Hell, What Do I Know?

I am preparing, in advance, to deeply shrug at this year's Oscars. I have seen all Best Picture nominees except War Horse (thanks for the warning, David). Here is my ranking: Exceptionally Loud..., The Tree of Life, Hugo, The Artist, The Help, Midnight in Paris, Moneyball, The Descendants.

That is not, however, how it will pan out. Exceptionally Loud is hardly getting a nod. All the talk and bets are on The Artist, with The Descendants a close second. CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT?!

I shall practice self-constraint (as I've had to in the last few years) as I question, not MY assessment, but that of the Academy voters. Yes, I know, a bit of healthy arrogance in me. haha

So, blogsters, weigh in here: What gets your vote AND what gets your prediction, hmmm?

Drive

See Ryan Gosling in the picture? He's repairing a car. I chose the pic for the idea of "repairs"...this film needs a real overhaul!

OK, let's not get all worked up over an action-for-action's-sake film. It's only fair to expect less of the flicks that involve heists, shootouts, gangsters, thieves, and crooks! If a film appeals to our baser instincts, should we seek masterful themes? Probably best not to look for Downton Abbey in Drive!

That said, many action films are top-notch. This one is not. The problem is that Drive lacks good dialog, acting, plot, characterization, pacing, and believability. Just a few areas to improve!

NO spoiler, as usual, but here's the gist: Ryan is a cool dude who speaks NOT. No need to speak when you can just stare your way through a film for two hours. If there's a record for a main protagonists speaking the fewest words in a film, Drive's Gosling would win hands down.

Ryan is a fringe gangster, who drives getaway cars for a living. He meets pretty Carey Mulligan, offers to drive for her felon husband as he pulls a heist, and then things go awry.

Now I've admired Carey in a number of films, particularly An Education. But here she is also a mute starer, and with all that she has to say about her sorry plight in life, she needs to speak!

Will someone say something???

Al Brooks plays a solid gangster. He stands out in an otherwise fair to poor flick. Yet: The film does keep your interest, and, sort of, entertains. So let me say that for a night's amusement, the action flick will take your mind off such enjoyable themes as death and taxes.

I think the makers of Drive wanted to add to the Film Noir genre. The film was not noir. It was gris...for grey

L.A. Confidential

When I was recently in San Francisco, I again joined my 91-year-young mama at her "film noir" class at the Fromm Institute.

For those of you who don't know what the Fromm Institute is, it's simply the best-kept secret.... a Bay Area gem! In the heart of the city lies a small building full of bright, modern classrooms where expert professors lecture to "seniors" (I prefer "retirees") on a wide variety of topics. Just think: Folks who develop grey hair get to improve their minds and continue their quest for lifelong learning in an elderly-friendly, highly social environment, where the only goal is the pursuit of knowledge! Lest I sound like a proselyte, let me simply say that if such a learning center existed in the Phoenix metropolitan area, I'd live there!

OK, back to film. L.A. Confidential came out in 1997. It was chock full of extraordinary actors who created a fantastic whodunnit ambiance. No spoiler, but: The film takes place in the 50's, when there were few controls on police, and the concept of excessive police force was in its infancy.

Now take a story of police corruption and one or two honest cops who refuse to accept it.

Wow, what fun!

Just when you think you've got the story figured out, there is a new and unexpected plot twist. Add to the mix the beautiful Kim Basinger, a few officers who seek her out, and you can imagine the potential fireworks!

Yeah, the film's dated, but what a hum-dinger! If you missed it, please rent it! If you saw it and forgot the details, as I did, see it again!

Fantastic movie-making.

Grade of A+

L.A.

Prey

Remember Val Kilmer in The Ghost and the Darkness? That film was considered a gripping tale of man vs lion. Step aside, Val! Bridget Moynagan has taken your place!

Yeah, she's one tough lion fighter, this gal! Check out the picture above. That big male lion with blood all over his mouth has met his match! Pretty Bridget looks a little haggard, doesn't she? After all, it's not easy work trying to stay alive.

OK, you get the point.

You have to be into this particular film genre to really get it. Normally, I'm not. Fact is, I most enjoy shows on the big cats in such inocuous fare as Big Cat Diary. Truth to tell, the animals in nature are a pure joy to watch...when there's no Hollywoodizing about how vicious they are when they attack humans!

Big cat attacks on humans are incredibly rare, according to most data. In Africa, where beasts run wild, humans are more far more frequently killed by rhinos and elephants. But movies love to show lions, leopards, and tigers pouncing on us poor folks!

No spoiler, but I found this particular lion-hunts-man film very, very gripping. Bridget plays the new young wife to an older man with two kids who are not that crazy about the new family addition. So the husband sends the three out on a day's safari, where he hopes they will bond and make nice-nice. Bond they do...but under extraordinary circumstances!

When the lions roar, watch out!

Slither

True to my word of striving to appreciate varied genres of film, I watched a scifi/horror flick that really grabbed me: Slither!

See Elizabeth Banks above? Isn't she pretty? Well I posted that image so you can imagine how she looks when she is not covered in gore! Haha!

No spoiler, but: The film starts so benignly. We meet pert Elizabeth married to a rich dude who loves her but mistreats her. We soon realize that her heart has long belonged to the local sheriff, played by Nathan Fillion. Is this really gonna be a horror film, or just an intriguing story about life and love in a small town?

Hold on tight, sports fans, because the monsters have yet to arrive! See, as the film opens, a meteor crashes through space and lands on earth, not far, of course from the local town. And inside the rock is....okay, just imagine! It's something from outer space. And something that slithers!

Oh, how the light fare changes! And fast! Before long, humans are changing, and none for the better!

It's all fun, because it's sort of tongue in cheek. But the uniqueness of this film is in its extreme imagery. Yeah, it's tops for scenes of alien critters, blood, gore, madness....way up there indeed!

So for enthusiasts of the genre where little aliens from outer space turn earth beings upside down (and inside out!), this film is a must!

Not for the sqeamish or faint of heart!

A- grade.

PS: If you decide to watch, be prepared to dim the sound in the very scary parts...and don't be afraid to look away from the screen!

PS2: Elizabeth Banks said, in a TV interview, that this was most fun she ever had making a film!

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Recent Hugo debate aside (:-) I am again urging one and all who truly appreciate film to see this one. My prediction: this WILL earn Best Picture Oscar.

Based on the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer (thanks for telling me to read it, daughter!), a literary tour de force, the story is told by a 9 year old boy who has lost his father in 9.11. Keeping to my pledge of a general nod or not in this blog, I will simply say that this extraordinary story and directing of it serves as an anthem for every American post September 11.

I will think about this movie for a long, long time, just as the novel left its indelible mark on my heart.

Soul Surfer

I'm not into tear-jerkers, so when I say that this film is uplifting rather than sad hopefully my words will ring true. Hats off to a story that is tragic, yet inspires rather than depresses.

The DVD cover gives the basic plot away, so I can speak broadly about the film without being a spoiler. Bethany Hamilton was an athletic, competitive surfer with a bright future and solid reputation among the beach crowd. Then one day, a massive shark took a chunk out of her surf board and removed her left arm in the process.

Anna Sophia Robb, the starlet above, is great as the teen who refuses to give up, despite having to re-orient her life. Encouraged by her family (with Dennis Quaid at the helm, and in good form), she learns to face life positively in spite of her accident.

The film has broad appeal, in my view. Surfing is not what this film is about. It's about how, with the proper mindset and a never-quit attitude, we can all face life's misfortunes with fortitude, courage, and optimism.

So don't shy away from this fine piece of work. When the movie is over, you will admire Bethany for her extraordinary drive and perseverance.

Grade A-

The Ides of March

Among many film interests that I have, I would count political thrillers as the least interesting. I was never that impressed with the '72 blockbuster Watergate. Nor was I really intrigued by Charlie Wilson's War. The genre just does not do much for me...which is all the more reason that my endorsement of The Ides of March should bear a little extra weight.

No spoiler from this reviewer. The basic plot? All I will say is that the story centers around the concept of leverage: Journalists and worker bees in the political campaigns somehow get dirt on other candidates and use this dirt to their advantage. Or more simply put: Politicians do something ethically wrong (as they ALWAYS do!), someone blackmails them, and then all kinds of unexpected things happen!

The acting? Marvelous. Ryan Gosling, known mostly for his maudlin, soapy roles as loverboy in any number of tearjerkers, really delivers a special performance, proving he's not just another Hollywood hunk. George Clooney is always great...and with so many strong roles to his credit, he is emerging as a Meryl Streep among male performers. Evan Rachel Wood, with a long history of film credits, comes of age as the young female intern who sets the calm political world on fire!

One caution: The film really drags at first. I was wondering if I could stay awake. Then, about a third of the way through, it turns into a political/action story. At that point, I was hooked!

Grade: A-

I add the minus only for pacing issues. Otherwise, it's a must-see, even for folks like me who don't really dig political films.

Moneyball

Batter up! Yes, sports fans, it's time for another baseball flick! Remember The Natural? Remember Field of Dreams? Well, Moneyball is a solid, original piece of work!

OK, you would not expect America heartthrob Brad Pitt to pull this off. He's a handsome dude, and I've heard of females going wild at the very thought of the sexy idol! Remember his early appearance in Thelma and Louise as the hitcher with the tight jeans who wows Geena Davis?

I prefer to recall Brad in 12 Monkeys. His acting in this sci-fi time travel piece was outstanding, particularly in the company of the very deft Madeleine Stowe. In truth, Mr Pitt has been somewhat overlooked as a really great actor.

In Moneyball, he plays the general manager of a baseball team without solid finances. NO spoiler, as usual, so I cannot divulge much. But suffice it to say that Brad's character has the very bold and original idea of building a baseball team on a limited budget. No New York Yankees billions needed! Therein lies the originality of the story.

Backing up Brad is the very able Jonah Hill. As the numbers man, with the serious frown and humorless demeanor, Hill is exceptional. He was nominated for best supporting actor at a recent awards ceremony, with good cause. Hill seems to have gotten into Hollywood because he somehow became close friends with Dustin Hoffman and wife.

So, baseball lovers, here's a fine film for you!

Grade: A

Super acting, unusual plotline, believable story...because it's true!

Hugo redux: David's View!

Hahahhaa....How much fun it is to spar with you, smart film partner! It sometimes gets most enjoyable on our blog when we put on the boxing gloves!

I chose the picture above because I thought your arguments might possibly be clinging as tentatively to reality as Hugo's hands are to the clock! Just kidding! I said "possibly" because you actually have some very solid points. But I'll argue a bit just he same!

Since you make some excellent points, I must simply embellish them a bit to include another divergent view...mine...haha!

OK, first off, the film's billing. Right, Scorsese did not advertise this as a kiddie film, but usually when the kid is the main protagonist, and there's a hint of whimsy, charm, and fantasy, some of us more gullible adults figure we outta take the kids. After all, looking at the boy hanging from the clock (many of these scenes were in the trailer and picture ads), wouldn't you figure you're not going to see Attilla the Hun?

Mickey Mouse: Yeah, good point on Elmer Fudd and Roadrunner. There is indeed violence in even the meekest kiddie films. And guns. And knives. Yet: When I used to have a choice between watching Roadrunner with my little granddaughters or Mary Poppins, which do you think I chose? I stand rightfully accused, dear colleague, of trying to protect my little girls from the nasty world at large as long as possible.

Next point: Children are smarter and more worldly than we think. True. So True. But oh so sad. Just because our society continues to flaunt its more pedestrian side to kids, is this trend worth following? Case in point: the recent superbowl. We were watching with our girls, enjoying the great American Pastime. Then an ad appears with a slinky young beauty, advertising some product with her curves and sex appeal that made an old guy like me look! Oh my, oh my. Cover the kids' eyes! Just kidding, because I'm very open minded...but why must kids be exposed to this adult behavior just because they are sitting next to grampa enjoying some family fun? You will argue that football is violence par excellence: right you will be, Valerie!

You say: I saw no child abuse here... You were referencing Ben Kingsley's mean character, of course. I saw the opposite. An old man snatches a kid's personal diary and refuses to return it. He threatens the kid with police action if the kid protests. Frankly, if I were standing at the booth next door, I'd intervene and tell the old man to return the notebook....and maybe curl a fist or two to persuade him. I was really put off by that nastiness toward an innocent kid.

Re: Sascha. You say: I did not see dozens of truly mistreated, woeful children... I beg to differ, good friend. He was all-too-Faganlike for me. OK, he was not a really wicked, mean man. But somehow I did not like the idea of him putting kids in his little cage in the back room. I did not forgive the harsh cop at the end, even with the intended redemption. Again, I would cringe in reality at the thought of seeing a child-hunting cop in a train station rounding up waifs and verbally scaring them.

Boy meets girl: OK, I'll give a bit on this point. Yeah, kids like to hold hands when they're buddies. But the girl looked like maybe 13. And the boy around 10. Dunno. A bit weird, quand meme!

You say that adult themes have always invaded the pure world of kids. I would offer the same point as above. True, true. But is it right? Must we just live with it because it has always been done? Quite often, I leave a film dealing with adult topics saying that kids characters should not have been present and added nothing to the film. I agree with you that we sometimes enjoy films less with the kids at our side. Like your friend Pam, I might be more apt to enjoy adult humor sans enfants.

Automatons: I too enjoy the whole theme. As a kid, my mama took me to NYC to put coins in the automats that served food. I still wish we had home robots to do our chores. I would revel in a world with Robin Williams-like machines as our pals and helpers. But: Why was the automaton theme included among so many others in this film? Seemed sort of out of place.

A meandering mess, I said. You said, au contraire! I think we're both right. The darn plot went all over the map but it did indeed focus more towards the end. Truce on this point, ok?

Finally, I found the film dour, you found it uplifting! I say tomaaaato, you say tomaaaaahto!

Thank you for your insightful counter-arguments, dear colleague. I concede several of your points...wishing, all the while, for a more perfect world where I could bury my head like an ostrich and emerge in a utopia where no child ever faces misery!

The Hugo debate continues...

Wow. To my dear friend, and occasional sparring partner, I offer point-counterpoint.

“If this is a kid's movie…”
At no time, throughout promotions, trailers or interviews did I have any sense I was going to see a children’s movie (as opposed to Tin-Tin, for example). A movie with a child protagonist does not a child’s movie make. True, this is a departure for Scorcese and one, as he says, he can take his daughter to (which I agree, compared to most of his work), but none of the pacing, tone, or theme would hold a child’s interest.

Mickey Mouse?! You really saw this film aimed at the same audience? Even Elmer Fudd was forever shooting off his shotgun and Roadrunner? Fugetaboutit.

O.k., even to a child audience, I take exception to your concerns. Children are smarter and more worldly than we think. All kids encounter grumpy old men. Welcome to life. It is how other children see them handle it that counts. Movies are lessons on life in action.

I saw no child abuse here. (and frankly, I suspect we have no more now than in years past; it’s just openly confronted, discussed, prosecuted, etc.) Also, seeing this set in a different time period provides a buffer, perhaps.

On to Sascha Baron Cohen – a welcome comic relief. I did not see dozens of truly mistreated, woeful children being beaten or starved (Fagan far worse in Oliver). Hugo’s containment was very brief, and Cohen’s redemption in the end moved me greatly.

Boy meets girl. I thought it was sweet, never vulgar or immodest. Holding hands? This bothered you? Boys and girls at their age do form lovely friendships sometimes; I saw nothing salacious in it, and again, we have numerous precedents in film.

“I can’t stand it when adult themes invade the pure world of kids” – I suggest they ALWAYS do. Here I saw themes of a father’s and boy’s love for each other, redemption on several characters’ parts, a child learning how to survive, an angry old man and a young, loving boy who share a passion for tinkering, imagination, and creativity.

I admit a prior interest in automatons. Used to teach about them in relation to Frankenstein, as they were one of many of Mary Shelley’s influences. I love them.

“meandering mess.” Haha Meandering, yes. Mess, oh contrare, very calculating. I did admit that the film is slow…for some time, leaving me to wonder, is this going anywhere. But then it did! Even down to the sub-plot of the two older people at the boulangerie who finally connect.

I am wondering if your entire experience might have been a bit different had you not been in attendance with your little granddaughters. I know when I take another, I am too distracted by “how do they like it?” wanting to please all. (Pam Baack hated Borat, merely because she was sitting there watching that outrageous naked scene, with her two sons!)

I loved that this was a different kind of story, especially a true one. I'm compelled to read the book.

“Mostly moments of dour feelings and negative views of life.” We had such different experiences. That’s what makes film so interesting, eh?

Hugo

I must begin my review by referencing my esteemed colleague's insightful comments earlier on this site:

There is something to be said for knowing next to nothing about a film prior to seeing it. One sits in a dark theater and just allows a story to unfold. Son, Greg and I went on a magical mystery tour watching Hugo. Set in early 20th c. Paris, (Hear that, David? Hear that, Jenna?) this latest by Martin Scorsese focuses on a young orphan who lives in, and operates, the clock tower of Paris's train station. With themes and references to Deism, post-Industrial Revolution obsession with automatrons, and class injustice, the film, while immediately captivating starts slowly in plot, causing this viewer to briefly wonder, where is this going? And then, the magic gathers steam. Suddenly we have a multi-layered tale stitched together with great care and love. For, in the end, this is a love story of sorts, Scorsese's Valentine to film.

Yes, Valerie, so true. The film does have moments of magic, as it unfolds like a flower. Check out the key above. The viewer needs to remember throughout the flick that the plot is all about finding the key...

That said, I must protest some of the themes in the movie. If this is a kid's movie, which it purports to be (after all, we took our grandkids), then I feel like the adult world is all too present.

I was put off by Ben Kingsley's role as the abusive grump, who steals a poor waif's notebook and verbally decimates the young protagonist. OK, in many fairy tales, adults are mean to kids, as in Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella, and more. But in 2012, with so much child abuse around, is this really necessary?

I think I must re-read the classic work on kids and fairy tales: The Uses of Enchantment, by Bruno Bettleheim. In that tome, the famous psychologist argues that kids need to view cruelty to manage their own fears and work through them. NOT sure I agree!

Next point: Sasha Baron Cohen as the mean, child-hunting inspector of the train station. OK, he's a comic like none other. Yeah, I laughed a bit when he tried to practice his smiles. One light moment, however, could not help me enjoy his very negative role as the policemen who rounds up waifs trying to survive, puts them in cages, and threatens them with mean foster parents.

Onward: The young waif meets a girl he likes. Fine. Kids make friends. But before long, they're holding hands, and she's sort of an early adolescent, so again, discomfort sets in. Sorry, but I like my kiddie films nice and kiddie oriented. I can't stand it when adult themes invade the pure world of kids. Get me back to Mickey Mouse!

My other great concern? A meandering mess of a film. Right, Valerie, the film sort of finally arrives at Scorsese's tribute to the old silents. But why such a strange, circuitous vehicle to get there?

The boy in the tower? Why? What for? What deep symbolism evades me? A voyage through time? And all the automaton idolatry: very strange!

I must confess I feel very out of place. I was not at all impressed with a film that recently garnered no less than 11 Oscar nominations!

Go ahead, readers, tell me I'm wrong!

My grade for the Scorsese mish-mash: C

Sure, moments of charm. Mostly moments of dour feelings and negative views of life.

PS: Yeah, loved the shots of Paris, Valerie!

PS2: Fantastic cinematography...I admit it.

Speed of Thought

Check out the handsome actors both left and right! They do a great job as "seers" in a fine sci-fi caper.

What's the film about? NO spoiler, needless to say, but you have only 28 young folks in the U.S. who have been discovered to be not only telepathic, but capable of entering each others' minds!

Fun!

Here's the rub: What if you're a "normal," as the non-seers are called? What if, like you or me, you don't want one of those 28 freaks getting inside your mind? What if you found out that as the young people age, their weird mind-inside-mind talents grow?

Enter the government who decides it must control these strange souls!

OK, plot set. Nick Stahl and Mia Maestro, two mind-powered young people, heat up the screen when they fall in love. Drawn to each other, to "bond", they simply go inside each others' heads. Careful now....what is in their thoughts?

Nick Stahl is great. He earned his stripes in Terminator 3, where he led the free world against the machines, with the always-over-emotive Claire Danes at his side. Mia Maestro? She's dazzling...and seems to be in movies only because she is the best friend of Salma Hayek!

I enjoyed this light fare. It kept me watching. There are good folks and baddies. We root for the seers, of course...so go "SEE" this flick!

Grade B+