moment that helps to define his character. Andrew, for his part, just thinks it's a goof and like much of his free-wheeling life, he's just going along with the flow. He doesn't really take into consideration Anna until they attempt a get-to-know-you evening.

For her part, Anna is the most unusual character because she doesn't quite react in the cliched terms one might expect in a Hollywood film. Delmore has a flint-like charm and she comes off as the most relateable of the characters. She and Duplass have an easy chemistry -- they are belivable as a couple -- and there's one particular scene where she reveals something that is devestating to watch thanks to the superlative acting.

The final section of the movie is a comic delight as the guys head off to a motel to actually make their porn film and discover a lot about themselves.

So the upshot is that after a slightly rocky start, Humpday turns into a compelling and enjoyable movie about male bonding, the limits of friendships, marriage and several shades of love. Check it out!

The DVD has two commentary tracks -- one with the two lead actors who offer some interesting insights into the making of the movie, and another from the director, the leading lady and several of the crew that is equally informative. (My only quibble is that there are too many people offering insight.) There's also the requisite deleted scenes (most of which are easily understood as not being that germane to the film) and a behind the scenes featurette and trailer of other Magnolia Pictures offerings.

Rating:    B+

December 13: A Little Night Music

2009-12-13T14:52:00.001-05:00

In honor of the opening of the first Broadway revival of the Stephen Sondheim-Hugh Wheeler masterpiece -- which is one of my favorite musicals -- I pulled out my copy of this movie and watched it again.

The show is based on Ingmar Bergman's 1955 comedy Smiles of a Summer Night, which in turn owes something to Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Comedy in that both revolve around a series of mismatched lovers. Bergman's charming and droll film has been well served in Hugh Wheeler's adaptation. (As a side note, I feel a need to point out that Wheeler was one of the better musical book writers and his contributions to this play and to Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street are often overlooked in the same manner that Piave's contributions to Rigoletto and La traviata aren't always recognized. It's a composer's world, I guess.)

Only four scant years after the musical graced Broadway, Harold Prince had the notion to turn the stage show into a film. Unfortunately, it was a troubled production, despite the presence of a genuine movie star -- Elizabeth Taylor -- in the lead role. Financing proved difficult and there were starts and stops in filming. What ended up on screen is a pale imitation of the enjoyable stage musical.

It's always interested me that Prince could employ cinematic techniques when directing for the theater but put him behind a camera and he was at sea. His first effort, the Wheeler-penned film Something for Everyone, did not exactly inspire rave reviews. For A Little Night Music, the location was switched from Sweden to Vienna (because the score was written in 3/4 time?) which required renaming some of the characters. In the show, there is a group of leider singers who function as a chorus, but they are jettisoned, despite the film's first sequence that makes it appear the audience is watching a stage show. Somehow with the financial uncertainty, that aspect of the production got forgotten.

Instead, the audience gets a very turgid version of the original with almost all sense of the comedy lost. In a nutshell, lawyer Fredrick Egerman (Len Cariou) is married to his virginal second wife Anne (Lesley-Anne Down) who is the object of desire of his seminarian son Erich (Christopher Guard). Egerman decides to seek counsel from his ex-mistress Desiree (Elizabeth Taylor), a bohemian actress with a teenage daughter (Chloe Franks). She is also carrying on a relationship with a titled military man (Laurence Guittard) whose long-suffering wife (Diana Rigg) is acquainted with Egerman's wife Anne. All parties converge at the estate of Desiree's mother (Hermione Gingold) where the relationships get sorted out.

Cariou, Guittard and Gingold reprise their stage roles. None of the movie star names -- Down, Taylor and Rigg -- (who look gorgeous in Florence Klotz's Oscar-nominated costumes) are particularly noted for their singing abilities. Taylor tries mightily hard but doesn't capture the essence of the character. Her version of the show's best-known song "Send in the Clowns" is passable but hardly memorable. Gingold does what she can with her part but the best performance (in what is generally thought to be the best role) comes from Rigg.

That's feignt praise, though, as this film is nothing short of a disaster. Whether it was because of the monetary problems, Prince's lack of experience with film, bad casting decisions, or some combination of all, this version of A Little Night Music falls far short of the possibilities inherent in this musical. Hollywood has remake fever, yet they don't seem to want to take on terrible movies that cry out for a new version (like this one). Perhaps if the new revival proves to be a hit, then someone might take another crack at it.

Rating: D+

December 12: Ludivine Sagnier

2009-12-12T12:08:00.001-05:00

Happy Hanukkah!

So I recently watched several French films and, purely by accident and not design, there was a common denominator among them -- the actress Ludivine Sagnier. Sagnier started as a child actress and has gone on to amass a very respectable resume, perhaps most notably Swimming Pool with Charlotte Rampling. The films I watched were Moliere; Les chansons d'amour (Love Songs); La fille coupee en deux (A Girl Cut in Half); and Un secret (A Secret). Whether playing a leading role or a supporting one, Sagnier proved to be a luminous and arresting screen presence. She's fast becoming one of my favorite actresses and I'm awaiting the release of the acclaimed dyptich Mesrine which has been scheduled for sometime in 2010, not only because she's in it, but because it stars one of my favorite actors Vincent Cassel.

Moliere shares some of the same DNA as the film Becoming Jane. Both are speculations on the lives of a famous writer about whom there is incomplete information, both are period pieces, and both draw parallels between the author's life and his/her work. Jean-Baptiste Poquelin a.k.s Moliere (Roman Duris) is a playwright and actor who has been constantly touring the French countryside with a troupe of actors. He wants to settle down and craft more "serious" work than the crowd-pleasing comedies that have become the company's stock in trade. When the film opens, he has returned to Paris and is summoned to the deathbed of a mysterious individual.

The movie then flashes back more than a decade when Moliere was about to be imprisoned for racking up a large debt. He is "saved" by a wealthy merchant (Fabrice Luchini) who agrees to pay the debt if Moliere will assist him with a play he has written that he hopes will impress a local widow (Sagnier). Moliere poses as a tutor hired to instruct the rich man's daughters and also catches the attention of the lady of the house (Laura Morante). Borrowing from Tartuffe, The Imaginary Invalid and The Misanthrope, among others, the film weaves an intermittently entertaining tale. What elevates Moliere are the strong performances. Duris is usually cast as dour sorts so it's nice to see him get to cut loose and display his comedic side. He deftly handles the role and strikes sparks with Laura Morante as the neglected homemaker. Luchini captures the follies of a man led not by his heart but by another organ. Sagnier is note perfect as the frivolous widow who is more than aware of her charms. While there is a schematic feel to the film, Moliere is an enjoyable way to pass a few hours, particularly if you like theater, especially farce.

Rating: C+

A Girl Cut in Half is Claude Chabrol's modern-day version of the Evelyn Nesbit story. Evelyn who? Her story has been told on screen in The Girl in the Red Velvet Swing (with Joan Collins) and Ragtime (with Elizabeth McGovern earning an Oscar nomination). In a nutshell, in 1906, Nesbit was a model who became something of a celebrity because of her affair with architect Stanford White who was shot to death by Nesbit's unstable husband Harry K. Thaw. When Thaw's case hit the courts it was dubbed "the murder of the century" -- this was eighty-something years before O.J. Simpson.

Chabrol and his co-scenarist Cecile Mastre utilized the outlines of the case to craft their plot. Gabrielle (Sagnier) is a local TV weathergirl on the rise. She soon catches the romantic attentions of two gents, Paul (Benoit Magimel), the wealthy scion of a family who owns a pharmaceutical firm, and the older successful novelist Charles (Francois Berleand).

Chabrol has often been compared with Hitchcock and Sagnier's character is a relative of the many cool, icy blondes that populated Hitchcock films. The audience isn't clued into the reasons why she dallies with these distinctive men, although there are hints that she may be seeking a father figure in the older writer, and, of course, there's the cliche that every woman is attracted to the "bad boy". In any case, this is a love triangle that will end in tragedy; getting there is the thrust of the film and it's a bumpy but satisfying ride.

Sagnier does what she can with a slightly underwritten role. Berleand is forceful and charming, while Magimel walks off with movie. There's fine support from Caroline Silhol as Paul's snobbish mother and Matilda May as Charles' publisher. It's all very Chabrolian, and if you are a fan of the director's work (as I am), then you'll like this movie, even if it is not top shelf.

Rating: B

In Un secret (A Secret), Sagnier has a pivotal supporting role. This is a film that is difficult to write about because one doesn't want to give away too much of the plot. It is based on an autobiographical novel by Philip Grimbert and centers on Francois, a character the audience meets at various stages in his life. He is seen as a child, a teenager and an adult, all played by different actors, and the plot revolves around his uncovering a long-buried family secret that is partly based on religion and partly on a more taboo issue. Sagnier is terrific in her role but the movie really centers on Francois' parents (Patrick Bruel and Cecile De France), although Julie Depardieu as a family friend (and keeper of the secret) delivers the best performance. Directed by Claude Miller.

Rating: B-

And in what is my favorite of this quartet, Les chansons d'amour (Love Songs), Sagnier again plays a pivotal role.

First off, this is not a remake of the 1986 Catherine Deneuve film that bore the same title in English -- although it does feature Deneuve's daughter Chiara Mastroianni.

This is a musical, directed by Christopher Honore, and set in contemporary Paris. As the film opens, Julie (Sagnier) and her lover Ismael (Louis Garrel) are experiencing troubles in their relationship. To spice things up, they enjoy the occasional threesome with Alice (Clotilde Hesme), Ismael's co-worker. Julie's family has embraced the young man, but her mother (Brigitte Rouan) is shocked when she learns of the arrangement. While Julie claims that she agreed to the arrangement to hold on to Ismael, she also confesses that there are aspects which she enjoys.

An unexpected tragedy occurs which forces the various lovers apart and into new arrangements. Ismael deals with conflicting emotions and eventually makes a suprising choice. Since the film is called "Love Songs" -- one can gather that it focuses on the healing powers of that emotion.

Did I mention that this is a musical? In fact, one of the better musicals I've seen in years. Yes, the actors aren't trained singers, but that's part of the film's charm. The fourteen songs in the movie, all written by Alex Beaupain, aren't all that memorable -- you don't hum them afterwards -- but in the context of the plot, they work quite well. The best number is a mournful lament delivered by Chiara Mastroianni.

Sagnier is terrific as the conflicted Julie. Hesme is fine as the pragmatic Alice. Gregoire Leprince-Ringuet offers fine support as a puppyish suitor and Alice Butaud as Julie's other sister also registers, as do Brigitte Rouan and Jean-Marie Winling as Julie's parents. Garrel anchors the film, deftly taking a somewhat selfish lout on a journey in which he opens up his heart.

I have seen Love Songs several times now and with each viewing I discover more to it, like re-reading a good novel. This is easily one of my favorite films of the last decade and ranks along with Once as a wonderful musical and a bittersweet romance.

Rating: A-

December 11: Becoming Jane with Rachel Getting Married

2009-12-11T19:12:00.006-05:00

When I challenged myself to try to write a review a day for the month of December, I didn't realize just how much of an effort it was going to be. I've certainly got newfound respect for people who operate blogs for profit (y'all know who you are). I suppose I could just post about anything (and I do and I have) but my goal was to try to write about the many films I've seen in the last month or so.

Two of the more recent items to cross my path were Becoming Jane and Rachel Getting Married, both starring Anne Hathaway. Of course, I first encountered this actress when she co-starred with Julie Andrews in The Princess Diaries, and I'd watched her attempts to shed her perky image (which she solidified in Ella Enchanted) by co-starring in Havoc and Brokeback Mountain. Of course sharing the screen with that goddess Meryl Streep in the middling The Devil Wears Prada only served to make her more appealing.

But portraying the British author Jane Austen in a speculative biography? I was a bit surprised that there weren't more cries against this from the folks across the pond -- but then, lately, that seems to be a mini-trend -- allowing non-British actress to portray iconic English writers (e.g., Renee Zellweger inMiss Potter or Nicole Kidman in The Hours).

Well, Hathaway falls more closely in the Zellweger camp; she tries mightily but fails to convince. Granted this film, written by Kevin Hood and Sarah Williams and directed by Julian Jarrold (who was responsible for the Cliff Notes version of Brideshead Revisited) plays more like a 18th-century episode of "Sex in the City". While it is purportedly based on letters from Austen to her sister Cassandra, the plot cobbles bits from her work in a vain effort to cash in on the Austen craze that ceaselessly continues despite hitting its high point in the mid-1990s . I have to give Jarrold credit, though for wisely surrounding Ms. Hathaway with a bevy of strong character actors including the redoubtable Maggie Smith, as wells as Julie Walters, James Cromwell and Ian Richardson. Perhaps the smartest move was casting up-and-comer James McAvoy as Austen’s roguish love interest.

The period details are there, but there’s a blazing hole in the center because McAvoy and Hathaway don’t generate any real heat. It’s a pity because there’s potential in the story but the writers didn’t trust enough to run with the idea; instead they chose to fall back on Austen’s work and undercut the endeavor. Instead of making something original, they opted for a pallid mashup of Austen’s novels.

Rating: C

Someday Hathaway will find a vehicle that takes full advantage of her abilities. For some critics, that was Rachel Getting Married, but for my money it wasn't. Although I knew the actress had earned an Academy Award nomination for her performance, I was expecting a bit more from the movie itself. Truthfully, I had tried to stay away from reading reviews until after I had seen the film, but once I did and disliked it intensely. I was shocked by how many critics raved about it. I don't know what they saw. (But then again I don't "get" why people love supposedly great TV comedies like "The Office" and "30 Rock".)

The premise of Rachel Getting Married is fraught with promise: Kym (Hathaway) is released from rehab just in time to return home in a tony Connecticut suburb for her sister's wedding. Being self-dramatic, Kym HAS to be the center of attention, all the while decrying the fact. She chafes under her overprotective father (Bill Irwin), barely acknowledges her stepmother Carol (Anne Deveare Smith) and knows exactly how to push the buttons of her sister Rachel (Rosemary DeWitt).

The family doesn't exactly trust Kym and it takes a while before the audience is clued into why. Hathaway offers a detailed confession of her transgression in a monologue set at an A.A. meeting and undoubtedly it was that scene that landed her among the final five Best Actress nominees. Her characterization overall, though, proved that she was more than just a fluffy lightweight. In some ways, it called to mind Liza Minnelli's work in The Sterile Cuckoo. I mention this partly because I see something of resemblance in the two performers and if Hugh Jackman ever does The Boy From Oz as a movie, he should look no further than Hathaway to portray Minnelli.

The other performers vary from note perfect (DeWitt who captures the admixture of sibling love and rivalry) to hammy (Irwin who pushes too hard) to uneven (Debra Winger as the girls' icy mother whose confrontation scene with Hathaway fell flat instead of invoking chills). Much of the problem rests with Lumet's rambling, unfocused script -- the rehearsal dinner seemed to last for half the movie with guest after guest offering toasts to the happy couple. Who were those people? We don't know them? We don't care about them? We barely know the bride and the groom is really a cipher.

Jonathan Demme also has to share some of the blame, allowing scenes to go on far too long. It's meant to be atmospheric, but again, we aren't focused on the key players in this family drama and the peripheral characters are not developed and don't register.

There's a germ of a good story at the heart of this movie but it is not developed. Instead, we get Hathaway's diamond-like performance in a cheap and shabby setting.

Rating: C-

December 10: The Duchess of Langeais

2009-12-10T19:05:00.004-05:00

Several months ago I rented The Duchess of Langeais from Blockbuster (it was an exclusive to that outlet) and watched it. But I didn't write about it because at the time I wasn't making the time to write. I had health issues (a bad reaction to a prescribed medication), work was stressful and consuming, and while I enjoyed watching films, I really didn't feel like writing about them. I was burnt out after a decade on the job and need a bit of an extended vacation.

Well, the same film recently turned up on the Sundance Channel and I watched it again, because, frankly, I had enjoyed it a lot the first time. I also was particularly drawn to the film because of its French title Ne touchez pas la hache, or as it was known in the United Kingdom, Don't Touch the Axe.

Adapted from a Balzac novella by Pascal Bonitzer, Christine Laurent and director Jacques Rivette, The Duchess of Langeais opens with General Armand de Montriveau (the late Guillaume Depardieu in dashing mode), a military veteran of the Napoleonic wars, who makes a pilgrimage to a convent in Spain in order to speak with a Carmelite nun known as Sister Theresa (Jeanne Balibar, who also starred in the director's Va Savoir). After the interview, Theresa announces that she has lied to the Mother Superior -- the military office was not a relative but her lover -- and then the story flashes back several years.

Five years earlier, the pair had first met in Paris. At the time, she was Antoinette de Langeais and he was a celebrated military figure who had been wounded in battle in Africa. They share an immediate attraction, but societal pressures cause her to only play the coquette. Frustrated, Armand resorts to kidnapping the duchess and threatening her. But she continues to refuse to surrender herself entirely to him. He pulls away and she then recognizes how much she loves him. There's a failed rendez-vous that leads them to the Spanish convent and the film's tragic denouement.

The Duchess of Langeais falls nicely in with much of Rivette's work, embracing themes of enslavement and escape. The movie's logline could read something along the lines of Beauty and the Beast meets Les Liaisons Dangereuses. There's romance but the relationship takes on a decidedly martial tone. Antoinette enjoys being a flirt and a tease, but she pushes too far and Armand resorts to what he knows best, battlefield strategy. She becomes an object to defeat in order to possess and that leads to the multi-year separation which in turn leads to tragedy.

The cast is superb with Balibar appropriately mercurial and sensual while Depardieu delivers a memorable performance as the man who lashes out at that which he cannot have. There's also strong support by veteran actors Bulle Ogier and Michel Piccoli (the co-stars of Belle Toujours) who proffer advice to the duchess on how to handle her affairs.

Watching the film now, though, there is a poignance to Depardieu's work. He had lost a leg to an infection following a motorcycle accident, so he employs that in his characterization of this wounded general. Now, following his surprising death from pneumonia, watching his work invokes the same sort of feelings that seeing any performer gone too soon (e.g., James Dean, Heath Ledger), the prospect of what might have been. For many years, Depardieu acted in the shadow of his famous father, but along the way, he came into his own and was establishing himself as a strong screen presence. This film is one that serves as a testament to his abilities. Rent it or seek it out on Sundance.

Rating: A-

December 9: Hotel Gramercy Park

2009-12-09T19:54:00.003-05:00

Back when we both lived in Manhattan, my pal Beverly and I used to take walks through the city and one area we invariable ended up visiting was Gramercy Park. Bev used to say that her dream was to end up living in an apartment at the Gramercy Park Hotel. Now in the 1990s, the hotel had seen better days, but there was still a sort of shabby chic vibe. After all, this was a place with history. Built in 1925, the hotel had a checkered but somewhat illustrious history.

In 1926, Humphrey Bogart and his first wife Helen Menken were married there. A family from Massachusetts with the surname Kennedy once lived there on an entire floor. Babe Ruth patronized its bar, while literary giants Edmund Wilson and Mary McCarthy lived there.

By 1958, the hotel was sold to Herbert Weissberg and under his ownership, the hotel became noted for its bohemian appeal. Musical performers ranging from Bob Dylan to Bob Marley to Debbie Harry to David Bowie were among those who graced the halls. Things went along until the 1990s when tensions within the Weissberger family eventually led to the sale of the hotel to Ian Schrager. Schrager overhauled the hotel, giving it a facelift, upgrading its decor and generally bringing it into the 21st Century.

Director Douglas Keeve (who made the wonderful portrait of Isaac Mizrahi entitled Unzipped) was fortunately asked by a local resident of the Gramercy Park area to document the changes to the building, inside and out. Thus was born Hotel Gramercy Park, his delightful, quintiessentially New York film.

Lately, I've been very nostalgic for the Manhattan in which I lived and this movie helped me capture a small part of a time that has passed and an era which is gone. Keeve was fortunate to be granted access to the surviving members of the Weissberg family, several longtime residents of the hotel (who refused to vacate during its renovations), and to Ian Schrager.

What emerges is a portrait that is heartbreakingly sad (there was much tragedy in the Weissberg family, from the overdose of one scion to the suicide of Herbert's son David, who had battled drug addiction in the past), eccentic (mostly the oddball residents of the hotel, including Tony-nominated lyricist Ira Gasman whose lovely tune "Everything I Want Is in Manhattan" becomes almost his defiant anthem), and determined (Schrager and his vision of what the hotel should be, replete with art work from his private collection as well as provided by Julian Schnabel). The various strands of the tale wend together to create an unforgettable movie.

The upshot is that a quaint downtrodden hotel with history was given a multi-million dollar face lift and has emerged as a trendy spot. It's the way of life in Manhattan, where history is paved over to be forgotten, except by filmmakers like Douglas Keeve, who function like archeologists, digging out those wonderful historic gems.

Rating: B+

December 8: R.I.P. "As the World Turns"

2009-12-08T21:48:00.003-05:00

Well the idiots at TeleNext, the subsidiary of Procter & Gamble, have done it. Along with the cowardly executives at CBS (and I even went to college with one of them, the vice president who predicted this over the summer and to whom I say "SHAME!"). They have cancelled the now longest-running daytime drama "As the World Turns" today. Happy F'ing Christmas!

Can you tell I'm a little upset (and I haven't even watched the show that much recently), but it remained one of my favorites. My grandmother watched this show along with "Guiding Light" and many others that had already gone off the air. I have flitted around and catch what I can -- hell, I ordered Soapnet when it still was pursuing its original mission of airing soap operas.

Okay, I get that the shows are somewhat expensive, but if one examines the history of the genre and sees how much money they have generated in the past -- how the news divisions benefited; how primetime shows benefited from the cash flow, my question is, couldn't you put a little back into the genre? Stand by them while they are undergoing a bit of an upheaval. Cancelling "Guiding Light" after 57 years and now "As the World Turns" after 54 says something. Since one of the executives who was responsible for this is at 52 years old, maybe we should cancel her contract because she's old and out of touch?

There are so many problems with the genre that I can see the whole thing disappearing in a couple of years. Yes, several enterprising actors are turning to the Internet and creating their own shows and perhaps that will be the wave of the future, but I maintain there is still a place for these "stories" if they are well told. Part of the problem is that the genre devours itself and rewards those who are lousy by passing them around. Imagine if a sport allowed that. A baseball pitcher who can't throw any more gets traded from the Yankees to the Red Sox to the White Sox. Would that even happen? Or a basketball player who is going blind goes from the Nicks to the Celtics to the Jazz? Nope. Not going to happen. But lousy writers go from one show to another -- or worse, stay with one soap and drive it into the ground. Nowadays, fan reactions mean nothing to the executives and to the producers and writers. And DO NOT GET ME STARTED ON THE NIELSEN RATINGS!

I've said this one hundred times before, even I'm getting sick of saying it, but the fact of the matter is that these all-important ratings do not take into account the various ways in which people now watch these shows. Nielsen ratings do not measure DVRs or TiVo. They don't count when someone goes to a network's website and watches an episode.

And when people compare today to the heady days of the 1980s, I want to scream. Yes, I grant you that you had terrific writers working then, especially the late Doug Marland who elevated "As the World Turns" to must-watch television with his stories -- a man who recognized telling tales that involved multiple generations. But you also had fewer choices as far as channels to watch. Cable television was still in its infancy and hadn't made the in-roads it had. Viewers were still pretty much watching the big three (or four, if you counted Fox) networks. Nowadays, there's so much competition for eyeballs.

I'm saddened too for the actors in the city of New York. After "As the World Turns" goes off the air, there will only be one soap left in Manhattan -- "One Life to Live" -- and there have already been rumblings that it is on the chopping block. New York has gotten to be an expensive place to live, yes, but the talent pool there is extraordinary and I'm sick and tired of people not giving the actors who appear on daytime their due. Yes, there are the occasional "hair models" (as Nelson Branco of TV Guide Canada has dubbed them) but there are also many stage trained performers who appear on these shows -- actors whose names may not mean much to people outside of a small group but people like Scott Holmes, Ilene Kristen, Larry Bryggman, Kathleen Widdoes, Ellen Parker, and so on. Actor's actors.

Clearly the networks are in panic. Look at how NBC has virtually surrendered their primetime lineup to the competition with the boneheaded move to put Jay Leno on every night at 10pm. Oprah Winfrey has announced she's leaving daytime in 2011. Daily talk shows fail fairly regularly (Bonnie Hunt being the latest victim). Game shows are back in vogue. Yeah, I want to sit around and watch something I never watched when I was younger. "Price Is Right"? Who cares? "Password"? That died when Allen Ludden did. "Let's Make a Deal"? Sure. I want my daytime dramas back.

I know I'm just venting but I've met people who worked in this industry and it really pains me to see them treated so poorly by short-sighted executives. It won't change anything. But I do know that I will not be buying any more Procter & Gamble products. It's won't save the show or bring it back but it will at least bring me some slight satisfaction.

Tuesday: December 8

2009-12-08T20:44:00.002-05:00

Oftentimes I'm asked which actors and actresses I enjoy watching in movies. When I answer, most people have no idea about whom I'm speaking because I tend to shy away from the usual suspects and my choices such as Roman Duris, Louis Garrel, Vincent Cassel, Monica Belluci, Romola Garai, etc. usually draw blank stares. Among American performers who fall into this category is Gabriel Macht. I first became aware of him after his guest appearance on "Sex and the City" but I really became a fan of his in earnest in 2001 after seeing him in both American Outlaws and Behind Enemy Lines. Over the next several years, I watched him in supporting roles in great movies (The Good Shepherd), good movies (A Love Song for Bobby Long) and middling ones (The Recruit). He was the best thing in the romantic comedy Because I Said So (which depending on one's point of view is either a good thing or not). So when I read that he finally had landed a leading role in a movie I was excited. Then The Spirit opened, got terrible reviews, and bombed big time at the box office. Still, it was directed by Frank Miller and I had admired his contributions to Sin City, so I kept thinking "how bad could this movie be?" Besides, a lot of the time, I find myself enamored of a movie that other critics have disliked.

So I rented the DVD of The Spirit, popped it in and ... As the film opened, I was admiring of the decor and the look of the movie. But then, well, it became clear that Frank Miller without Robert Rodriguez was like oil without vinegar in a salad dressing.

In the comics created by Will Eisner, the character of Denny Colt becomes the Spirit after being shot and left in a kind of limbo -- not really dead, but not really alive either. The original ran for a dozen years between 1940 and 1952 but in 2007, DC Comics resurrected the character and someone must have hit on the idea that making a movie would be a good thing. Trouble is that Miller's screenplay doesn't exactly contemporize the character or his story. Instead, Miller treats the material like a 1940s melodrama cum film noir. As a director, he's clearly lacking the skill set to deal with actors, while as a visual artist, he crafts some attractive-looking sequences.

The performers are all at sea, performing as if different films. Macht, who can be charming and heroic, comes across as merely dull. Samuel L. Jackson overplays and hams it up as the villain known as the Octopuss -- and his campy performance makes some of the TV actors from the old "Batman" show look as if they were doing Shakespeare. The femme fatales, including Eva Mendes, Scarlett Johansson, and Jamie King, are all defeated by the material.

I went into watching this movie with the expectations that I would find something in it that I could appreciate, but I was wrong. The movie isn't the worst I've ever seen, but it is pretty close.

Rating: D-

December 7: Musical Monday

2009-12-06T17:00:00.004-05:00

Back in June, I was in Manhattan, just after the Tony Awards, and managed to score a great seat to the award-winning revival of Hair. The show, which is admittedly more of a revue than an actual book musical, was performed by a cast with zeal and an infectious spirit that I don't think anyone left the theater except in a jolly good mood. I had seen the 1979 Milos Forman-directed film when it first was released (and rather enjoyed it then), but a later viewing left me cold. Maybe I was just in a mood that day or something because I happened to catch the film again on the MGMHD channel (had no idea this even existed -- when I upgraded, it was among the listings) the other night and was captivated by it.

Screenwriter Michael Weller takes a lot of liberties with the rather skimpy original plot but much of what he concocted makes sense. He also includes homages to the stage show, including the infamous nude scene that closes the first act (now a skinny dip in a pond in Central Park) and an acid trip that on stage sometimes seems twee and perhaps even a tad tedious -- but here is a reflection of Claude's inner feelings.

In the film's story, Claude (John Savage) is from Oklahoma, has just been drafted and heads to New York City for some fun before shipping out. He encounters a group of hippies, led by George Berger (Treat Williams), and he eventually falls into their "tribe" that includes the pregnant Jeannie (Annie Golden), Woof (Don Dacus) and African American Hud (Dorsey Wright). Along the way they cross paths with society girl Sheila (Beverly D'Angelo) who also abandons the tony suburbs and joins the group.

Weller manages to work into the script nearly all of the catchy songs that Galt McDermot and James Rado and Gerome Ragni wrote. Forman uses "Aquarius" to frame the film and from the opening shots in Central Park, one immediately wants to go on this ride of a movie. Twyla Tharp did the choreography and there's some terrific staging involving horses in that opening number that still can cause one to stop and go "how did they accomplish that?" She also does terrific work on the numbers "Black Boys" and "White Boys" which inject humor and touch of silliness to the project (and the scenes involving these numbers include Laurie Beechman, Michael Jeter and Nell Carter -- who all left us too soon -- as well as Charlayne Woodard and Ellen Foley).

Forman is to be commended because he hired actors who could sing (several had stage credits) rather than relying on movie star names with questionable abilities. Williams is a charismatic ringleader (see the "I Got Life" number where he disrupts a staid suburban dinner party) and emerges as the genuine star of the movie. He's matched well, though, by Savage, who takes what might have been a cliche and turns him into a real person. D'Angelo is terrific as the not as uptight as you might expect debutante, while Golden invest her character with heart.

But hands down, the most electrifying moments come from Cheryl Barnes when she sings "Easy To Be Hard" as an anthem full of pain and hurt. The woman has amazing screen presence and a voice that is unbelievable. Every time I hear her or see this sequence, I get goosebumps. Even the time I watched the film and wasn't into it, her scene just touched me immeasurably. She's gone on to pursue a singing career, but I wish someone would have cast her in at least another movie. (I can dream.) This song alone elevates the film to a different level.

The film's ending (which I won't detail for anyone unfamiliar with the material) hits a bull's-eye and catches one short. It makes one angry, sad and respectful without succumbing to pathos.

When Hair was first released in 1979, it wasn't a box-office success, perhaps because film audiences were only open to dramatic fare about Vietnam. The previous year, The Deer Hunter and Coming Home had dominated the Academy Awards and Platoon and Full Metal Jacket were yet to be. Musicals weren't in vogue at the time, despite the yeoman work of Forman and his cast and crew. Over time, some have come to appreciate the film as among the director's better efforts. Now, more than 40 years after the original premiered on stage, and 30 years since the movie opened in theaters, it seems ripe for re-exploring. Try to catch it when it runs on cable or rent or buy the DVD. It's worth it.

Rating: B+

December 6: Golden Oldie

2009-12-06T16:57:00.004-05:00

One of my all-time favorite actresses is Bette Davis. I cannot really articulate why, but I find her to be an intriguing and fascinating screen presence. Perhaps because she was willing to take risks and play characters that might be unlikable. Perhaps because she was more versatile than many realize. Perhaps because she just happened to be a damned good actress. I got to work with the producers of one of her TV-movies as they were preparing the opening credits and wanted various photographs of her through the years. And then, I actually got to meet the woman herself -- which remains a very special moment in my life.

So, thanks to the good folks at Green Cine, I scored a copy of Old Acquaintance, a woman's picture from 1943. I had seen the movie a long time ago but I wanted to watch it again.

Old Acquaintance is an adaptation of a play by John Van Druten (who received co-writing credit with Lenore Coffee on the screenplay) and centers on the life-long friendship between Katherine 'Kit' Marlowe (Davis) and Mildred 'Millie' Watson Drake (Miriam Hopkins). When the film opens, it's 1924 and Kit Marlowe has just published her first novel. Millie is to host her visit and has everything all planned out -- and, of course, nothing goes as expected. It becomes clear that Millie is spoiled, petulant and somewhat jealous of Kit's success, while Kit envies Millie's domestic life with her husband Preston (John Loder). Millie shows Kit a manuscript for a novel that she has written and before you know it, the years pass and Mrs. Drake has become a successful writer of pulp romances. Meanwhile, Kit's work comes slowly, wins awards, but sells few copies.

We skip ahead and Kit is trying her hand at playwriting while Millie is spending money wildly, neglecting her daughter and her husband. Preston makes it clear that he cares for Kit who declines his offer so as not to offend her friend.

Another jump in time and the U.S.A. has entered World War II. Kit has acquired a younger lover (Gig Young) who helps her arrange a meeting between Preston (now a major in the army) and his now-grown daughter (Dolores Moran).

Over the course of the film, marriages break up, lovers come and go, but the one constant is the friendship between the two women. Of course, one of the themes of the film is that a woman can have a career or a family but not both. (Something that Davis herself struggled with off-screen.)

Hopkins has the flashier role and her histrionics are mildly amusing. The character is meant to be somewhat annoying and the actress perfectly captures that. Davis has the more subdued role and she excels in the part. Her role allows her to play the martyr and suffer nobly. Much has been written about the women's real-life dislike of one another and there's a famous scene where Davis literally shakes Hopkins in an effort to knock sense into her. It's capped by a clipped and amusing "Sorry!" But while that may be the sequence everyone knows, the overall movie is terrific.

The supporting cast is fine. Young, in one of his first roles, acquits himself well. Moran is fine while character players Anne Revere (as a bitchy journalist) and Esther Dale (as Davis' maid) do sterling work.

The DVD transfer is pristine, maintaining the terrific black and white photography. The extras include commentary by director Vincent Sherman and Davis biographer Boze Hadleigh, a Warner Bros. cartoon, a short Stars on Horseback, and a featurette Old Acquaintance: A Classic Woman's Picture, which has commentary by Jeanine Basinger, Hadleigh, and others.

The movie was remade in 1981 by director George Cukor as Rich and Famous, and at the time of this writing Cameron Diaz is attempting to do a contemporary spin on the material.

Rating: B+

December 5: Documentaries: TOOTS, YOU MUST BE THIS TALL, and CHRIS & DON

2009-12-05T13:32:00.006-05:00

I like to mix up my viewing between various types of films. Sometimes I get on a kick and check out a few documentaries at a time, as I did recently.

When I covered most film festivals, there were times I'd get frustrated because several films would be playing at the same time that I wanted to check out -- while other times I was scrambling to find something -- anything -- to see. Such was the case when I covered Tribeca a couple of years ago and the documentary Toots was playing. I had an interest in this film for a couple of reasons. I'm fascinated by the nightlife of the 1940s and 50s and had enjoyed reading books about that period (including James Gavin's INTIMATE NIGHTS) and I recall stories of Shor and his legendary nightspot from my youth. His was a "saloon" that attracted celebrities ranging from comedian Jackie Gleason to actor John Wayne to newsman Mike Wallace. This film, a portrait crafted from interviews with the man (conducted a couple of years before his death in 1977) intercut with stock footage and fresh reminiscences by Wallace, author Pete Hamill, baseball player turned sportscaster Joe Garagiola, and others, was directed by Shor's granddaughter Kristi Jacobson.

Unlike some family projects, Jacobson takes a warts-and-all approach to the man. With the benefit of those tapes, we hear Shor tell parts of his life story in his own voice. The interviewees provide additional color and Jacobson doesn't whitewash her grandfather's faults and failings. What emerges is a wonderful portrait of a lost era, when the common man could mingle with the celebrity. Although it took me a couple of years to finally see the movie, I was very glad I had and would highly recommend it.

Rating: A -

Having grown up in Rhode Island, I spent some of my time at the amusement parks in the state. When I was a kid, there were two main ones: Crescent Park and Rocky Point. Unfortunately, both have gone the way of the dinosaur. As far as I know, no one has made a film about Crescent Park, but David Bettencourt, in his feature directorial debut, has documented the story of its rival in You Must Be This Tall: The Story of Rocky Point. Now, honestly, I'm not sure just how widespread an interest there might be for this film, beyond Rhode Islanders (or former Rhode Islanders) and aficianados of theme parks, but I can say that I was immediately transported back to my childhood. Watching this well-made film awakened long dormant memories. The movie also taught me about the history of the place. And I actually knew one of the interviewees, a former employee of Rocky Point, who had been a couple of years ahead of me in high school. This is a specialized movie but one that was close to my heart. If you enjoy amusement parks or New England history, it's worth a look.

Rating: B

The last of the documentaries I recently watched was Chris & Don. A Love Story. A couple of years ago, I was working with a regarded writer who had some correspondence from Don Bachardy. The name sounded vaguely familiar but I could not place it. I was told he was Christopher Isherwood's lover and that he was also an artist of some repute. So when I learned that someone had documented the couple's relationship, I figured I might check it out and hopefully learn something. Of course, I knew of Isherwood; he was the author of the THE BERLIN STORIES which were the basis for the play I Am a Camera and later the musical Cabaret (both of which were filmed). Watching this documentary, directed by Tina Mascara and Guido Santi, I had some mixed feelings.

Isherwood was an established writer who had settled in the United States in 1939 (becoming a citizen in 1946). In the early 1950s, while living in Southern California, he made the acquaintance of young Don Bachardy. With almost a 30-year gap between them, the pair embarked on a love affair that lasted -- not without its bumps -- until Isherwood's death in January 1986. A cynic might claim that Bachardy has wrapped himself in the mantle of the "Widow Isherwood". While he is a portaitist of some regard, he main claim to fame is that he was Isherwood's lover. It's clear that the writer wielded a lot of influence over the painter -- as some have pointed out, Bachardy adopted the clipped intonations of Isherwood and despite being raised in Southern California, he sounds like he hails from Great Britain. But there are some red flags about this relationship.

First of all, there's the age gap. Yes, from photographs and home movies of the period, Bachardy was clearly a handsome youth. But the fact that Isherwood enjoyed a liaison with Bachardy's older brother Ted, who later suffered a breakdown, underwent shock therapy and has battled mental illness is presented in an offhand manner. It raises some questions that are not answered or addressed: Did Isherwood romance the older boy to get to the youth? Or did he transfer his regard for the older boy to the younger after the older became ill? Or was it just happenstance?
Due to Ted Bachardy's illness, we may never know.

In the 1950s, the relationship raised eyebrows, as much for the age difference as for the transparency of it. Neither man felt the need to "pass" as heterosexual and they went everywhere together as a couple. It was Isherwood who encouraged the youth to pursue art, resulting in Bachardy's career as a portrait painter.

We hear snippets of Isherwood's thoughts read from his diaries by actor Michael York (who played the Isherwood character in the film Cabaret) and Bachardy speaks of the times when the couple pursued other lovers -- including a time when it appeared they might leave one another. Clearly, this is an unconventional love story, but one that I felt wasn't completely explored. We get a mostly one-sided view and I was left wanting something more.

Rating: B-

December 4: The Living End

2009-12-04T21:20:00.003-05:00

Back in the heady days of the early 1990s when New Queer Cinema was at its nascent best, Gregg Araki broke through at Sundance with his anarchic road movie The Living End. I managed to catch the original showings back in 1992 in New York and came away somewhat impressed by the director's freewheeling style. He went on to craft similarly loosely plotted films including his "Teenage Apocalypse Trilogy" (Totally Fucked Up, 1993; The Doom Generation, 1995; and Nowhere, 1997) before turning to slightly more mature themes in the romantic comedy Splendor. He displayed a newfound maturity with the poignant Mysterious Skin (2005). I haven't yet seen Smiley Face (2007), his last released film to date.

Since I upgraded my cable system, I'm now able to stream films over the Internet and so I took advantage of my Netflix subscription to watch The Living End. I can't say exactly why I chose this one to watch except that it had a shorter running time than most of the films in my queue, it was World AIDS Day and perhaps I was just in the mood for a rollicking road movie about two HIV-positive gay men acting like Thelma and Louise.

Araki's plots are loose and leave a lot of open-ended issues. Some of his characterizations are broad, like the lesbians who give a ride to Luke (Mike Dytri), the studly hitchhiking drfter who turns out to be one of the film's heroes. Our other hero is movie critic Jon (Craig Gillmore) who, as the film opens, is told he is HIV-positive. Now remember, this was in the early 1990s when there were fewer drugs available and a diagnosis more or less meant a death sentence. Jon doesn't quite know how to react and while driving around, he crosses paths with Luke -- who has just fended off some over-the-top gay bashers, possibly having killed one or all of them.

Jon is a bit of a naif, so he takes Luke in, and the sexual tension gives way to real sex. The more they hang out together, the more Jon comes to realize that Luke is a loose cannon, releasing his anger at the world through violence. Jon breaks it off, but Luke worms his way back in one night when he confesses he may have killed a policemen. The pair go on the run up the California coast from Los Angeles to San Francisco. For the first time in his life, Jon is liberated while Luke begins to develop actual feelings.

And then ... well, the film sort of peters out. The denouement is meant to signify something grander than it conjures. The two leads are pleasant to look at and share a comfortable chemistry. Araki takes the cliche of the good girl falling for the bad boy and adds a same-sex spin to it. The film's ending leaves the viewer pondering about this couple's fate -- and whether they deserve each other or not.

While watching the movie, I had a vague recollection of scenes and characters, yet there were some surprises as well. I recall being mildly impressed with the film when it was released in 1992. I felt about the same way this time. It's not something I'd want to see again -- at least not for another decade, but it is a curiosity in Araki's career.

Rating: C+

Dec. 3 "Approaching Union Square"

2009-12-03T18:37:00.003-05:00

Recently, I upgraded my cable to include High Definition, so I now have a DVR -- which for me can be a dangerous thing. I've already loaded up on the occasional TV show (Hello! "Glee" and "FlashForward"), and have recorded several films that were scheduled during the hours I need to sleep. Over the last two years -- since I started with cable again -- I have been frustrated because occasionally a film I would like to watch appears on the channel's schedule ONCE -- one time -- and usually at the strange hour of 2am or so. (What that says about the films I want to watch is another story.)

So, recently I set the DVR for a small film that was playing on the Sundance Channel called Approaching Union Square. I selected this little indie for a couple of reasons. I used to live near and work in the Union Square area and I've been very nostalgic for Manhattan recently. And then there was the small matter that I was acquainted with one of the actors. So with a running time of 80 minutes, I figured what did I have to lose?

Without knowing much about the film, I settled in to watch and almost immediately I had the feeling that it was based on a play. There was something very theatrical in the set-up and the first scene is a woman (Katie Kreisler) talking to her therapist which culminates in the revelation that she thinks she's psychic. She soon boards a bus on which there are 9 other passengers and as the camera pans, it settles on one and there's a flashback to a recent event in their lives. Each rider has a moment but overall the only thing the characters have in common is that they are all on the same bus.

As it turns out, the film, which marked the feature directing and writing debut of Marc Meyers, was based on Meyers' stage play Love & Sex: Tales From the Trenches, which consisted of 11 monologues.

So once I "got" the film's set-up, I settled back and tried to appreciate the film. Overall, the acting was adequate with a couple of stand outs. The best known actor in the film would be Christine Elise (McCarthy), who played the recurring role of Jason Priestley's girlfriend on the old "Beverly Hills, 90210" series. Here she's cast as a woman seeking love and engaging in a long-distance flirtation. She does a nice job with an underwritten role. Others who stood out were Kreisler (perhaps because hers was the first and eventually the one that does ties the others together); Darren Pettie as a smug sex addict; Brent Crawford discussing an ex-girlfriend who is now ill; Victoria Haas as a cheating spouse breaking things off with her lover; and Patricia Randell as a woman afraid of many things.

Meyers is a better director than he is a writer -- personally I found several of the vignettes underdeveloped and undramatic. What may work on stage in a theater doesn't always translate well to the big screen -- and that is the case with several of the monologues. Meyers' staging and use of the camera, though, were assured and did not betray his status as a novice.

I got to see the actor with whom I was acquainted (and for several reasons I choose not to identify him/her) but there was hardly any shots of the streets of New York. The bus riders could have been approaching the Upper East Side or Central Park or anywhere in Manhattan (or even somewhere in one of the boroughs). For that, I was disappointed. Overall, the movie itself was intriguing and several of the scenes were enough to whet the appetite, unfortunately, as a whole, they weren't a filling meal.

Rating: C

December 2: "Les amours d'Astrée et de Céladon"

2009-12-02T19:14:00.007-05:00

I was a weird kid, no question about it, but one thing for which I'm grateful is that I started learning French almost from the time I could speak. My mom had learned it in high school, my older sister had studied the language (as well as Spanish) and my aunt was a schoolteacher who sometimes taught French to her students. I went to Catholic schools and French was part of the curriculum, so I had eight years of French, followed by four more in high school. Since there was a language requirement in college, I first chose to take French (hey, it was an easy A), but then I got ambitious and decided to study German.

One of the benefits of studying the language was that we got to see several films in French. Indeed, I have indelible memories of my very first French-language film: Truffaut's Jules et Jim. Is it any wonder why I got hooked? I managed to see as many Truffaut films as I could (this was in the days before VHS and DVD) so I was dependent on revival houses. When I got to college in Boston -- the city was bursting with cineastes and one could head to the Orson Wells in Cambridge, or the Nickelodeon in Boston or the Coolidge Corner in Brookline. Plus BU had a pretty great cinema club going -- every weekend there were wonderful double features. Those were heady times which I know are just memories for some of us older folks.

So eventually I got introduced to Eric Rohmer's films. He's a fascinating filmmaker, mostly because he treats the audience with respect and intelligence. Rohmer's films deal more with human relationships. Some find his work very "talky" -- me, I find them irresistible.

His most recent effort (and what he has claimed will be his final movie) was 2007's Les amours d'Astrée et de Céladon (The Romance of Astrea and Celadon). This is a rare venture into period filmmaking for the director. He had previously suffered commercial failure with 1978's Perceval le Gallois, which was adapted from Arthurian legend. More than 20 years later, Rohmer tackled another "period" drama L'Aglaise et le duc (The Lady and the Duke) which played at the New York Film Festival. The director employed digital technology to create the backdrops and the result was quite fascinating. I rather enjoyed the movie although I know it was something of a minority view.

The Romance of Astrea and Celadon was adapted from a pastoral romance that itself was set in the fifth century. It's basically a tried and true tale of love -- in this case between a comely shepherdess (Astrea) and her lover, an aristocrat who works as a shepherd (Celadon). His family doesn't approve of her and so he must pretend to woo another. She spies him getting a bit too friendly with the "pretend" girlfriend and misconstrues the events. Her jealousy leads her to denounce her lover, who broken-heartedly threatens to kill himself. In fact, he jumps into a nearby river and his body is never found.

Well, at least not by his beloved or by his family. When he does wash up on shore, he's found by a nymph named Galatea and her minions, one of whom is the daughter of a druid priest. They nurse him back to health, but Galatea is certain he's to be her lover. One of her servants, Sylvia, frees Celadon and with the aid of her father, a druid priest, plot to reunite him with his beloved.

As in any Rohmer film, there's a lot of talk -- in this case about the nature of love and its many forms. There's also a wonderful sequence between the druid priest and Celadon in which the men discuss religion. The performances are somewhat formal as dictated by the plot, but otherwise enjoyable. It may not rank as the best of Rohmer's oeuvre but fans of the director's work should find The Romance of Astrea and Celadon satisfying.

Rating: B+

December 1: Brideshead Re-Revisted

2009-12-01T19:03:00.005-05:00

Last month there was some sort of move afoot for people to blog on a daily basis. I never did find out why November was chosen, but true to form, I couldn't muster more than a few tweets on Twitter. And churning out those 140 characters took a lot of effort. I can't promise I'll fulfill a daily blog in December, but I will try to put up some posts. The project I undertook just over 2 years ago is in the end stage. Things are winding down so I now find myself with some time to play catch up and can watch DVDs, movies and shows on the DVR, etc.

Today at work I overheard a couple of people discussing a film from the early 1970's and one person made the observation that the story line reminded him of Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited. I'll have to check out said movie and see if that's true. What caught my attention was that I recently re-watched the 2008 film version.

First off, let me say that I was a young lad when the television miniseries aired over several weeks in early 1982, but on the heels of Chariots of Fire, it appealed to the nascent Anglophile in me. I dutifully read the Waugh novel and watched each episode, savoring the production design, the costumes and, with a couple of exceptions, the superlative acting. To be honest, I could not warm up to Jeremy Irons' performance as Charles Ryder, nor did Diana Quick do much for me as Julia. But there was so much more to embrace: Anthony Andrews as the tragic Sebastian; Phoebe Nicholls as the stalwart Cordelia; Simon Jones as the snobbish Bridey; Charles Keating as the slightly roguish Rex Mottram; John Grillo as the unctuous Mr. Samgrass; Laurence Olivier as the dying patriarch; John Gielgud as the eccentric Mr. Ryder; and the superb Claire Bloom as the domineering Lady Marchmain.

When the show was finally released on DVD, I asked for it as a Christmas present and my sibling complied. And I was disappointed that those who released the discs did nothing to spruce it up. The visuals are muddy in places; the pictures faded. The quality of the transfer to disc was disappointing -- but I still could (and can) savor those wonderful performances. The direction, shared by Charles Sturridge and Michael Lindsay-Hogg was seamless and while there is some debate over the credit for the teleplay -- with John Mortimer receiving due -- it remains a fairly faithful adaptation.

When I first heard of a planned movie version, I was taken aback. I realize that it had been more than a generation since the TV series, but why tamper with something that was pretty close to perfection. The project germinated over a few years with various names thrown into the mix: at one time Jude Law was to play Sebastian with Paul Bettany and his wife Jennifer Connelly as Charles and Julia. That casting fell apart due to scheduling conflicts (and truthfully I heaved a sigh of relief -- to me, Jude Law is the kiss of death for any movie. He's a good enough actor, don't misunderstand, but almost none of the movies in which he appears have made a lot of money -- and the exceptions are when he was playing a supporting role.)

Eventually, the film was made with Matthew Goode, Ben Whishaw and Hayley Atwell in the key roles. Adding a touch of class and star power, Emma Thompson was cast as Lady Marchmain.
Dear God! I suddenly felt old. Emma Thompson as the mother? But then I remembered she was in her late 40's. Where did the time go?

Anyway, I saw the movie in the theaters and was decidedly unimpressed. One of my friends challenged me saying that perhaps I went in to the showing with my impressions already formed, but I countered that I am open to new takes on material. I'll see various productions of stage shows -- why wouldn't I be open to different filmic interpretations? Andrew Davies who did the adaptation has made a career of crafting terrific adaptations of literary fare -- everything from To Serve Them All My Days, Pride and Prejudice and The Line of Beauty for the small screen to Circle of Friends, Bridget Jones' Diary and The Tailor of Panama for the cinema.

One of the biggest problems I had watching the film on both occasions was that it felt rushed. Knowing the book, there were certain scenes and characters who came alive on the page and whose presence I missed in the film. And I do feel that director Julian Jarrold made one fatal error: using the same home to stand in for Brideshead that appeared in the television version. I mean, in all of the United Kingdom, he couldn't find another stately house that could pass for the home of the Marchmains? Every time I saw a shot of Castle Howard, I was immediately reminded of the miniseries, which called up memories of that leisurely adaptation.

This version is adequate and provides a sort of Cliff Notes version of the tale for a new generation. Whishaw put a slightly different spin on Sebastian, downplaying some of the character's tragic impulses. Goode was slightly better than Irons in the difficult role of Charles Ryder, who is the narrator and through whose eyes the audience views the other characters. Hayley Atwell is also an improvement over Diana Quick; her sensuality doesn't seem as forced as Quick's. But as in the original story, when the colorful Sebastian leaves the scene, the plot begins to falter somewhat.

I did enjoy the peerless Emma Thompson as Lady Marchmain. She was at least the equal of Claire Bloom's interpretation and Thompson leant the film a much-needed boost of star quality. To my mind, Thompson's take was akin to what Maggie Smith might have done with the part if she were somewhat younger -- and that's meant as a compliment. Michael Gambon, however, was somewhat disappointing as the estranged patriarch.

Overall, the movie is lovely to look at, with stylish costumes, handsome interiors and an attractive cast. Purists may prefer the flawed miniseries while those unfamiliar with the TV version will undoubtedly find the movie acceptable.

BRIDESHEAD REVISITED (1981 miniseries) B+

BRIDESHEAD REVISITED (2008 film) B-

On a totally unrelated note -- December 1 marks the 21st anniversary of World AIDS Day. Take a minute to contemplate what that means, please.

Roman Polanski

2009-09-27T16:45:00.002-04:00

In a very odd confluence of things, I only just recently got around to watching Marina Zenovich's award winning documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" (which recently picked up 2 Emmy Awards for writing and directing for nonfiction programming). Now I'll admit the whole Polanski situation is a difficult one. As an artist, the man has talent; as a human being, he's lacking in something -- especially since he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl.

He is not the first filmmaker to engage in this sort of activity. Charlie Chaplin immediately springs to mind -- but, then again, at least he married two of the girls with whom he consorted -- and both females were slightly older than the victim of Polanski's crime. More recently was the Woody Allen situation but that appears to have been consensual. And even more recently was the revelation that the late John Phillips sexually assaulted his own daughter after plying her with heroin. I have trouble understanding the motives of men who would do such heinous things.

Yet, after watching Zenovich's documentary, I had a bit of a better understanding of why Polanski had fled. The film alleges that the judge presiding over the case, Laurence J. Rittenband, misused his judicial powers. Allegedly he was more concerned over his legacy and how he was perceived in the press than in serving justice. Polanski's lawyer and the district attorney had negotiated a plea deal that was originally accepted by the judge. The day before Polanski was to appear in court for sentencing, Rittenband apparently had a change of heart and was not going to allow the plea deal but was going to impose the maximum sentence. When Polanski learned of this -- he fled the country and became a fugitive. He romanced younger actresses -- eventually marrying Emmanuelle Seigner (who is roughly 33 years his junior) and fathering two children. The director worked in Europe and received an Academy Award for his direction of "The Pianist" -- a film I happen to think was one of the best of 2002.

After years of being a fugitive, he was taken into custody in Switzerland and is fate has not been decided yet. It's more than likely he will be extradited to the U.S. to face the charges -- since it was revealed the L.A. district attorney's office had a hand in his being arrested.

As with so many events in Polanski's life, the timing of his arrest is strange, coming just weeks after the 40th anniversary of the murder of his second wife, Sharon Tate, and the couple's unborn child. As everyone knows, that crime was perpetrated by Charles Manson and his followers and Susan Atkins, the woman who claimed to have stabbed Tate (although others in the cult dispute her version), succumbed to brain cancer the day before. Throughout Polanski's life, there has been a somewhat tragic arc. After surviving the Holocaust, his firstborn and his wife are murdered -- victims of a crime. Then, nearly a decade later, the victim turns victimizer and he attacks an underage child.

It's clear from "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" that the young girl and Polanski were both caught up in a miscarriage of justice. Hopefully, when he now faces the charges, there will be some closure for the now-grown woman -- a mother of three -- and for her attacker. Justice needs to be meted out -- let's hope this time it is fair to each.

Elizabethan age on screen

2009-09-20T17:56:00.003-04:00

As a kid, I was something of an oddball. I started reading Shakespeare at an early age and I developed a keen interest in British history. When I was still in grade school I recall watching "The Six Wives of Henry VIII", a BBC production that aired in the USA over CBS as a summer series. I had already been exposed to the story of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn thanks to the Academy Award nominated movie "Anne of a Thousand Days" but this drama provided a whole lot more. Each week was devoted to one of Henry's wives and I reveled in the acting -- Keith Michell who won a richly deserved Emmy Award, the late Dorothy Tutin as Anne Boleyn, Annette Crosbie as Catherine of Aragon, Angela Pleasance as Catherine Howard and Rosalie Crutchley as Catherine Parr.

Then the next year, PBS broadcast "Elizabeth R" with Glenda Jackson in the lead role. Jackson also portrayed Elizabeth opposite Vanessa Redgrave in "Mary, Queen of Scots" on the big screen. In many ways, it seemed to be the role she was born to play and until Cate Blanchett came along some 25 years later with the feature fillm, Jackson seemed to embody the Virgin Queen for that generation. (I acknowledge the peerless Judi Dench did win an Oscar for playing Elizabeth but that was more a consolation prize for not winning for her regal work as Queen Victoria in "Mrs. Brown".)

In recent years, there's been renewed interest in this period and these characters, perhaps stirred on by the aforementioned 1998 Cate Blanchett vehicle. British television (and PBS in America) have broadcast several dramatizations including a superb production of "Henry VIII" led by Ray Winstone in the title role, and a very good dramatization of the life of "The Virgin Queen" headlined by Anne-Marie Duff. Both lead actors delivered strong and memorable work and both were ably supported by an array of British actors: Winstone had Joss Ackland, Mark Strong, Charles Dance, David Suchet, Helena Bonham Carter (who years ago played Lady Jane Grey), Emily Blunt (who will soon be seen in "The Young Victoria") and Sean Bean while Duff's entourage included Kevin McKidd, Ian Hart, Tara Fitzgerald, Ben Daniels and Tom Hardy.

Not to be outdone, American television -- speifically HBO and Showtime -- have also tackled the period. HBO presented "Elizabeth I" with the divine Helen Mirren (who earned a richly deserved Emmy Award) supported by Jeremy Irons (also an Emmy winner), Hugh Dancy and Toby Jones. Showtime took a more soap opera approach with "The Tudors" which was created by Michael Hirst (who wrote the Blanchett film Elizabeth and its sequel Elizabeth: The Golden Age). Jonathan Rhys Meyers cuts an intriguing figure as Henry and Natalie Dormer put an intriguing spin on Anne Boleyn. But the show plays fast and loose with actual history so I have a hard time taking it all seriously, despite the presence of such actors as Jeremy Northam (as Thomas More), Sam Neill (as Cardinal Wolsey), Peter O'Toole (as Pope Paul III), Maria Doyle Kennedy (as Catherine of Aragon) and Henry Cavill (as Charles Brandon).

A further spin on the tale of Henry VIII and his second wife can be found in the two very different adaptations of Philippa Gregory's novel The Other Boleyn Girl. The BBC version from 2003, written and directed by Philippa Lowthorpe casts Natascha McElhone in the role of Mary Boleyn and Jodhi May as her sister Anne. Jared Harris plays Henry VIII. I'll confess Harris isn't one of my favorite actors -- which stems from a very difficult interview I had with him years ago. It's colored my approach to him and his work (including his recurring role on the third season of "Mad Men"). But the two women as the Boleyn sisters do a fine job, ably abetted by Stephen Mackintosh as their brother George. This is a more feminist take on Gregory's fiction which also has several historical inaccuracies. It's an intriguing if not wholly satisfying adaptation.

The TV version is only slightly better than the feature version released in 2008 which starred Natalie Portman as Anne, Scarlett Johansson as Mary and Eric Bana as Henry, with Jim Sturgess as brother George. Truthfully, I rather enjoyed this version to the BBC adaptation, partly because there's a sense that the filmmakers (writer Peter Morgan and director Justin Chadwick) recognize that they aren't making anything more than a standard-issue period romance. The focus is on the love matches between the king and the Boleyn girls. And as in Gregory's novel, the titular character switches between Mary and Anne. It's a feat not unlike walking a high wire, but the whole production has that feel of a good, bad movie. The supporting cast, including the peerless Kristin Scott Thomas, David Morrissey and Mark Rylance add greatly to the proceedings.

As you can see, over the summer I have been enjoying some "history".

Is Autumn already?

2009-09-20T17:14:00.003-04:00

So where did the summer go? Oh, yeah! I was working on a project that required a lot of travel and a lot of my time. We're in the home stretch now and I may still not have a lot of time but I did want to post a few things.

First things, I haven't gotten out to see too many movies this summer. In fact, I think I saw a total of ONE in the movie theaters -- and that was in Austin, Texas, of all places. I got really spoiled all the years I was a working critic because screenings generally started at 6pm. So now when I get out of work at 5-ish ... there's nothing. Most movies in theaters don't start until 7 or later. Which means I either have to hang out and be bored -- our office usually shuts down at 5-ish so there's no staying late -- or go home and then go back out. And truthfully, once I'm home -- I do NOT want to leave again. I'm lazy. I admit it.

I also haven't watched as many DVDs over the summer as I might have. In fact, I bought a couple for my birthday more than 6 months ago -- and they are still in the celophane wrappers! There were a few things I did watch -- mostly Showtime series like THE TUDORS and BROTHERHOOD (although I still have the last disc to finish on that one)

Over the summer, my choice of viewing has turned to Soapnet -- and catching up on some of the daytime dramas that I used to watch. Of course, the channel doesn't carry AS THE WORLD TURNS and it didn't carry GUIDING LIGHT which just went off the air after 72 years of broadcasting on radio and then TV. When I was a kid (and I'm dating myself here) -- like many of my generation -- I got hooked on DARK SHADOWS, which was perfect as it came on at 4pm when we were already home from school. But I do recall my bedridden grandmother watching her "stories" -- now defunct shows like SEARCH FOR TOMORROW and EDGE OF NIGHT.

Over the many years that have passed, I've basically watched every "soap opera" for a time, depending on a storyline or a particular actor or actress. When I was out of work in the 1980s, the CBS shows took precedence -- especially GUIDING LIGHT and AS THE WORLD TURNS. When I first moved to NYC, I actually harbored the hopes that I might one day write for these shows. (For a college class, I wrote a pilot and a bible for a series set in and around a college campus.) But I was never able to crack the seemingly tight-knit industry. I would hear about writer development programs, submit the proper applications and writing samples and then . . . find out the program had been suspended or ended or whatever. Eventually, I just realized it wasn't meant to be.

This did not stop me from watching the show, however. But now the daytime industry is going through a major upheaval. Only 7 shows are left and a couple of them are close to being on life support. Part of the problem seems to be that this industry is one of the few where if you fail at one job, you are rewarded by being hired at another show. The same group of writers and producers play musical chairs. They may "fix" a show for a time but often viewers/fans are alienated and then these people are fired and hired by another show either on the same network or at the same production company. This insularity can result in a form of inbreeding that makes it very difficult for shows to prosper.

Of course, the whole industry has undergone a sea change since its heyday in the 1980s. Cable channels and counterprogramming have eaten away at the audiences. Once upon a time, daytime dramas cost little to produce and earned large sums in advertising revenue -- money that was used by networks to fund primetime and news divisions. All that began to fall apart in the '80s. Some blame the O.J. Simpson trial for a decline -- but that was only a small part of it. The companies that were the stalwart funders -- like Proctor & Gamble -- more or less decided to get out of the business. And, of course, there were other cyclical things -- the rise of the talk show, followed by the rise of the judges shows. CBS now seems to think that people are going to want to watch game shows. I certainly don't.

What are the solutions? I don't know if there are any. I'm not sure if the genre can survive. When Soapnet, which was formed as an alternative for people working to watch their "stories", has lost its way and broadcasts crappy "reality" series like HOLIDATE and THE BANK OF MOM & DAD instead of legitimate dramas, then things are in a pretty sad state.

It seems to me that most of the shows have lost their way. There are a couple that still do the job, but they are few. The majority are like, as an example, GENERAL HOSPITAL. In the 1980s, they introduced a mob story line and ever since then that has been the thrust of the series. There was a long time when few storylines involved the titular hospital. Long-term characters -- that is veteran actors and actresses over a certain age -- disappear from the canvas. Fans become disillusioned. Sets get turned off and ratings take a nosedive.
I guess one of the "fix" I might suggest is to try to do what THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS does -- and what AS THE WORLD TURNS and GUIDING LIGHT did in the 1980s and 90s: utilize the entire cast. Jeanne Cooper who is 80 years old drove a major storyline over the summer on Y&R. While some of their plots may be disappointing to some viewers, you have to give props to the writers because they involve veterans and relative newcomers in storylines. Young actors get to work with the veterans. Unlike some of the other shows. Audiences aren't just interested in seeing teenagers and twentysomethings -- they want to see all ages and all sizes and all races. There is something very wrong when so many of the shows have so few African American and Hispanic actors and actresses.

I know there's no real solution. Although I had stopped watching GUIDING LIGHT years ago -- in part because the show was aired at odd times around the country (and I maintain that was one of the factors in its poor ratings -- it was not on at 3pm eastern when it was meant to be), I did mourn its demise. I'm saddened for the many actors and crew members put out of work. And somehow the world of daytime got a bit smaller. I know it probably will continue to happen -- at least 3 shows are on the chopping block now -- and sooner or later we'll be down to four or less. It's the passing of an era.

HUNGER and STATE OF PLAY

2009-05-02T21:47:00.003-04:00

Before embarking on the marathon of the Independent Film Festival of Boston, I caught up with two additional movies: HUNGER, which I watched on IFC ON DEMAND, and STATE OF PLAY, which I caught at the Regal Fenway 13.

HUNGER marks the directorial debut of artist Steve McQueen (no relation to the iconic American actor) and deals with Irish Republican Army detainees who are incarcerated at Long Kesh prison in Northern Ireland. The film doesn't deal directly with the political and social history of the times in the way that IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER or SOME MOTHER'S SON may have, but it still is a thought-provoking and fascinating quasi-experimental movie. The first and last sections contain barely any dialogue but the images are powerful and disturbing. The centerpiece is simply a conversation between prisoner Bobby Sands (strongly captured by Michael Fassbinder) and a priest (Liam Cunningham) who debate the efficacies of a hunger strike. McQueen and his cinematographer Sean Bobbitt work magic, creating memorable tableaux.

STATE OF PLAY is an Americanized version of a six-part 2003 BBC drama that involved the intersection of Fleet Street with the hallways of governmental power. It took several credited screenwriters, including Tony Gilroy, Matthew Michael Carnahan, and Billy Ray, to streamline the story and turn it into something U.S. audiences might find palatable. Of course, the finished film seems to be a bit too "smart" for the typical moviegoer, who is not flocking to the multiplexes to see this fine movie. Russell Crowe -- who I am convinced can play just about any character well -- stars as Cal McAffrey, a beat journalist who gets dragged into a breaking story because of his personal connection with the key figure, Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck), his old college roommate. He has to share the investigation of the story with blogger Della Frye (Rachel McAdams) and it leads to a conspiracy that is a bit complicated. I was glad I had watched the original miniseries as I had an idea of what was going on. My biggest problem with this movie was the miscasting of Ben Affleck, who is a decade too young for the role; he's supposed to be a contemporary of both Crowe and Robin Wright Penn, who plays his wife, but Affleck lacks the gravitas to be believable. And while I understood why the writers changed Della Frye from a straightforward reporter to a blogger -- since the themes of print versus electronic media were heightened in this version -- I felt it did a disservice to the character. Helen Mirren was on hand to add a dash of spice as the newspaper editor and Jason Bateman did a terrific job as a smarmy public relations guy caught up in the web of lies. While the American version isn't on par with the British miniseries (which is available on DVD), it still was worth seeing.

Independent Film Festival of Boston

2009-05-02T20:23:00.004-04:00

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I decided to dip my toe back into movie-going by attending the IFFB (as opposed to the BIFF which for some reason was scheduled simultaneously.) Because I have been sort of on sabbatical and I haven't really been writing reviews regularly, I decided not to attend the festival as a press person and just to buy tickets for the movies I wanted to see. Most of the films that I saw were screened at the Somerville Theater in Davis Square. One was at the Brattle in Harvard Square and one was at the Institute of Contemporary Art.

I will eventually be posting reviews of the films on the website (when I get the time). I just thought I'd give a quick run down and reaction.

Overall, the festival struck me as pretty good. The films I saw were of mixed quality.

Opening night was THE BROTHERS BLOOM, Rian Johnson's follow-up to his admired debut BRICK. Working with a cast that included Academy Award winners Rachel Weisz, Adrian Brody and Maximillian Schell, Oscar nominee Rinko Kikuchi and Mark Ruffalo, Johnson spun a stylized tale of con men and their female mark. While it was inventive, I felt it shared some of the same flaws that his first film did: the execution was novel and intriguing, but it couldn't be sustained over the life of the film. Scheduled for release in May 2009.

Next up was a double feature of 500 DAYS OF SUMMER and IN THE LOOP. The former is an astringent take on the romantic comedy genre, detailing the year-plus relationship between a greeting card writer (Joseph Gordon-Leavitt) and his co-worker, who happens to be named Summer (Zooey Deschanel). The leads are appealing and the film has grown on me as time has passed. It is scheduled to open in limited release in July 2009. The latter has already opened to rave reviews in England and as it happens is also scheduled to open in July 2009 in limited release as well. Humor is an individual thing and while I didn't exactly find this movie the laugh-riot that some of the British critics did, I enjoyed the film. It's a satire that hits more targets than misses and encompasses both the inner workings of both the British and American governments. Peter Capaldi leads the cast that also includes Tom Hollander, James Gandolfini, David Rasche, Mimi Kennedy, Anna Chlumsky, Gina McKee and Chris Addison.

Next I had a triple feature: THE BURNING PLAIN, WE LIVE IN PUBLIC and BRONSON.

THE BURNING PLAIN was probably the best of the films that I saw at IFFB. It marks the directorial debut of Guillermo Arriaga, the screenwriter of such features as AMORES PERROS, BABEL and THE THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA. As with those films, Arriaga focuses on three separate stories that eventually overlap. Although some of the tale is predictable, the no-nonsense directing and superb cast, including Oscar winners Charlize Theron and Kim Bassinger, along with Joaquim de Almeida, Jose Maria Yazpik, JD Pardo and Jennifer Lawrence make this film highly worthwhile and unforgettable. The film has already opened in the United Kingdom and will debut in the United States in October.

WE LIVE IN PUBLIC is Ondi Timoner's second documentary to win the top prize at Sundance -- an unprecedented feat. Her first was the terrific DiG! which was built around the rivalry of the charismatic but troubled musicians Anton Newcombe, the front man for Brian Jonestown Massacre, and Courtney Taylor-Taylor, the front man for the Dandy Warhols. Taylor-Taylor makes a cameo appearance in this new documentary that profiles "the greatest Internet pioneer you've never heard of" -- Josh Harris. In the last twenty years, Harris was something of a visionary, creating the first Internet television station (Pseudo.com) long before streaming videos, created an underground experiment called "Quiet" where many people voluntarily lived in an underground bunker with 24-hour video surveillance, and broadcast his life (along with that of his then-girlfriend) on a website called "We Live in Public", before losing his wealth and withdrawing from the public stage. The film is a fascinating portrait of a very troubled human being and Timoner does a masterful job in telling the story of this complicated and infuriating person. Unfortunately the film is only scheduled for festival screenings at the moment; hopefully some distributor with balls will pick up this terrific movie.

Lastly, BRONSON (which has also opened in the United Kingdom) is a film biography of Charles Bronson, just not THAT Charles Bronson. Rather, it is an impressionistic drama based on the life of one of Britain's most notorious individuals, Michael Peterson, who adopted the name of the DEATH WISH actor when he had a brief career as a bare-knuckles fighter. The film directed and co-written by Nicholas Winding Refn (best known for his PUSHER trilogy) is messy, kinetic and not altogether successful. But it does showcase a brilliant, star-making turn by actor Tom Hardy in the title role. BRONSON is scheduled to open in the U.S. in the fall of 2009.

SUMMER HOURS is Olivier Assayas' latest film and it deals with familial legacies, both literal and figurative. It's an accomplished drama headed by a cast that includes the divine Juliette Binoche, Charles Berling and Jeremie Renier with excellent support from Edith Scob. My only quibble with the film is that it felt like Assayas didn't quite know how to end the story; there are at least three places where the film could easily have stopped and left the audience feeling satisfied. I understood where he was going with the final sequence; it just felt redundant. The film opens in New York on May 15, 2009 and will be available on IFC On Demand.

The final film I saw was FOR THE LOVE OF MOVIES: THE STORY OF AMERICAN FILM CRITICISM. Critic turned filmmaker Gerald Peary traces, for the first time, the history of movie reviewing from its earlies inception (circa 1907) through to present day when critics face losing their outlets thanks to the shrinking circulations of print media and the explosion of the Internet. It's a mix of talking heads, film clips and history and Peary provides a nice introduction to the novice. Hopefully, the documentary might inspire the current crop of film aficionados to pick up a book by James Agee, Manny Farber, Donald Richie, Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris, etc.

Every Little Step

2009-05-02T20:01:00.003-04:00

It took me nearly 2 years but I finally got to the Kendall Square Theatre in Cambridge. This place is buried near an office complex. In the past, I've tried a couple of times to find it and now I realize that I was within blocks of it but couldn't quite find it. I feel like a moron because I finally relied on Google Maps and the satellite view to track the place. So now I know that it's about 1/2 hour walk from where I live and I'll be able to find it again.

The reason I hiked over there was to see the documentary EVERY LITTLE STEP which partly details the history of the stage musical "A Chorus Line" and partly details the casting process for the revival that opened in 2006 and the production that is still touring around the U.S.

I have to step back a bit and say that I saw this show numerous times in its initial incarnation. I saw the first national tour in Boston and the New York production numerous times between 1976 and its closing in 1990 when it was the then-longest running musical. So the show has a soft spot in my heart. I did not see the revival because I was working freelance and money was tight. I had more or less given up going to Broadway shows by that time due to the cost and due to disappointment in the few musicals I had seen in recent years.

I'll post a fuller review at my website soon but for now, what I will say is that the movie was good but in my opinion, the filmmakers couldn't decide if they wanted to make a history of the show or detail the casting of the latest production. As such, EVERY LITTLE STEP seems a little unfocused. Also, the filmmakers (James D. Stern and Adam Del Deo) try to create suspense over who will be cast when anyone who either saw the show or even read a review of it would know the outcome.

Still, there are moments that when the film soars -- like watching Jason Tam audition for the role of Paul and a large-scale dance audition that recalls the opening of Bob Fosse's great film ALL THAT JAZZ.

For a rating I'd have to give the movie a B.

Update

2009-04-12T10:07:00.002-04:00

Okay, so I started off the year with great intentions but we all know which road that leads down. I had made a resolution to myself to try to post more frequently and regularly -- but that was before work commitments became even more demanding. We're in the home stretch of a two-year project and while we are making progress, there's still a huge amount of work to be done. I get home and am exhausted and there's still stuff to be done. And basically, once out of the office, I turn into a lazy lump and want nothing more to either watch TV (having cable after all these years is like someone on a diet being locked in a fully-stocked bakery with freshly made goods) or playing video games. Anything but having to use my brain. And on the rare occasions when I try to sit down to write something -- most times I'm not able to spew out more than five words before it all goes to mush.

Seriously, there were days when I felt I couldn't string 2 sentences together. (Obviously, today is not one of them.) I don't really get out to see too many movies; again it comes down to being lazy. I got spoiled living in NYC and being able to go during the day. And as a critic, you could pretty much expect that there would be a 6pm screening somewhere. In the real world, movies start later and that's a problem for me. I want to head out after work -- but if I go home -- well then I'm sucked into a black hole of inertia. Also, a lot of the types of films I really like -- especially foreign ones -- don't make it up here except to play "special engagements" -- that is, 3 or 4 days -- maybe a week tops -- and then they disappear and I have to wait for video. As such, I've become a proponent of VOD which my cable company provides, so I can see movies in the comfort of my home for less than what I'd pay at the theaters.

Even so, I am trying to venture back into the world of movie-going. Stupidly, I'm doing it when the work situation is reaching critical peak -- but I keep hoping that I'll be able to compartmentalize things as I did when I was younger. I put myself through grad school, working a full-time job, attending classes at night, and even doing extra stuff on weekends. It takes a lot of energy and planning -- so we'll see.

In a move that can only be called strange -- Boston has not one but two film festivals occurring simultaneously. The Boston International Film Festival (running April 17 - 26) and the Independent Film Festival Boston (running April 22 - 26). Both have interesting programs and I faced the usual dilemma that almost all film festivals create: Which movies do I see?

I opted for the Independent for a couple of reasons, mostly because it had more movies I really wanted to see. But I have to ask myself what idiot decided that it was okay to have two major festivals during the same time? This city doesn't support film in the manner that it did years ago -- it certainly doesn't in the same way that NYC does. But seriously, the idea of planning these two festivals to overlap would be akin to the Tribeca Festival moving from spring to fall to compete with the New York Film Festival. There's no need for this.

Anyway -- I doubt I'll be posting during the festival -- I'm scheduled to see 7 films -- but I WILL do a wrap-up piece during the week of April 26.

In the meantime, I've been catching up with a host of things -- a few quick reactions.

DOUBT (2008) -- How can a critic offer an opinion on a movie that is basically about making judgments? It's a slippery slope, but this adaptation of John Patrick Shanley's play is well-acted and can spark debates about a myriad of topics, least of all the central mystery of the story. I had my own doubts about Philip Seymour Hoffman in the role of the priest, but he acquited himself nicely. It's the women who dominate though, with Meryl Streep, Amy Adams and especially the magnificent Viola Davis, giving memorable performances. Rating: B+

HEAD ON (1997) -- This was one of the first movies I was assigned to review and whatever I wrote has been lost to the ether. So I revisited it to see if my memories were valid. The film attemptes to capture the psyche of a troubled teenager in Australia. Ari (the charismatic Alex Dimitriades, who I thought was destined to follow in Mel Gibson's footsteps, but who seems to have confined his subsequent work to his native land) is a second-generation Greek struggling to define himself. His solution is to ingest massive amounts of drugs, party and engage in gay sex. There's a self-destructive bent to him and the audience watches as he pursues that route. The movie isn't quite a classic, but it's pretty good. Rating: B-

RACING DAYLIGHT (2007) -- An independent feature comprised of three interconnected stories told from different characters' points of view, RACING DAYLIGHT has a intriguing premise that isn't executed well. Sadie (Melissa Leo) begins to be possessed by the spirit of a Civil War ancestor and starts to re-enact the woman's romance. Co-starring David Straithairn, Jason Downs and Sabrina Lloyd. Rating: C-

THE DUCHESS (2008) -- The true story of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire and an ancestor of Diana Spencer, THE DUCHESS attempts to find the parallels between the 18th-century figure and her 20th-century descendent. Kiera Knightley tries valiantly to infuse the character with spunk but she is out-acted by co-stars Charlotte Rampling (as her mother), Ralph Fiennes (as her much older husband), Hayley Atwell (as her romantic rival) and Dominic Cooper (as her paramour). It's high-gloss soap opera based on fact with Oscar-winning costumes. Rating: C+

MAN ON WIRE (2008) -- A fascinating documentary about Philip Petit who in 1974 mesmerized New York City and points beyond by walking a wire strung between the newly-opened World Trade Center towers. James Marsh's film is a mix of talking heads, re-enactments and archival footage and photographs and it serves a fitting tribute to the buildings that were attacked and destroyed on September 11, 2001. My first sight of those towers was only a few months after Petit had achieved his "stunt" and for over 20 years I lived in view of them. The film captures the spirit of the times and was one of the best documentaries -- hell, one of the best films -- I've seen in a long time. This is keeper. Rating: A

Happy New Year!

2009-01-01T12:40:00.002-05:00

So it's 2009 and we're off and running. One of my resolutions is to try to be more pro-active on posting here. My work schedule has been taking a toll on me and then trying to run around and deal with the holidays not to mention the lousy New England weather. I have back problems that stem from a fall I took on ice in the winter of 2006 and with all the snow we've had it's been rotten.
The last year also took a toll on me as in an 18-month period, three close relatives and two good friends all died. It's a factor of life, but it also can seem overwhelming sometimes.

Anyway, I want to try to stay a bit more upbeat and hope that everyone will have a good year. Hopefully the new administration in Washington can work to improve the U.S. standing in the world and that our economy begins to improve -- although realistically I know it will take at least 2 years.

This year, I'm also facing a big decision as I've got about 9 months left on my commitment to this job. After that, it's the scary/wonderful prospect of moving on to something else.

Remake fever

2008-12-04T17:58:00.003-05:00

I suppose I'm going to send a mixed message in this entry, but I do feel that there is a right way and a wrong way to proceed.

So I'm reading my email and I look at this one that comes in from Zap2It and the Hollywood news seems full of remakes, particularly of 1980s movies. Now I don't really have a problem with a few remakes -- just like I don't have a problem with some Broadway shows being revived. It can be very intriguing to see someone put a new spin on a role. Well today's edition mentions that there's a remake of Romancing the Stone in the works. Then I read further and discover that Russell Brand wants to star in a new version of Arthur. And a writer has already prepared a script for a redo of Soylent Green. Of course, there's a new Footloose starring Zac Efron. Denzel Washington is fronting a new version of The Taking of Pelham 123 (which already was remade as a TV movie). There are reports that Disney is going redo Tron not to mention the umpteen horror movies that are in the pipeline. Also, let's not forget Fame.

Ok. Occasionally a remake turns out pretty good. A classic example would be The Maltese Falcon. But with this dependency on turning hit foreign movies into English-language pictures (including The Departed which IMHO did not live up to the originals) and now this trend of turning hit movies from the 80s -- what can we look forward to? A new Back to the Future? How about another take on Star Wars?

My philosophy about film remakes is that a studio should possibly investigate remaking movies that failed artistically the first time out. But I realize that it become a question of $$$$ and a known quantity will draw a crowd. It's just depressing when new ideas are stifled because someone feels that audiences crave a new take on a movie that was successful in its initial outing.

Maybe I'm just missing something.

Reading? and other Musings

2008-11-28T10:20:00.004-05:00

Do people read anymore? And if they do, in what form? That seems to be a issue getting discussed lately. The piece by Roger Ebert mentions that the Associated Press has now put a 500 word limit on all articles. I can recall a web outlet to which I contributed wanted its writers to follow a template that limited the number of words we could use, including a one-sentence plot description. Now, some of the more serious feature films cannot be summarized in one sentence, so it was always a challenge. The thought behind the AP decision is that people are so pressed for time that people don't want long essays.

What does this mean for literacy in the U.S.? We're gradually moving away from a society that reads toward one that is viewer-driven. You Tube and its competitors suck up a lot of time. I know I spend far too much time on the computer than I should. And it has taken a toll on my reading.

The last few years I was living in Manhattan, I didn't have cable television -- just had an analog set and the choices were the major networks and PBS. Consequently, I didn't watch as much TV. Now I've got cable and there are shows to which I've become addicted. "Mad Men", "Damages", "Chelsea Lately", "Ace of Cakes", to name a few. (Yes, it's an eclectic group, but then I've been that way most of my life.) I rarely watch the major networks and when I do, it's generally for pure entertainment. I really liked "Pushing Daisies" for a number of reasons: it was clever if a bit twee, but the cast more than made up for it. Anna Friel is a terrific actress and I have fond memories of an interview I did with her years ago. Lee Pace is one of the best actors working today. Don't believe me? Rent "Soldier's Girl", "Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day" and even "The Fall" and then tell me otherwise. Truthfully, I wasn't much of a Kristen Chenoweth fan when I saw her on Broadway (her vocal shtick was like nails on a chalkboard) but in this show, she's entertaining. Swoosie Kurtz and Ellen Greene -- both stage veterans -- are in a class of their own. And the guest actors have been stellar. It's a quirky little show that got pummelled by the writers' strike and has now been consigned to the cancellation pile. Well, maybe I can put that one hour to use in January reading.

Yes, reading. Books. I was chatting with someone recently and was asked the last book I'd read, and I realized it had been a while since I actually had FINISHED a book. The last novel was called The Story of a Marriage by Andrew Sean Greer (who had written one of my all-time favorites The Confessions of Max Tivoli which in turn owed a lot to the F. Scott Fitzgerald story "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" which is one of 2008's Christmas movies. I'm surprised that no reviews I've read note that some of the liberties Eric Roth took with the short story mirror some of the things Greer did -- but then again, do film critics have time to read?)

The last non-fiction work I completed was Everything Was Possible by Ted Chapin, a behind-the-scenes story about the making of the landmark 1971 musical Follies with a book by James Goldman and a sublime score by Stephen Sondheim. In synchronicity, there were not one, but two stagings of the show here in the Boston area in the fall, so I had finished the book and then went to see the two shows. The first was at the Lyric Stage Company of Boston, a small house with a stage the size of a postage stamp. Yet, the director, Spiro Veloudos found nuances in the book and staged the show in a very intimate but enlightening manner. The cast consisted of local talent and it proved to be an enjoyable evening. About a month later, The Boston Conservatory did a full out staging of the show, recreating Michael Bennett's choreography. Because it was performed by students, the cast was enormous -- very much like the original production -- and that too proved to be a very enjoyable afternoon. (I should mention that I also saw the infamous 2001 Broadway revival which had its moments but I missed the Encores! production in 2006.)

One of my eccentricities is that I tend to start several books at a time, reading them in various places. In New York, I'd have the books I'd read during commutes on subways and busses, the ones I'd read at the laundry, the ones I'd take to a cafe, etc. Here in Cambridge, things are very different, so I find that I'm doing more reading at home than anywhere else. Still, right now I've got three or four books going at once. The novel Loving Che, the memoir The Glass Castle, and the nonfiction For the Thrill of It. I did try to read Twilight but I found that Stephenie Meyer's writing was puerile at best.

So what, if anything, do people read (beside blogs). From my own blog reading, I discovered something called the Cannonball read but I'm too much of a wuss to try to participate. Plus, my job drains me so when I do get home, I just want to relax and not be intellectually challenged. Nevertheless, as part of an early New Year's resolution, I'm going to try to read more books and to write more about movies and other things of interest.

New Neighborhood

2008-11-27T21:36:00.002-05:00

In the past year or so, I've been trying to operate a blog of sorts through my webpage (www.murphysmoviereviews.net) but have encountered several problems with Yahoo and its options. Hence the relocation to this spot.

I'm hoping to use this blog to offer my views, mostly on arts-related things, but knowing me, it will occasionally drift off to other topics ranging.

A bit about me: for more than a decade, I worked as a film critic and entertainment writer in New York, first for a web-based company and later operating my own website. The company I worked for was sold to a larger one that was headquartered in California, so most of us got laid off. After years of struggling as a freelancer, I got an offer for a pretty good full-time job -- in Boston! Had to give it some thought, but I did move. The biggest frustration I find here is that the films I really enjoy -- foreign movies, documentaries, independent cinema -- don't really stay around here for very long. That is, IF they even get released here. Thank goodness for DVDs and ON DEMAND. So I'm able to keep that way, although there's a lag between when a movie gets released and when I get to see it.

Since there's something of a crisis now in the industry of film criticism -- more and more people are being laid off from print publications with some turning to the Internet and others just fading away. For an interesting take on that phenomenon, check out what Roger Ebert had to say (on his own blog!). Thanks to Jeffrey Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere for calling attention to it. Wells is someone I read rather frequently -- even though I don't always agree with him. But through his site, I've found some terrific writers. Over the course of time, I hope to build up a lot of links.

More to come in the near future. For now, hope all of the American readers had a very Happy Thanksgiving. And please send good thoughts to the families of those involved in the horrific bombings in Mumbai.