LadyLiberty Reviews

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

The Hobbit is a Journey Well Worth the Trip

[8/10 · 6 January 2013]

It will doubtless come as no surprise to you that I'm a fan of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (no one was more delighted than me when The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King won its Best Picture Oscar, and well deserved it was!). But while you might think that's to the movie-maker's advantage, it isn't. Sure, I'm predisposed to like the film. On the other hand, you do not mess with something as beloved as Tolkien's masterpiece! Director/Producer Peter Jackson didn't disappoint with his Lord of the Rings series, and I'm truly pleased to say that — so far, at least — he's managed to engineer the same feat with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (part 1 in a series of 3).

The Hobbit takes place sixty years before the events that unfold in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A much younger Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) is unexpectedly approached by a wizard he scarcely remembers having met as a child. Gandalf (Ian McKellen) wants Bilbo to go on an adventure, something the stay-at-home hobbit has absolutely zero interest in accepting. But when his home is effectively invaded by a troupe of dwarfs led by heir-to-the-throne Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), Bilbo becomes even more certain that adventure is not for him!

Suffice it to say that a combination of envy, shame, and a desire for something beyond his own environment convinces Bilbo in the end to join the quest of the dwarfs: to take back the Kingdom of Erebor stolen from them decades ago by the greedy and vicious fire-breathing dragon, Smaug.

Though he knows the journey won't be an easy one, Bilbo is taken aback by the hardships of life on the road which are only exacerbated by the fact the dwarfs are less than impressed with the hobbit or any abilities he might or might not have. Gandalf, however, maintains that Bilbo has hidden depths and that he'll admirably suit the group's need for someone with the skills of a burglar (which, of course, Bilbo steadfastly denies he has).

Along the way, the travelers run into any number of impediments ranging from marauding orcs to duplicitous goblins, to say nothing of mountain trolls, giant spiders, or wizards who appear to be just a little less than entirely sane. And, of course, there are the elves, led by Lord Elrond (Hugo Weaving), and advised by the Lady Galadriel (Cate Blanchett). But perhaps the most dangerous and important creature to surface in their travels is met by Bilbo alone: the warped and undeniably psychotic Gollum who loses his most precious possession for which he blames Bilbo.

Although the script (penned by a team including Jackson himself and Guillermo del Toro, originally tapped to direct) diverges from the book (a certain Orc, for example, plays a pivotal role), it holds beautifully to Tolkien's vision. (In fairness, the added parts are also Tolkien's; they're part and parcel of extensive appendices Tolkien crafted to further flesh out his intricate creation of Middle Earth.) It includes moments of humor which are welcome, as well as some surprisingly deep emotion.

In some ways, it's the special effects that make or break movies like this no matter the caliber of the acting (very good), the direction (excellent), or the editing (also very good). It's also typically my favorite part of any movie like this, and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey lives up to expectation. Given the extensive use of CGI, I'm amazed to have only seen a split second or two that might have been improved upon, and I'm still lost in jaw-dropping wonder at an extended battle scene that takes place in the goblin tunnels. I'd like to say that the special effects are brilliant, but that word really isn't sufficient. Though the 3D treatment wasn't strictly needed, I can't lie: It, too, was beautifully rendered and, in my opinion, added to the reality of even the most unreal of moments. Of course, the actual location of the filming doesn't hurt, either. A trip to New Zealand is so on my bucket list!

BOTTOM LINE: If you're a fan of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, you'll love seeing so much of what you've read come to vibrant life before your eyes. If you're not a fan of The Hobbit, you will be if you see this movie! I was a little concerned with the length since I'm not one to sit still for long if I'm not completely engrossed. Perhaps my best recommendation for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, then, is to tell you that the nearly three hours' run time flew by for me. I literally couldn't believe the movie was over already!

POLITICAL NOTES: It's interesting, especially in light of recent debates in Washington, to see how greed can so thoroughly corrupt even previously decent leaders. It's even more heartening to see that there are those who still (as Thorin Oakenshield says concerning his rag-tag company) value "loyalty, honor, a willing heart..." more than anything else, and who are willing to fight for what's decent and right.

FAMILY SUITABILITY: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is rated PG-13 "for extended sequences of intense fantasy action violence, and frightening images." The violence, though of a fantasy nature, is sometimes quite graphic; the suspense is beyond what younger children could easily handle. The storyline is also complex enough that younger children aren't going to understand it. Most of us read The Hobbit for the first time when we're 12 or 13 at youngest; The Lord of the Rings is typically read even later than that. And that's frankly not a bad gauge to consider when you wonder if this is a movie for your kids.

Black Swan (2010)

Black Swan Bleak on More Than One level

[6/10 · 30 January 2011]

Black Swan has garnered more than a few glowing reviews and has collected a list of awards nominations to match (among others, the Golden Globes will consider Natalie Portman as Best Actress, Mila Kunis as Best Supporting Actress, Darren Aronofsky as Best Director, and the film itself as Best Drama). I made it my mission in life to see it before the awards ceremonies started. It could be that my expectations were too high, but I was frankly not as impressed by Black Swan as many critics seem to be.

Black Swan is a reference to the white Swan Queen's opposite in the famous ballet, Swan Lake. Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman) is a technically brilliant dancer in a New York ballet company who desperately wants to snag the dual role. The problem? The dance company's director, Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) tells her she's the perfect Swan Queen, but that she lacks the passion and emotional abandon of her Black Swan twin.

The pressure on Nina to prove the director wrong is considerable. Her mother (Barbara Hershey)—a retired ballerina herself—exerts considerable control over her daughter in the guise of kindness and support. The company's aging prima ballerina (Winona Ryder) is volatile and dramatic, particularly when she learns she's soon to be giving her final performance before a retirement that isn't her idea. And a new dancer from San Francisco (Lily, played by Mila Kunis), quickly becomes both Nina's friend and bitter rival.

Lily, very much a free spirit, spreads her attitude wherever she goes and Nina needs it more than most. Thomas, meanwhile, is inclined to use any means necessary to inspire the performance he wants out of her. As Nina's life spins beyond her ability to control, her emotions and her sanity both begin to wear thin. But her focus on dance becomes ever more laser-like as she determines that nothing will stop her from being the perfect ballerina.

Natalie Portman reportedly lost some 20 pounds from her already tiny frame to more authentically portray a dedicated dancer. She and Kunis alike spent months studying ballet as well. Their efforts show. While a few more complicated maneuvers were performed by doubles, much of what you see on screen is really done by the actors themselves. Their acting, too, is superlative. Vincent Cassel is also good, but Barbara Hershey is brilliant as the overbearing mother whose demands for perfection set Nina on her course from childhood. Kudos, too, to Winona Ryder. Her role is small, but it's memorable.

Director Darren Aronofsky, perhaps best known for his previous award-winning film The Wrestler, does a credible job here. There are interesting edits and camera effects everywhere, and he does seem to know well how to elicit a stellar performance from his cast. I'm not a ballet fan, so I can't vouch for the authenticity of the dancing here, but it certainly looked lovely on screen and was a nice counterpoint to some of the seamier visions interspersed.

BOTTOM LINE Despite the obvious quality of the crafting of Black Swan, I didn't really like it all that much. That may be because there were so many moments where the sheer brilliance of the acting or some technical aspect in the making of the scene actually overshadowed the story itself. I found myself all too conscious of those things rather than paying attention to what was really going on. In many ways, Black Swan was the proverbial "too much of a good thing." I can't fault those who claim Black Swan is a well-made movie. I just can't pretend that I personally enjoyed it very much. The quality of filmmaking alone gave Black Swan its six stars. Whether or not my interest held up throughout garnered considerably less.

POLITICAL NOTES None.

FAMILY SUITABILITY Black Swan is rated R for "strong sexual content, disturbing violent images, language and some drug use." All of those cautions are entirely too real. Black Swan is not a movie for children, or even for young teens. An R rating is entirely appropriate, and movie-goers should take note. I'd add that, while I wasn't particularly happy with my movie-going experience, I can't deny that there are reasons to see Black Swan, not least among them some very strong performances indeed.

The Green Hornet (2011)

The Green Hornet Great? No. Great Fun? Actually, Yes...

[7/10 · 30 January 2011]

I know it sounds a little silly, but I was really looking forward to seeing The Green Hornet this weekend. The trailers made it look like a lot of fun, and I thought a lot of fun sounded pretty good on a Friday night. I bought a ticket (3D version, of course), and you know what? I had a lot of fun! The Green Hornet is born when spoiled rich boy Britt Reid (Seth Rogan) loses his newspaper mogul father (Tom Wilkinson) to an untimely accident. Though more a party boy than anything else, Britt at least has the sense to know he has no business running his father's publishing empire. He leaves that to his father's longtime editor, Axford (Edward James Olmos). Britt had endured a longtime love/hate relationship with his father anyway, and seems inclined to go on with his life as a very rich ne'er-do-well.

Meanwhile, Britt's father is the least of the concerns of most in Los Angeles. Crime is rampant, and the boss behind most of it is a man with the unpronounceable name of Chudnofsky (Christoph Waltz). Fortunately, District Attorney Scanlon (David Harbour) has adopted a hard line, and his re-election campaign consists almost entirely of the fact he's cleaned up a good deal of crime in the city and intends to keep doing that job no matter the threat to his personal safety.

It's a bad morning cup of coffee (really) that begins to change the way Britt sees the world. In search of a more drinkable form of caffeine, he discovers his father's former aide, Kato (Jay Chou). As it turns out, Kato is capable of a whole lot more than making a good cup of morning joe! On a lark, the pair engage in a little crime of their own. Circumstances converge, however, to make them rethink the thrust of their little adventure and perhaps even to expand on it in some way. And thus is The Green Hornet born.

Seth Rogan, although he lost a good deal of weight to more ably play the title character, doesn't seem like ideal casting for the role of a comic book hero. Yet because he also penned the script (along with Evan Goldberg), he actually turns out to be a good choice who fit right into his character. Jay Chou is an even better call. A pop star in Asia, he learned some English for his role as Kato and does a surprisingly effective job. His chemistry with Rogan is also considerable. Christoph Waltz, who picked up an Oscar® for his supporting role in the brilliant The Reader, could easily have played up the comic relief his character offers. Yet he manages the silliness with a serious and frankly dangerous veneer that makes even the ridiculous almost sublime.

The Green Hornet is directed by Michel Gondry (who also directed the wonderfully eccentric Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind). Gondry, too, could have gone a more slapstick route but didn't. The cinematography is fine, the explosions and weapons effects are wonderful, and some of the chase scenes combine some very nice humor with some very real tension. The 3D (added after filming) probably wasn't necessary, but I'll be honest with you and say that I thought it did add something.

BOTTOM LINE The Green Hornet isn't as serious as it might have been in different hands (writers, actors, and director alike), but it's also not a movie that relies on silliness (though there are some very funny moments). It is, in fact, a little more real than you might expect. After all, the vast majority of us would be a "superhero" something very much like the titular Green Hornet: In possession of good intentions, but hopelessly unprepared to create and carry out plans we're in no way qualified to make in the first place. I kind of related to the Green Hornet, and I kind of liked him. The movie? No "kind of" about it. I liked it a lot. How could I not when I had such a good time for two hours?

POLITICAL NOTES The notion of power politics and backdoor deals isn't anything new. Unfortunately, it's also not uncommon, even in the real world. Although some of the shenanigans here are over the top, they're also sadly plausible.

FAMILY SUITABILITY The Green Hornet is rated PG-13 for "sequences of violent action, language, sensuality and drug content." Most of the violence, though, is comparable to a comic book or video game. While the sensuality may be a bit much for younger kids, the drug content is relatively understated (and presented in a bad light, which also mitigates the depiction). I'd have no problem bringing the average 12 year-old to see The Green Hornet. And if you still have some younger version of yourself hidden somewhere inside, well, I'd suggest a ticket for yourself might be a good thing, too.

The King's Speech (2010)

The King's Speech Speaks to All

[10/10 · 30 January 2011]

WARNING: Mild spoilers (unless you know some history).

I've been wanting to see The King's Speech for some time now. That's based in part on the fact it's garnered more than a few awards and nominations, but also because a few people I know who have seen it have waxed poetic about just how good it is. Well, whatever superlatives they may have used in their descriptions, and whatever praise the critics might have heaped on the film, I'm here to tell you that none of it was enough. The King's Speech is even better than you've heard that it is.

Prince Albert (known as "Bertie" to his family, played by Colin Firth) is second in line to the throne behind his brother, David (Guy Pearce). His father, King George V (Michael Gambon) tries to groom both of his sons for leadership, but Albert's shyness and debilitating stutter test his patience as well as that of almost everyone else around him. Only his wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) seems to be able to look past his speech and directly at the man she believes him to be.

Bertie is deeply embarrassed by his stutter, but he's not overly concerned about other matters since his healthy, vital brother will become king after the death of their father. But David, who becomes King Edward VIII after George V passes away, has a problem of his own: He's desperately in love with an American divorcée named Wallis Simpson (Eve Best). No one sympathizes with his plight, not even his own mother (Claire Bloom).

Despite being relegated to relative second class status among the royals, Bertie still has to make some public appearances. It's to ease those events as well as her husband's heart that Elizabeth seeks out doctors and therapists who might be able to help. As a last resort, she lands in the offices of one Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) where his brash impudence appeals to her own sensibilities. Bertie, however, is far less than convinced. Everything else pales into insignificance, though, when Edward VIII determines to abdicate the throne so that he can marry the infamous Mrs. Simpson and Bertie is forced to become what he most dreads being: King George VI.

As any number of awards and nominations could tell you, the caliber of acting in The King's Speech is substantial. Helena Bonham Carter is beautifully sympathetic yet regal; Claire Bloom is appallingly cold; and Guy Pearce is the very picture of a ne'er-do-well. Geoffrey Rush is completely convincing as a speech therapist and a man haunted by a few regrets of his own. But even amongst such a superlative cast, Colin Firth stands out. His portrayal of the King is heartbreaking and courageous, often at the same time. When Firth is on screen, it feels like you're witnessing some heretofore secret event rather than just another scene in a movie. His acting seems effortless (which means it was far from that), and he's eminently believable. (Added note: If the Oscar® doesn't go to Colin Firth, it will only be because none of the voters bothered to see The King's Speech. Anyone who's seen this performance will know that nobody else even comes close.)

The sets and the costumes are absolutely gorgeous, and the cinematography couldn't have been better. The direction by the Oscar®-nominated Tom Hooper is subtle and sure. David Seidler (who actually asked the permission of the Queen Mother Elizabeth to write the story, and was told he should not do so while she was still alive) has written an understated yet beautiful piece of history, and he's been recognized by the Academy with an Oscar® nomination of his own for his script.

BOTTOM LINE The King's Speech offers up a view of history that many Americans don't know (or probably even care) much about despite its importance to our own country's involvement in World War II. But while you might certainly call the film educational, it doesn't offer up its lessons on history or on life in either a boring or a bombastic way. Despite the gulf between royalty and the rest of us, the characters here are sympathetic, and their problems and their courage surely bear lessons and encouragement for everyone of any station in life. What's more, all of this is wrapped up in a beautiful and utterly fascinating package. While I can't say I had fun in the theatre this time around, I can tell you I had something just as good—or even better: An entirely satisfying evening at the movies, watching events unfold in a story I still can't stop thinking about.

POLITICAL NOTES None.

FAMILY SUITABILITY The King's Speech is rated R for "some language." I actually disagree with the R rating on this one. I think that much of the story here would have great benefit for older teens, and even mature younger teens. They won't hear anything here that they don't get in school or from video games, but the movie itself has much to offer. While younger children will be bored, you might be surprised at how well a movie with no explosions or car chases can prove itself to be gripping—and in some places even thrilling—fare.

Hereafter (2010)

The best part of Hereafter? The "after" part.

[4/10 · 24 October 2010]

I'll be honest with you: the trailers for Hereafer never really grabbed me. But with the only other major release this weekend being Paranormal Activity 2 (the original of which scared the living daylights out of me), I opted for something a little tamer. Besides, Clint Eastwood has proved time and again to be a brilliant director, and I like Matt Damon quite a bit. How could a movie involving the two of them possibly be bad, right? So much for logic...

Hereafter opens with the deceptively bucolic scenes of a tropical paradise. Popular French reporter Marie DeLay (Cecile De France) is vacationing with her boss and lover, Didier (Thierry Neuvic). Just before the couple is set to return to Europe, they become among the thousands of victims of a deadly tsunami. Marie in particular has a very close call and, despite being relatively uninjured and back at work, she simply can't get past what she claims to have experienced during the course of her near death experience.

George Lonegan (Matt Damon) lives on the other side of the world where he's a factory worker in San Francisco with a bizarre bent for Charles Dickens novels. Though George is purportedly one of the few psychics around who's actually not a fraud, he wants nothing to do with talking to the dead any more. His brother Billy (Jay Mohr) is all too aware of the money that can be made should George take up doing readings again, and he does everything possible to convince his brother that he ought to use his "gift" despite the fact George himself considers it more of a curse.

Meanwhile, in London a pair of twin boys named Marcus and Jason (Frankie/George McClaren) are dealing with difficult circumstances at home. Things only get worse for Marcus when he loses someone close to him and sets himself on a mission to find out anything he can about life after death and communications with the dead.

The three stories obviously come together late in the film, but getting there is tedious at best and the resolution can only be described as anticlimactic. The actors are good, the script isn't bad, and the direction and cinematography are excellent (special kudos go to the special effects wizard who created an extraordinarily believable disaster with the tsunami and its aftermath). So what's the problem? I was bored.

Hereafter moves at a crawl. The subject was kept nebulous enough that I never really got all that interested in it, and I frankly didn't care much about any of the characters, either. That's no reflection on the capabilities of the actors who were uniformly quite good, but rather the one-dimensionality of the characters they played. In the midst of death, I found myself wondering if I'd remembered to put cat food on the grocery list and whether or not I'd have time on Saturday to get a pedicure. Yes, I was that bored.

BOTTOM LINE: When Hereafter ended, the audience was largely silent—and not in a good way. On my way out the door, I heard the couple behind me talking about the movie, and one said, "Well, that was a waste of time!" I couldn't have summed it up better myself. In fact, the only reason Hereafter gets four stars is because the cinematography is, indeed, brilliant. ADDED NOTE: Critical reviews of Hereafter have been largely quite positive. While I'm at a loss to give you one single good reason to see the movie, others disagree.

POLITICAL NOTES: None (US-related; there is some talk of former French leader Mitterand).

FAMILY SUITABILITY: Hereafter is rated PG-13 for "mature thematic elements including disturbing disaster and accident images, and for brief strong language." Kids of all ages will be bored out of their minds during Hereafter—and if you're a parent, you know what happens when kids get bored! While the rating is largely appropriate and older kids would be just fine from a parental guidance perspective, I'm still not willing to recommend Hereafter to anyone of any age for any reason. Sorry.

The Social Network (2010)

Facebook Story Earns a Definite "Like"

[8/10 · 3 October 2010]

I'd heard of Facebook, of course. Who hasn't? But it wasn't until just about two years ago that some (college-age) friends of mine convinced me to set up my own page. To tell you the truth, I didn't think a whole lot about it. Innovations on the Internet are proceeding at such a rapid pace that I can't keep up with most of it let alone all of it, so the fact that Facebook existed really didn't make me think anything of it one way or another much less do any research into it. And then I saw The Social Network.

Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) is a brilliant Harvard undergraduate in 2003 with far more intelligence than he has social skills. After a brutal break-up with his girlfriend, Erica (Rooney Mara), Zuckerberg opts for some very public revenge. He begins by posting some less than flattering blog entries about Erica and then, in an all-night flurry of programming, he sets up a Website that features photos of female Harvard students where each can be rated for "hotness." These actions not only wound Erica but garner the attention of the Winkelvoss twins (Armie Hammer, with Josh Pence as a body double upon whose face Hammer's likeness is digitally imposed) who have a Website idea of their own.

Zuckerberg meets with the Winklevosses (or "Winkle-vi" as he amusing terms them) and their friend Divya Narenda (Max Minghella) to discuss doing programming work for them on an application they want to put together to enable girls to date Harvard guys. But Zuckerberg thinks he can do something both broader and better, and "The Facebook" is born. With assistance from his friends Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) and Dustin Moskovitz (Joseph Mazzell), his idea takes off in a major way even as the Winklevoss twins are still trying to get him to do something—anything!—for them.

"The Facebook" has such an impressive take-off that it gets the attention of Napster's mastermind, Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake). And once Parker and his marketing skills and ideas get involved, Zuckerberg never looks back even though his few friends are being left further and further behind him.

The Social Network is based (obviously) on true events, though those involved with the movie have never pretended that parts and pieces aren't dramatized for the big screen (Zuckerberg insists that most of it is). Written by Aaron Sorkin (who was the driving force and writer behind one of what is, in my opinion, the best written television shows of all time, The West Wing), the dialogue is both witty and strangely natural when being voiced by the true computer nerds who are featured in the movie. Eisenberg says his rapid-fire lines so convincingly that I almost believe I was there when he loved, lost, and then won in a big way with his online creation.

The other cast members prove they are also well up to the task of bringing these real life people to movie life. Though Eisenberg carries almost every scene on his shoulders, he couldn't be as good as he is without the very able efforts of the supporting cast. I'd also point out that the one genuine special effect in the movie—that of making Armie Hammer's face and voice an integral party to the body of Josh Pence—is flawless (and I was watching).

BOTTOM LINE: The Social Network has already been touted as a potential Best Picture nominee come Oscar® time. I'm not entirely convinced that the movie as a whole is quite up to that standard, but I'd be truly stunned if the screenplay wasn't nominated, and I certainly wouldn't consider it undeserving if Eisenberg got a nod. I'm not always interested in recent American history (after all, I was there for some of it), but I also found the behind-the-scenes look at the invention of a phenomenon to be fascinating. And frankly, even if computer applications or online interactions aren't your thing, The Social Network remains a compelling exposé of what has become a huge influence on relationships in today's society. That it's entertaining, amusing, appalling, and heart-rending by turns is almost just icing on a very substantial cake.

POLITICAL NOTES: There have been numerous privacy concerns related directly to Facebook. In fact, one of Zuckerberg's problems with his first "hot" ratings site (which he called Facemash) involved what school administrators termed a violation of the privacy of Harvard students. Facebook has addressed some of the issues, and continues to say it will correct or modify others. It remains to be seen, though, just how much privacy some people will willingly forgo in exchange for the complete experience of what has become very much a real life social network.

FAMILY SUITABILITY: The Social Network is rated PG13 for "sexual content, drug and alcohol use and language." There are moments within the film where parents of younger teens may find themselves having to explain things they'd rather not, or where they could feel obligated to comment on things so their children don't think those actions are quite as "cool" or acceptable as they appear on screen. The plot is also fast-moving, and scenes switch back and forth from several venues and viewpoints, which makes the storyline relatively complex, perhaps too much so for younger viewers. I'd recommend The Social Network for older teens (15 or 16 and up) and adults.

You Again (2010)

You Again a Movie I Won't See Again

[4/10 · 26 September 2010]

Marni (Kristen Bell), like many of the rest of us, had a tough time in high school. Among her chief tormentors was JJ (Odette Yustman), the captain of the cheerleading squad and all around snob. But Marni bucks up and uses the bullying she experienced as a goad toward achievement after graduation. Whatever her motivations, Marni's achievements can't be questioned: She's named a vice president of her public relations firm just before she heads home for her older brother's wedding.

Marni and her brother Will (Jimmy Wolk) have always been close, and she's both devastated and furious when she discovers the bride-to-be is none other than her high school nemesis who now answers to the name Joanna. Marni's mother (Jamie Lee Curtis) is sympathetic, but tells Marni that high school is in the past and she needs to move on. That advice comes easily to Gail until she discovers Joanna's Aunt Ramona (Sigourney Weaver) is her own high school nemesis.

Despite the happy occasion that has gathered the family together, Marni is less than thrilled. After all, JJ wasn't the best of persons in high school, and Marni can't imagine she's changed much! After an awkward reunion and family dinner, Marni and her younger brother Ben decide to do what they can to derail the nuptials.

Kristen Bell is a very pretty girl, and it couldn't have been easy to transform her into the unattractive high school geek that Marni was supposed to have been. Yet make-up artists and Bell's adoption of some less than pretty tics make you believe in the earlier version of Marni. Odette Yustman also does a good job as the pretty, popular girl whose mission in life is to make Marni miserable. Some of the movie's best moments come, though, as the result of the past and present rivalry between Jamie Lee Curtis and Sigourney Weaver. I'd be very surprised if the two of them had less than a ball doing their scenes together because it certainly shows on screen that way.

The story itself is relatively predictable, and the direction, while competent, is nothing special. The script is marred by moments of melodrama that undermine the otherwise marginal believability of the story, and though the actors handle their lines well, even genuine talent isn't enough to overcome some of the things they must say and do. In particular, poor Kristen Chenoweth in a role as the wedding planner—an actress I consider a truly brilliant talent—is stuck in a role where the caricature overwhelms even her formidable abilities. While Betty White (who portrays Marni's Grandma Bunny) is also silly, she, at least, gets away with it.

BOTTOM LINE: You Again is often diverting, and has enough elements of realism in it to make you recall your own high school days (for good or for ill), but it doesn't overcome the limitations imposed on it by its script, or a story that we've all frankly heard before. I was moderately entertained and mildly amused in the theatre, but when the movie was played out, I was less than fulfilled. ADDENDUM: Stay for the credits. Trust me.

POLITICAL NOTES: None.

FAMILY SUITABILITY: You Again is rated PG for "brief mild language and rude behavior." Produced by Touchstone (a Disney-owned company), the largely family-friendly fare is no real surprise. While I wouldn't recommend You Again for really young children (it's not going to hold their interest nor will they understand some of the complications that ensue from various and sundry misunderstandings or manipulations), most parents should have no problem with their tweens or teens buying a ticket.

The Town (2010)

The Town is the Bomb!

[9/10 · 19 September 2010]

In the opening moments of the film, it is established that Charlestown, Massachusetts (a suburb of Boston) is the bank robbery capital of the world. It is, according to the information offered the audience, a way of life there. In some cases, it spans generations. Doug MacRay (Ben Affleck) is a man who lives up—or down—to the town's reputation.

Doug and his best friend, James "Jem" Coughlin (Jeremy Renner) head up a small gang of very professional bank robbers. Their usual thorough planning and professional execution gets them in, out, and away from their target in short order. But a series of small hitches combined with Jem's short temper changes everything when he decides to take Bank Manager Claire Keesey (Rebecca Hall) hostage. Although Claire is released unharmed, Jem obsesses about what she may have seen or what she might know. To satisfy both Jem and his own doubts, Doug decides he'll find out.

Meanwhile, the FBI is obviously interested in a bank robbery, but the hostage gives Special Agent Adam Frawley (Jon Hamm) what he hopes will be enough information to catch the gang. With a number of agents and resources at his disposal, he begins his investigation by questioning Claire and then starts collecting information to help him identify and catch the robbers.

The secrets held close by the people of Charlestown, though, won't be given up easily and perhaps not without violence. Not to the FBI for sure, and perhaps not even to one of Charlestown's own as Doug soon begins to find out as he asks some questions of his own.

The Town is based on a 2005 book entitled "Prince of Thieves" by Chuck Hogan. The book was brilliantly adapted by Peter Craig, Ben Affleck, and Aaron Stockard. Affleck also directed The Town. In some cases, actors who try to do too much do a disservice to each of their jobs. In this case, though, Affleck proved his Oscar® for co-writing Good Will Hunting was no fluke, nor was his acclaimed directorial debut for Gone Baby Gone any accident. He writes and directs The Town with unbelievable skill, and then to top it off, his acting is just terrific.

Jeremy Renner doesn't play the most sympathetic of characters, but he makes Jem so real that it's difficult to judge him for his many flaws. Jon Hamm is entirely believable as a frustrated FBI agent, and Rebecca Hall meshes well with Affleck in their scenes together. The standout here (aside from Affleck, of course) is the surprising Blake Lively. In a role as Jem's troubled sister, she's nothing short of amazing. After the casting directors see her here, you can bet we'll be seeing more of her on the big screen in the future.

BOTTOM LINE: Even before its release, The Town was generating some very exciting buzz about Ben Affleck. Although the rest of the cast is superb and the story itself is a gripping one, Affleck is clearly coming into his own as a multi-talented movie maker. As far as I'm concerned, The Town is must see viewing.

POLITICAL NOTES: Surprisingly (especially given the FBI's extensive involvement in the storyline) none.

FAMILY SUITABILITY: The Town is rated R for "strong violence, pervasive language, some sexuality and drug use," and it should be. It is in no way suitable for children or younger teens (who probably won't like it anyway). But for mature teens and adults, The Town offers a rare movie-going experience: An extraordinarily well made and intelligent film that also offers an exciting two hours in the theatre.

Easy A (2010)

Easy A Makes the Grade

[6/10 · 19 September 2010]

Olive (Emma Stone) acknowledges she's a fairly typical high school student with fairly typical high school student problems. She has angst. She feels alone. But one day, when she tells her friend Rhiannon (Alyson Michalka) what she wants to hear, she ends up adding a reputation to her list of issues.

The reputation bizarrely combines with Olive's compassion for her friend Brandon (Dan Byrd), and the next thing you know, her reputation has grown beyond control. What's a girl to do? Well, in Olive's case, she decides to grab onto the reputation along with everything it means, and ride it for all it's worth.

Olive's favorite teacher, Mr. Griffth (Thomas Haden Church) knows something's going on, but he doesn't know what. Mrs. Griffith (Lisa Kudrow), the guidance counselor at the school where her husband teaches, knows something's going on, but what she knows isn't actually what it is. Crusading Christian Marianne (Amanda Bynes) thinks she knows something, but doesn't really want to know anything. Olive's parents, Rosemary (Patricia Clarkson) and Dill (Stanley Tucci) are entirely understanding of something they don't know they don't understand at all. And Woodchuck Todd (Penn Badgley)? Olive would just as soon he didn't know or understand anything at all!

Easy A sounds like a fairly simplistic premise and to some extent it is. But the script is clever in ways that raise it above the basic idea, and what could be a confusing mess is actually presented with a winning combination of clarity, humor, and feeling. Much of the cohesiveness of the movie as a whole can be credited to some very skillful edits. And I loved the literary references which, far from stuffy, were actually funny and all too appropriate additions.

It doesn't hurt that the acting is, in most cases, stellar. Emma Stone is perfectly cast as Olive. For all her occasional drama, I would have liked her when I was in high school and, considering that I hated everybody when I was in high school, that's saying something! I wanted to slap Amanda Bynes, and that means she did a superb job bringing Marianne to life. Patricia Clarkson and Stanley Tucci were a pure delight to watch every time they were on screen. I also really enjoyed seeing Malcolm McDowell in a small role as the school principal.

BOTTOM LINE: Easy A wasn't as funny as I thought and hoped it would be, but it was somehow more moving than I'd imagined. There are laughs, but there are also tears and a few scenes where your own high school years will likely creep up on you and give a little extra kick to the happy or sad of the moment. The teens in the theatre, though, seemed to be entirely wrapped up in the immediacy of the film, and laughed more than I did. Of course, their high school memories are yet to be made...

POLITICAL NOTES: None.

FAMILY SUITABILITY: Easy A is rated PG for "mature thematic elements involving teen sexuality, language and some drug material." Because of those elements, I can't recommend Easy A for young children. Older teens, though (16 or so and up), will likely really enjoy the movie, and if you've got a sense of humor about high school, you will, too.

Nanny McPhee Returns (2010)

Your Kids Are Going to Love Their New Nanny...

[6/10 · 13 September 2010]

If you've seen the first Nanny McPhee movie, then you know the premise of the second: A harried single parent (this time a woman played by Maggie Gyllenhaal) is overwhelmed by her three children plus two cousins from London who come to stay at her small farm. World War II is raging, her husband is somewhere in the battle theater, and her brother-in-law (Rhys Ifans) wants nothing more than to sell the family farm out from under her.

Just as poor Isabel Green wonders how she'll manage to make a payment on the tractor, get the crops in, keep her senile boss (Maggie Smith) from destroying the store, fend off Phil Green's efforts to get her to sign away her rights to the farm, and still take care of five children, Nanny McPhee (Emma Thompson) arrives on the scene.

Nanny McPhee, of course, takes the children promptly in hand and wastes no time teaching them the lessons they need to learn. If Isabel and Phil learn something along the way, so much the better.

The script is fairly silly (penned by Emma Thompson, it's aimed at a very young audience), though it does have its occasional moments of cleverness and poignancy (and one especially silly moment that I must confess was hysterical no matter your age). There's also a heart-rending tie-in to the first film.

The acting is quite good though melodramatic (which, in fairness, is entirely appropriate here). As an aside, Maggie Gyllenhaal's English accent is pretty convincing! The children are just fine, but I must single out Eros Vlahos (who plays cousin Cyril) and Lil Woods (in the role of Megsie Green). Maggie Smith is, of course, her usual stellar self, and Emma Thompson manages to play a caricature of a character without overdoing it at all. A small part for Ralph Fiennes and a cameo from Ewan MacGregor cap off a very capable cast.

BOTTOM LINE: Nanny McPhee Returns was cute, but it wasn't all that good from my own perspective. I'll tell you, though, that every last four, five, and six year-old in the theatre giggled, gasped, laughed, and cooed right when they were supposed to. While I can't recommend this movie for your own grown-up (or even teen-agers') night out, your younger kids will just love it.

POLITICAL NOTES: Although Nanny McPhee Returns takes place during World War II and mentions of the war feature prominently, no details of the reasons for the fight or any political judgments whatsoever are made. Given the nature of that particular conflict, I'd say that there was some real skill exercised in writing about it!

FAMILY SUITABILITY: Nanny McPhee Returns is rated PG for "rude humor, some language and mild thematic elements." Frankly, children young enough to enjoy this movie take especial delight in rude humor like that exhibited here, and the mild thematic elements will likely be largely above their heads. Any real concerns should be easily addressed by Mom or Dad after the movie's over.

Going the Distance (2010)

It's Well Worth Going to Going the Distance

[7/10 · 8 September 2010]

Erin (Drew Barrymore) is getting a late start on her dreams. At 31, she's finally finishing college with an internship at a New York newspaper. With just six weeks to go before returning to San Francisco to complete her education, she meets Garrett (Justin Long) over a classic game of Centipede.

With similar quirky senses of humor and more than a little disarming honesty, the two quickly pair up. From the beginning, they know that any relationship they have is limited to the next month and a half, so they promise to keep it light and casual. It doesn't work.

Six weeks later, Erin is packed to leave, and Garrett is pretending that's okay. Despite their best efforts, the two are soon burning up the phone lines between the coasts. Erin's sister, Corinne (Christina Applegate) is dismayed knowing that a relationship over such a distance is hard. In fact, it's all but impossible.

The plot seems very simplistic and I suppose that it is. But Garrett's eccentric roommate Dan (Charlie Day) and Erin's sister's personality quirks add real spice to most scenes, and the very real chemistry between the main characters (Barrymore and Long have had a real life on-off-on relationship) transcends the simplicity and makes Going the Distance something more.

Barrymore, as always, is capable, and her innate sweetness shines out from the screen. Long, perhaps best known as the "Mac guy" on those infamous Mac/PC commercials, proves an able partner. Day is good, and though Applegate's role is limited, she steals her scenes almost across the board. Look also for Jim Gaffigan in a small supporting part as Corinne's husband. His deadpan delivery is perfect.

BOTTOM LINE: Going the Distance was amusing without question. But what made it a good movie was the fact that, for all the genuine laughs, it quite simply rang true.

POLITICAL NOTES: None.

FAMILY SUITABILITY: Going the Distance is rated R for "sexual content including dialogue, language throughout, some drug use and brief nudity." While this is not a movie for small children, the tenderness with which the central relationship is played and the integrity and genuine caring portrayed by each half of the central couple wouldn't be a bad lesson for teens to learn. I'd say this film is okay for teens 14 and up.

2012 (I) (2009)

The End of It All Looks Pretty Good

[6/10 · 7 December 2009]

Every year, there's at least one big studio, big budget movie that features high end special effects. Will the movie's story or actors be any good? Doesn't matter, because the special effects will be awesome! That's exactly what I was thinking when I saw this summer's Transformers sequel, and I was wrong. The movie, despite its superlative effects, was bad enough that it did matter. But that's okay; hope springs eternal, and I used the same argument as my excuse to see 2012. Fortunately, this time around I wasn't disappointed.

Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) is a government scientist who travels to India when a fellow scientist tells him there's something there he must see. Helmsley is floored by the data revealed and he rushes back to Washington where he promptly advises his boss we—the whole earth—have a problem. Helmsley's boss, Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt) recognizes the importance of what he's told and promptly takes Helmsley directly to President Thomas Wilson (Danny Glover) himself. Big decisions are quickly made and secretly set in motion. Meanwhile...

Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) is an unsuccessful novelist who pays the bills as the chauffeur of a wealthy Russian businessman. But at the moment, he's far more concerned with picking up his children from his ex-wife (Amanda Peet) and her new husband (Tom McCarthy) for a trip to Yellowstone National Park, something it's all too clear the kids don't want to do.

Once at the park, Jackson arrives where his memory tells him he should be, but things look different, and the area is literally crawling with scientists and soldiers. After a brief conversation and a warning, Jackson and the kids are released. They've set up an uncomfortable camp and the kids are complaining about mosquitoes when Jackson hears something in the woods that turns out to be local conspiracy theorist, Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson). After sharing a beer or two with the man, Jackson escapes back to his own camp and his disgruntled children.

Jackson's vacation is suddenly cut short when he gets a call from his ex-wife asking him to bring the children home. A spate of earthquake activity in California has her spooked, and she wants the kids at her side. Jackson does as she asks, but his mind is starting to spin and he tries to connect the dots between all of the odd things that have happened and that he's learned over the course of the last few days. Of course, it's right about then that all hell breaks loose.

John Cusack isn't, by any stretch, my favorite action actor. But he was oddly perfectly cast in this action movie. He somehow has the ability to play "everyman" on screen which makes us all relate more closely to him no matter the extremities of the circumstances in which he finds himself. Chiwetel Ejiofor, Amanda Peet, and Thandie Newton (as the president's daughter) are also just fine (although I did find the supporting roles of a Russian businessman and his mistress to be caricatures). But the scene stealers here are Woody Harrelson (nobody can do the lunatic better), and Oliver Platt. In particular, it's impossible not to loathe Platt even as part of you secretly not only understands what he's doing but even approves just the tiniest bit.

2012 was directed and co-written by Roland Emmerich. Despite his reputation as an action film director, his history is a little uneven. 2012 fortunately puts Emmerich back on the positive side of movie-making once again where he does a credible job both writing and helming the film.

As you might expect from the trailers, the special effects are superlative. There are a couple of moments (if you blink, you'll probably miss them) where you can see the handiwork of a computer programmer, but the remaining 99.9% of the effects are utterly fantastic. To me, the only real shortcoming involves the science. And don't even get me started on the speed of the results of those suppositions! I frankly found that distracting. But only for a second!

BOTTOM LINE: 2012 is about 2 and a half hours long, and I was stunned at how quickly time passed.That might have had something to do with the fact that I spent most of my time in the theatre trying to relax all of the muscles I kept tensing as I watched the action unfold in front of me. Forget all of the other things you might consider before you decide on a movie, and tell me this: Isn't that really why you go?

POLITICAL NOTES: Do I believe that the government would keep things, even deadly serious things, a secret from its citizens? Oh, yeah. In fact, I'm pretty sure it does that kind of thing on a regular basis. And did I appreciate the nod in the film to the Communist Chinese as being pretty much the only people that could have accomplished what they did as quickly as they did? Sure, largely because it's the truth. I also found it bizarrely believable when I was confronted with the methodology the government chose to determine who would go where and when. I can't go into detail here without spoiling certain things for those who haven't yet seen the film, but suffice it to say that not all of these things are good things.

FAMILY SUITABILITY: 2012 is rated PG-13 for intense disaster sequences and some language. I'd have to agree with that rating, and add one more limitation of my own for the younger set: Remember that lengthy run time!

The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)

Maybe the Goat Died of Embarrassment...

[3/10 · 7 December 2009]

I like George Clooney. I like comedies. I also needed a movie to see. It seemed natural, despite having the year's single most inexplicable title, I'd buy a ticket to see The Men Who Stare at Goats. Sadly, the title may have been the best thing about this movie.

Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor, displaying an almost flawless American accent) is a frustrated reporter for a small town newspaper. Despite fighting to be assigned to more serious stories, Bob is sent to interview yet another nut for still one more fluff piece. His wife (Rebecca Mader), who also works for the newspaper, is his only real joy in life. But when his wife leaves him for the least likely of characters, Bob throws caution to the wind and heads for Iraq in search of some real news.

Unfortunately, his adventures in Iraq prove less than exciting. Until, that is, he overhears something in a bar that leads him to believe the nut he interviewed earlier might not have been so crazy after all. As Bob tries to learn more, he targets Lyn Cassady (George Clooney) for information. Cassady seems to Bob to be a character in his own right, but not one that has much credibility or who is likely to prove of much use in furthering Bob's own goals. But Cassady does offer Bob a way to get closer to the war action, and so he's able to take advantage of at least that much.

On their way across the desert, Lyn talks and Bob listens. He tells stories of a hippie Army commander (Jeff Bridges) who works with a group of soldiers sponsored by a somewhat off kilter general (Stephen Lang). He describes events Bob can scarcely credit, including the tale of a man (Kevin Spacey) whose abilities prove his undoing. And there's more! Of course, the men are in a war zone and things can't stay quiet enough for stories indefinitely...

I still like George Clooney, and he does a credible job here. Ewan McGregor is a little wide-eyed, but I bought into his character, too. Jeff Bridges is good as is Kevin Spacey, but I really loved Stephen Lang's General Hopgood. The supporting cast, including a mildly amusing appearance by Robert Patrick (of Terminator 2 fame), is also fine.

So what's really wrong with The Men Who Stare at Goats? The script. Penned by Peter Straughan and based on the book by Jon Ronson (which I have not read), the premise is terrific. The fact that there's some basis in truth makes the notion more titillating and the potential for comedy that much greater. And yet it's quite simply not realized. When a movie billed as a comedy isn't funny (despite having one or two laugh-out-loud moments, the film is on balance mundane at best), you've got a pretty obvious problem as far as I'm concerned! Other more peripheral problems include what appear to me to be budgetary issues. For example, flashbacks showing a young George Clooney show instead a middle aged George Clooney wearing a wig. Now if Brad Pitt can look so flawlessly youthful as Benjamin Button, why on earth can't somebody take 20 years off Clooney? Special effects (most notably one late in the film, though there are others) appear rudimentary and are certainly unbelievable. These things also took away from any enjoyment I might have otherwise had in this film.

BOTTOM LINE: The Men Who Stare at Goats had possibilities. None of them were realized. I frankly can't recommend you bother.

POLITICAL NOTES: There were any number of people and situations that could be interpreted as offensive to the military. I won't go so far as to suggest that that was intentional since I suspect it was a ham-handed (and unfunny) attempt at humor. But one thing I can't let go is the overall disrespect for the mainstream military on exhibit here.

FAMILY SUITABILITY: The Men Who Stare at Goats is rated R for language, some drug content and brief nudity. The rating might be a little harsh, but I wouldn't bring my kids anyway. Actually, the truth is,, if I'd known then what I know now, I wouldn't go myself.

Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant (2009)

I recommend you read the book...

[4/10 · 25 October 2009]

Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant Rated: PG-13 Running Time: 108 minutes Okay, I know it hasn't been getting great reviews. But how can a freak for vampires like me not go see a movie like this one? I haven't read any of the books on which this movie is based, so I went into the theatre with an entirely open mind. Unfortunately, I left the theatre feeling like something was still missing.

The movie opens in the middle with the funeral of Darren Shan (Chris Massoglia). His best friend Steve (Josh Hutcherson) and his family are clearly devastated. But then the camera pans toward the casket and zooms directly inside it where we see Darren occupying himself by playing with a hand-held game. Clearly, he's not dead. In the very next scene, we head back to the beginning of the story and what seems to be an ordinary school day for Darren and Steve. It's ordinary, that is, until someone tosses a flyer out of a car. And it's that flyer that sets the boys on the path that will land Darren in that coffin.

The flyer advertises the Cirque du Freak, and the boys are fascinated from the moment they see it. Their interest is only piqued further when a teacher catches them with the flyer and tells them how wrong it is to exhibit those who have some deformity or another. The boys sneak out late that night and head to the theatre where they find themselves in the front row. Both are simultaneously fascinated and appalled by the performers, but then Steve claims he recognizes one of the performers as a real vampire, one apparently featured in a book he has.

The alleged vampire, Mr. Crepsley (John C. Reilly) is less than thrilled that Steve thinks he's a vampire. But everything might have worked out for the best anyway if Mr. Tiny (Michael Cerveris) hadn't appeared. He apparently has plans for the boys, plans that don't bode well for anyone. Oblivious to the sinister undercurrents, the boys sneak into Crepsley's dressing room, both of them for dramatically different reasons. And it's what happens next that sets the tone for everything else.

The Vampire's Assistant is actually the second in the Cirque du Freak series. I suspect that the writers combined a couple of the books to put this movie together, and that turns out to have been a bad idea. The movie seems to gloss over some things too quickly; it also includes a whole host of characters, many of whom might be very interesting if only we weren't limited to a glimpse of one, and a word or two from another!

The acting is fine. I've been a John C. Reilly fan ever since I saw him in Chicago, and he doesn't disappoint here. I also found Mr. Cerveris' Mr. Tiny to be a really creepy guy which is, I'm sure, just what I was supposed to think. The young men who play Darren and Steve are quite good, especially Josh Hutcherson (you'll recognize him from some previous movies I really enjoyed including Zathura). You'll also see a number of other familiar faces, although some are all but unrecognizable at first glance (I knew Ken Watanabe was in the movie, and still didn't recognize him right away). That only made it worse, though, when so many got so little screen time.

Director Paul Weitz does a perfectly fine job with the script he's been given, one which is rife with limitations. Unfortunately, Weitz also co-wrote the script, so no excuses here! In truth, the script isn't bad. It just tries to put too many things into too short a time frame. Maybe it would have been better to concentrate on one book at a time. If it helps, the special effects are very well done, and the sets are terrific.

BOTTOM LINE: Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant isn't a bad movie. It's just not an especially good one. I will tell you that I liked it well enough that I ordered the first several books of the Cirque du Freak series today. I suspect I'll like them quite a bit. And after reading them, maybe I'll have a better appreciation for this movie which, while it delivered the goods, didn't deliver anywhere near enough of them.

FAMILY SUITABILITY: Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant is rated PG-13 for "sequences of intense supernatural violence and action, disturbing images, thematic elements and some language." That may be a little harsh, especially for kids who like vampires and similar beasties. Unless your child is particularly sensitive, I think this one should be okay for children of about 10 or 11 and up.

POLITICAL NOTES: None.

Paranormal Activity (2007)

So Good, It's Scary!

[7/10 · 25 October 2009]

Paranormal Activity is a very unusual movie even when you don't consider the movie itself. It was made in 2007, but is only just now enjoying a theatrical release. It took just a week to film, starred a couple of unknown actors who used their own names in the movie, and was filmed at a cost of only about $11,000 using the director's own home as the set. The director also wrote the screenplay, and it was the first time he'd done either. But because Paranormal Activity enjoyed a tremendous grassroots fan base which demanded wider release (the publicity campaign for the movie was also utterly inspired), we're now all able to see this little film.

Paranormal Activity is filmed and told entirely from the point of view of a video camera purchased by Micah Sloat. He and his live-in girlfriend, Katie Featherston, have been experiencing some strange happenings in the middle of the night, and Micah wants to use the camera to see if there's anything really there. Micah and Katie joke about the camera and about whether or not anything's really haunting them. Even so, Katie takes things seriously enough to contact a psychic (played by Mark Fredrichs), but Micah even laughs at that.

The psychic doesn't think the situation is funny. In fact, he tells the couple that he's pretty sure it's not a ghost that's their problem, but something far worse. Katie is terrified, but Micah is excited. What if he can actually prove something's going on? You can almost touch his anticipation as he sets the camera up to film in their bedroom every night. But then things start to happen, and that's when even Micah realizes that the paranormal activity going on in their home is no laughing matter.

The story told by Paranormal Activity isn't entirely different from things we've seen or heard before, but the way it was handled was a stroke of brilliance. By letting us effectively be voyeurs in someone's home over the course of a few weeks, we're intimately involved in everything that happens. That intimacy makes every twist and turn all the more shocking.

Even what appears to be home video, however, wouldn't give us the sense that we know these people and are experiencing what they are if the script wasn't good. Fortunately, the script is more than good. It's completely and utterly believable. The people talk like real people, and they react like real people. There are no geniuses or heroes here, but people very much like you and me. It sounds odd, but the truth is that it's a whole lot harder to write "reality" than it is to write something quite a bit more fantastic, and Oren Peli did a stellar job.

In fairness to Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat, even a great script couldn't have saved this movie if the acting was either too stiff or over dramatic. It was neither. I swear it was as if we really were spying on somebody in the privacy of their own home. If either actor had been over the top in their performance, it would likely have ruined the entire ambiance the director was trying to set. Neither did; they were perfect.

Oren Peli's direction was excellent. How do I know? I couldn't see his hand anywhere. Everything flowed naturally. Once again, the reality of Paranormal Activity was striking, and that can't happen without careful effort. The cinematography, while reminiscent of films that have gone before (The Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield come immediately to mind), was nicely done with both stationary and hand held cameras. Finish that off with some solid edits, and you've got an independent film that's better than a whole lot of what's being put out by the major studios.

BOTTOM LINE: I like horror movies, so I see a lot of them. The best ones have me jumping or cringing in my seat. But a rare and notable few have me scared not just in the theatre, but after I've left. So if you want to know if Paranormal Activity is genuinely scary, well, I'll tell you this: I did everything I could to take my mind off the movie after I saw it. I even went and saw another movie. But when I got home and got ready for bed, there was nothing I could think about or do that would convince me to turn off the light in my bedroom. Nothing. Now, how good a recommendation is that? FAMILY SUITABILITY: Paranormal Activity is rated R for language. I honestly think that it should hold an R rating for the very adult and genuinely terrifying subject matter alone! This is not a movie for those who are easily frightened, nor do I recommend you take the kids. Movie geeks and horror freaks (who know enough to realize that blood and gore does not necessarily equal horror), however, will love this one.

POLITICAL NOTES: None.

Gamer (2009)

Gamer offers no winners

[3/10 · 7 September 2009]

Okay, before we begin, allow me to confess to some bias here: I love Gerard Butler. I would pay to watch him eat cookies. And you all likely already know that I'm something of a sci fi geek. That's why it pains me so deeply to say that Gamer is so bad.

Gamer takes place sometime in the near future. The man who invented a technology permitting people to be controlled as avatars is Ken Castle (Michael C. Hall). As a result, he's both unthinkably rich and has an ego to match. His new game, entitled Slayer, is a phenomenon. That's why television reporter Gina Parker Smith (Kyra Sedgwick) is so thrilled to get an interview with Castle.

During the interview, we learn Slayer features death row inmates as avatars. They volunteer because they'll be set free if they can win 30 battles. The players gain fame and perhaps fortune. The government goes along with it because the money generated foots the bill for the entire overcrowded prison system.

The best Slayer player in the world is a 17 year-old named Simon (Logan Lerman). His avatar is a prisoner called Kable (Gerard Butler). The fact that the two have managed to win 27 bloody battles to date makes them a massive audience draw, and it gives Kable a degree of fame he can't imagine. Simon unsurprisingly enjoys the notoriety immensely. Kable only wants to get back to his wife (Amber Valeletta) and child.

But there's more to the game and the technology than meets the eye. A group of computer hackers known only as Humanz led by a man calling himself Brother (Chris "Ludacris" Bridges) is determined to not only manipulate the game, but to tell the world what's really going on.

Gamer was written and directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor (the same two men who brought you Crank and Crank: High Voltage). I loved the story's premise, but I hated the script. It was disjointed and far too stylized. And while I'm as much a fan of hand-held cameras as anybody, it was overkill here, and then combined with what amounted to a strobe effect as the screen flashed split seconds of disparate scenes. While these things can be very effective and provide unique perspectives, too much of a good thing is, well, just too much.

The actors weren't bad, but they were given little to work with. Butler was extraordinarily limited with few lines; I know he's capable of more emotion than he showed here, so even his most poignant scenes were apparently stripped of almost all feeling by the directors. Sedgwick was so exaggerated as a character that she was cartoonish, so much so that her character didn't mesh well with the grit of so much else. Can Valeletta act? I have no idea because she really didn't act at all here nor did it appear that she was supposed to.

The only person who really came off well from an acting standpoint is Michael C. Hall. He gave Ken Castle just the right amount of creepy, and more than enough narcissism to showcase a man I suspect none of us would really want to know no matter how much fame or fortune he accrued.

Thanks to the frenetic edits, I can't even say how good the cinematography might otherwise have been. The battle scenes had real potential—the sets were very much similar to our existing knowledge of shoot 'em up video games, only far dirtier and frankly more believable—but the edits were so quick and disjointed that I didn't get a chance to appreciate the view. The same is true for some very gruesome special effects. Were they bloody? Yeah, I think so, because the camera was splashed a few times. But I had so little vested in so many characters, and saw so little of their fates, that I had a hard time caring.

BOTTOM LINE: That last phrase pretty much sums up my opinion of Gamer: I didn't care. Under normal circumstances, I walk out of the theatre and like to think about the movie. What did I like? What didn't I like? What will I write about? This weekend, I walked out of the theatre and, as usual, headed for a late night grocery shopping trip. I was at the store and halfway through with my shopping list before I realized I hadn't thought about Gamer once. That, my friends, is not good.

FAMILY SUITABILITY: Gamer is rated R for "frenetic sequences of strong brutal violence throughout, sexual content, nudity and language." The R rating is warranted, but even if it weren't, Gamer is so difficult at times to follow that younger kids won't get it anyway. As for older kids, I was so turned off by the movie myself that I actually asked a few young men who were in this movie's target demographic what they thought. Apparently, I think like a 20 year-old guy because they were significantly less than impressed as well.

POLITICAL NOTES: Those people who want to see more and more control from the government might be surprised to learn just how far such a government will go when it finds itself in need of funding, or when it learns it's overwhelmed in one facet of control or another. While the plot of Gamer can't be entirely attributed to government intervention at an earlier place or time, it's easy enough to see what might have happened to bring society to that point. Certainly it's made obvious that some salient parts of the story line owe themselves to the government as well as the unvarnished desire for control. My own take on stories of this nature is that we need to consider how technologies might be abused before we jump wholesale into how they might be used.

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Glorious Inglourious Basterds

[8/10 · 23 August 2009]

I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if a love affair with everything Quentin Tarantino isn't something that's obligatory for all movie lovers. Much like David Lynch in decades past though with a style uniquely his own, Tarantino uses extremes, foibles, twisted techniques, and editorial surprises throughout his films. This not only brings his cinematic brilliance to the fore, but takes each film and stamps it both as thoroughly unique and entirely his. That he also writes some of the most interesting and entertaining scripts in the business doesn't hurt his end product, either. Inglourious Basterds is no exception to the Tarantino legacy. In fact, I think it's one of his best.

"Once upon a time in Nazi-occupied France," the film opens on the unlikely pastoral scene of a rural dairy farm. The farmer (Denis Menochet) is paid an unwelcome visit by Nazi Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) who is acting in his capacity as the infamous "Jew hunter." Landa, who never even momentarily raises his voice or behaves with less than the utmost civility, never-the-less gets his message across.

Not too many years later, the Inglourious Basterds are dropped behind enemy lines. The allied soldiers have an assigned mission that goes well beyond merely killing the enemy. They're charged with instilling fear into the hearts of those who are masters of terror propaganda themselves. That they succeed as well as they do is in no small part thanks to their commanding officer, Lieutenant Aldo Raines (Brad Pitt). Under Raines' orders, his men scalp, scar, and scare Nazis everywhere they go, and word of the Basterds reaches as far as the ear of Hitler himself.

Meanwhile, a French cinema owner named Emmanuel (Mélanie Laurent) has in reasons of her own to hate the Nazis. She and her partner Marcel (Jacky Ido), concoct a devious plan of their own to terrorize a few Nazis.

Meanwhile, a famous German actress named Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger) is involved intrigue up to her pretty neck as she travels to Paris for a movie premiere.

Meanwhile, German war hero Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Brühl) blithely enjoys the adulation of his peers and those in command alike, not realizing for a moment that his very fame will end up landing him in the midst of a plot that will likely result in infamy as well.

Meanwhile...

There's more. A lot more. As you may recall from Tarantino's stunning Pulp Fiction, he's a master of the simultaneous telling of multiple stories that somehow all resolve into a whole in the end. While Inglourious Basterds doesn't offer quite the disparity between scenes you'll recall from Pulp Fiction, it does have any number of plot twists and turns involving any number of different people and locales. But it's a tribute both to Tarantino's brilliant screenplay and the editing of the film that it's far more confusing to write about than it is to watch.

Although it wouldn't seem so at first blush, Brad Pitt is perfectly cast as Aldo Raine. Another surprise? He's very funny. The rest of the cast is also more than up to its task. There's truly not a bad or even a mediocre performance in the bunch. But the standout here has got to be Christoph Waltz. His Colonel Landa is a horror, and yet he manages it all with an urbane, almost sympathetic mien. He's impossible not to fear and loathe, but his performance is nothing short of stellar.

While I could go into depth praising Tarantino's direction as well, suffice it to say he's up to his usual extraordinarily high standards. His creativity and genius for film is evident in virtually every frame. One Tarantino hallmark, of course, is his bent for violence, and Inglourious Basterds doesn't disappoint. There's more than a little graphically shed blood in more than a few graphically depicted ways. But somehow he has the gift of displaying such things in full and gut-wrenching color even as he does so in a cinematically beautiful way. I'm not sure how he does it, but I know it when I see it and it's spectacular. Spice that up still more with some totally inappropriate (but very funny) humor, and you've got Tarantino at the top of his game.

BOTTOM LINE: Only Quentin Tarantino would have the nerve to use World War II as a backdrop, but then change such well known history to suit his story. And frankly, only Quentin Tarantino could get away with it. His Inglourious Basterds won't be for everybody. But for everyone who appreciates movies for what they can be at their best, Inglourious Basterds is at the top of the heap of those that should not be missed.

FAMILY SUITABILITY: Inglourious Basterds is rated R for "strong graphic violence, language and brief sexuality." I cannot stress enough that the rating board isn't kidding where the first three words are concerned. This is not a family film, nor is it remotely suitable for those younger than 16 or 17. In fact, those of any age who are sensitive to lots of blood on screen should go see something else instead.

ADDITIONAL NOTES: There are some truly fascinating stories behind the writing and filming of Inglourious Basterds not least of which are those involving the "movie within the movie." If you're interested, you can read more on the Internet Movie Database Web site.

World's Greatest Dad (I) (2009)

World's Greatest Dad

[6/10 · 16 August 2009]

PLEASE NOTE: I know that there are those who will disagree with my rating of World's Greatest Dad. But I rate movies based in part on how much I enjoyed them, and that significant part of my personal rating system is based almost solely on a comparison with other movies I've liked. I try to stay fair with those comparisons and, given other movies I've rated higher, this is the best I could do for World's Greatest Dad. In honesty, it's somewhat better than that, but the comparitive scale I use left me with the rating you see here.

I first heard about World's Greatest Dad when comedian Bobcat Goldthwait was being interviewed on a popular morning radio show. I was leery since I'm not a big Bobcat Goldthwait fan, but the show hosts raved about the movie, and film festival attendees seemed to agree. So did a good friend of mine who happens to be a fellow movie fanatic. How could I not take the chance, then, to see World's Greatest Dad on pay per view? The first thing we learn from World's Greatest Dad is that Lance Clayton (Robin Williams) isn't the man he thought he'd be. He's a writer, but he's never been published. He's a teacher, but his poetry class is decidedly unpopular. He's a father, but his son Kyle (Daryl Sabara) is a disappointment. And although he has a pretty girlfriend—the high school art teacher (Alexie Gilmore)—she refuses to take their relationship public.

Despite repeated rejections, Lance hasn't given up on writing. And he certainly isn't giving up on his relationship with Claire even though he suspects she's interested in another teacher (Henry Simmons). But his son? That's a tougher choice. Kyle is crude, inexcusably rude, sometimes deliberately cruel, and not terribly bright to boot. Although Lance loves his son, he can't make himself like him. But when a sudden tragedy turns Lance's life upside down, he realizes he also has an opportunity to turn his life around and, in the process, influence everyone around him in a positive way. All he has to do is decide whether or not to grab the brass ring.

We all know that Robin Williams is both a brilliant comedian and a very good actor. This may be the first role that's really let him be both simultaneously, and he's a tour de force in this film. Daryl Sabara is good, too. He holds his own in scenes with Williams, and he had me believing in his portrayal of Kyle strongly enough that there were moments I really wanted to deck him—much as I suspect his father did at the time. Alexie Gilmore, Henry Simmons, Geoffrey Pierson (who plays the school principal), Evan Martin (as Kyle's best friend, Andrew), and Lorrain Nicholson (Jack Nicholson's daughter, all but unrecognizable as Kyle's goth classmate) all give solid supporting performances.

Bobcat Goldthwait wrote a clever and funny script, and then directed it beautifully. He claims he doesn't like teenagers (and seeing the way they behave in this movie, I can't think of too many people who won't agree with him), but he surely understands them! A friend who raised two boys said the portrayal was, unfortunately, entirely realistic; I was reminded of several high school classmates myself when I watched World's Greatest Dad. Fortunately, we can appreciate the funny and the horrible alike when we're watching it on screen even as we shudder at our own more personal experiences.

The set decoration is entirely realistic with some amusing (but believable) quirks. The camera work is nicely handled including a few moments of judicious slow motion; one camera angle in particular adds so much to the pain of a poignant moment that my breath caught for just a moment (as was likely intended) when I saw it.

BOTTOM LINE: Given the combination of a good idea, a solid script, terrific actors, and a gifted director, I'd have to say that World's Greatest Dad would be a treat for people who really love film making however they happen to feel about teenagers themselves. Many of the rest of the grown-ups out there would likely enjoy it, too.

FAMILY SUITABILITY: World's Greatest Dad is rated R for "language, crude and sexual content, some drug use, and disturbing images." This is probably about right. While many things aren't too shocking for kids as young as 13 or 14, there are a few things (which I won't discuss here so as not to ruin some nicely twisted parts of the plot) that are well beyond what you may want your younger teen to see.

POLITICAL NOTES: There's nothing either overtly or subtly political about World's Greatest Dad. But when I saw the blatant hypocrisy of the high school students on full blown display, I couldn't help but think of the politicians who will do and say anything just to stay popular with the voters. I suspect that if they grew up (like the vast majority of teenagers eventually do), our country would be the better for it.

District 9 (2009)

District 9 More than Entertainment

[9/10 · 16 August 2009]

District 9 takes place in South Africa where an alien space ship suddenly appeared in the skies above Johannesburg almost thirty years ago. The aliens didn't attack nor did they offer technology or trade. In fact, there was little contact at all until humanity took the initiative. But first contact isn't all it's cracked up to be, especially not if you're an alien. Humans "rescued" the aliens from their ailing ship, but segregated them into a gigantic shantytown known as District 9 where they remain, monitored by a constant police presence.

Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley) works for MNU, a corporation that oversees much of District 9 and engages in most of what the rest of the world sees as alien relations. MNU has ulterior motives, of course. It wants desperately to get some version of alien weapons technology up and running. In part because humans are fearful of the aliens, MNU undertakes to move the entire population from District 9 to a location well outside Johannesburg. Van De Merwe is put in charge of the relocation effort, and that's when things suddenly get complicated.

District 9 is presented as a documentary film. Some footage appears to come from news organizations while other snippets are apparently culled from security cameras. There's also video of various persons who are interviewed—of the anonymous "man on the street" variety, MNU employees, and friends and family of Van De Merwe—and their comments woven into the rest of the material. Though there are obviously some scenes that couldn't have come from the aforementioned sources, those are also skillfully edited into the plot line here and there. Taken as a whole, the delivery is striking to say the least.

Director Neill Blomkamp grew up in South Africa, and I suspect his intimate knowledge of the country during apartheid contributed greatly to District 9 (which is based on a 2005 short made by Blomkamp). Famed director Peter Jackson had originally tapped Blomkamp to direct a movie version of the video game, Halo. When that didn't pan out, Jackson gave Blomkamp $30 million to make whatever he liked. He expanded on his earlier idea, and co-wrote and directed District 9; Jackson is credited as a producer.

I was surprised to learn that leading man Sharlto Copley hadn't acted before this, but I figured I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, in a documentary-style film, he could probably get away with not being very good. The reality, however, is that Copley had to be far more than just another interviewee. He had to portray a variety of very strong emotions under a number of extraordinary circumstances. Copley wasn't adequate to the role. No, he was positively fantastic. I feared for him, I cheered for him, I loathed him, and frankly, I wept over him. He may not have acted before, but I sure hope he does again!

It's painful to type the word "only" in front of "$30 million," but that kind of money for this kind of movie is a pittance. I fully expected mediocre special effects and other shortcuts which, in a film relying on at least some effects, could very well have resulted in dragging the movie down. Once again, I was delighted to see that Blomkamp (and Jackson's own WETA Workshop, which handled everything from special effects to props, and from vehicles to make-up effects) came through, and in a major way. The CGI (by Image Engine, a company in Vancouver, Canada where Blomkamp attended and graduated Vancouver Film School) is flawless, and the integration with live action is just terrific. I wasn't merely satisfied by the depiction of these aliens, I was awed. I never doubted for a moment that they were real.

From a somewhat lower tech standpoint, I loved the cinematography. Some scenes were filmed with hand-held cameras, and the jouncing and jiggling were perfect touches and added genuine realism. Other shots with broader scopes were awesome, beautiful, and horrifying by turns. I credit excellent direction combined with talented cinematographers, good editing, and some more of that superlative CGI work for the cohesive and dramatic end product.

BOTTOM LINE: It's obvious I recommend District 9 to movie goers as a unique new action movie. But I must confess something else as well: When the movie was over and the audience making its way out, I was still in my seat. I sat there, alone, in the dark, weeping. I've talked about movies before as "entertaining" or "exciting," and this one is both. It was also, to my lingering amazement, profoundly moving. Good for Mr. Blomkamp, and good for movie fans, too.

FAMILY SUITABILITY: District 9 is rated R for bloody violence and pervasive language. Because this is science fiction, though, I don't see that the violence would be too much or too graphic for kids of about 13 or 14 and up. The language (and plenty of it) is going to have to be your own call.

POLITICAL NOTES: I didn't know it before I saw the movie, but the shantytown filled with shacks occupied by aliens is real. Its human population was in the process of being relocated to government housing, but people still lived there when the movie was being made. Even had it been a product of set decorators, the living conditions there were appalling. That it's real is almost unfathomable. While there are the all too obvious lessons here where poverty and apartheid is concerned, I also think it's important to point out the motives of MNU, motives which echo those of many governments, up to and including a "the ends justify the means" attitude. The notion that some lives are considered less valuable than others is also brought home, sometimes in particularly graphic and horrific fashion. That's another lesson some could do with learning, particularly by those currently considering health care reform in this country.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)

GI Joe Succeeds in its Movie Mission

[8/10 · 8 August 2009]

I first saw previews for GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra a couple of months ago. As the trailer unfolded on screen, I found myself getting more and more excited. What was this awesome movie that I was so absolutely going to see? Then I saw the big title appear: GI Joe. How embarrassing. A few weeks later, I saw the previews again, and was sucked in again. I even admitted to a few discreet friends that I just might have to go see it (yes, they laughed). Well, now I've seen it and I'm going public with that fact as well as my reaction: I loved it, and I'm not ashamed to say so! I don't know anything about GI Joe the doll—I'm sorry, the "action figure"—nor am I familiar with the comics. In fact, I didn't even know that there were GI Joe comics. So I came into the theatre with a group of friends and no expectations or foreknowledge.

Duke (Channing Tatum) is an American soldier whose team is tasked with guarding some very nasty warheads developed by the MARS corporation. Ripcord (Marlon Wayans) is his friend and fellow team member. Despite the team's impressive firepower and expertise, a group headed up by the Baroness (Sienna Miller) ambushes them. The technology of the attackers is off the scale, and Duke and Ripcord find themselves fighting for their lives in what appears to be a losing proposition. At the last minute, another team joins the fray and they, too, boast some very high tech weaponry. Fortunately, they're the good guys.

Such is Duke and Ripcord's introduction to GI JOE, a special black ops team headed up by General Hawk (Dennis Quaid). Their determination to avenge their team sees the men fighting along side such GI JOE luminaries as Scarlett (Rachel Nichols) and Snake Eyes (Ray Park) against baddies like Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee), "the doctor" (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), the mysterious Zartan (Arnold Vosloo), and their very wealthy, very powerful supporters including the man behind the weapons genius of MARS, McCullen (Christopher Eccleston).

The stories and back stories being told are surprisingly intricate, yet even with no prior knowledge of the characters or setting, I had no problem following everything. But let's be honest here: the story isn't why you go to see a movie like this. It's the action, the explosions, the special effects that draw you in, and GI Joe has 'em all in spades. The effects are fantastic and the action is almost non-stop. Frankly, the story could have been simpler and the movie still pretty good; the fact that the script doesn't let us down is a real and welcome bonus. Simplistic? Yeah, in many ways it is. Simple? Not even close.

With a movie like this, acting ability is almost superfluous. Muscles and stunts are what it's all about. There is actually some decent acting in GI Joe (most notably from Sienna Miller and Christopher Eccleston), though some performers don't measure up in that regard. But that's okay, because the muscles and stunts are there; the fight scenes are intricately choreographed and well executed; and the CGI is both effective and, at times, jaw-dropping. Oh, and where low tech but nice surprises are concerned, keep your eyes open for a nice cameo from an actor we've seen in one or two other action flicks.

BOTTOM LINE: I had a ball. The friends I was with (three guys in their early 20's) had fun, too. If you're more into serious dramas or sophisticated comedies, stay away from this one. But if you like action, special effects, and pure movie entertainment, go ahead and put GI Joe on your movie-going itinerary. By the way, GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra positively screams, "Sequel! Sequel!" I'll tell you right now that, based on the first movie, I'll be buying a ticket for any follow-up they care to make.

FAMILY SUITABILITY: GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra is rated PG-13, which is fairly appropriate. The violence is almost non-stop and is, at times, fairly graphic. While there's no sex, and profanity is sparse and mild when it occurs, the overall film is quite intense, too much so for little ones. That being said, I suspect most little boys (older than, say, 7 or 8) will have no problem seeing GI Joe and will probably like it quite a bit. Most little girls likely won't like it at all.

POLITICAL NOTES: One world government? That's a problem for me, and apparently a problem for GI Joe as well. In the movies, the ultimate goal of the bad guys is supposed to horrify us and make us want them to fail. What do the bad guys in GI Joe want? A one world government. That's not a bad message to send, especially given the proclivities of some in this country to institute just that.

Julie & Julia (2009)

Julie & Julia Satisfies

[6/10 · 8 August 2009]

A friend of mine has been looking forward to this one for quite awhile. Though this isn't usually my kind of movie, the premise intrigued me and the actors are obviously top notch. It wasn't hard to talk me into buying a ticket.

Julie and Julia plays on the similarities of two women who live two very different lives in two very different eras. The one thing, the overwhelming thing, the two women have in common is that they're both looking for something to do, something that's both fulfilling and which matters.

Julia Child (Meryl Streep), the famous (and infamous) chef, finds herself living in diplomatic splendor in France in 1949 when her husband (Stanley Tucci) is sent there on a government posting. Julie (Amy Adams) works for the government in New York City in 2002. She and her husband (Chris Messina) live above a pizzeria in Queens. Julia, who is bored out of her mind as a housewife, goes to cooking school and eventually writes a cookbook. Julie, who is a frustrated writer and unhappy cubicle denizen, decides to cook every recipe in Julia Child's "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" cookbook and blog about the experience.

But that overview barely scratches the surface of the story. Both women endure joy and pain, successes and setbacks. And with scenes that alternate and twine between the two disparate lives, we come to see the parallels that Julie does between her and Julia for ourselves.

This may be the only movie ever based simultaneously on two true stories. The real Julie Powell really did do that cooking and write that blog (and eventually a book). The real Julia Child did write an autobiography and a cookbook that serve as references for the other half of the film. Fortunately for us, both stories are interesting in and of themselves, and the combination is very, very good indeed.

The actors are all just terrific, most notably Meryl Streep and Stanley Tucci who have a surprising on screen chemistry that makes the lifelong love affair between Julia and her husband Paul entirely believable. Amy Adams is also good, though her chemistry with her co-star isn't as overt and I believe takes a little something away from her scenes that might otherwise have added just the right amount of spice to them. While you might expect some times of real drama, there are also some moments of genuine comedy that make Julie & Julia a wonderfully rounded and entertaining movie experience.

It should be noted that, while the appearance of office cubicles and small apartments in New York several years ago wasn't much of a stretch for set decorators, Paris in the late 1940's was, and they stepped up brilliantly. I found myself wanting to visit Paris for myself, but not just any Paris. No, I want the Paris beloved by Julia Child and depicted so beautifully in this movie!

BOTTOM LINE: I was as much prepared to dislike Julie & Julia as to like it. What surprised me was just how very much I did like it. The friend I was with (another woman) really enjoyed it, too. I'd recommend it with no reservations whatsoever (though I'll caution you right now that this is probably not a movie either younger men or young children will enjoy).

FAMILY SUITABILITY: Julie & Julia is rated PG-13 for "brief strong language and some sensuality." That's probably just about right. Little ones wouldn't like it anyway.

POLITICAL NOTES: Paul Child served in Paris during the McCarthy era. McCarthy and his cohorts saw Communists behind every tree and in every office. Child and his wife felt some of the effects of that paranoia even across the Atlantic. Their experiences serve to remind us just how all encompassing and damaging such witch hunts can be. While it's important we all learn that lesson from history, we cannot afford to ignore possibilities, either. Neither Communist sympathizers then nor Jihad proponents now are everywhere, but they could be anywhere. As an aside, I must also point out here that our government is currently being overrun by those with genuine Communist and socialist bents, a threat from inside our borders that we would do well to treat with wariness at the very least. Without jumping to conclusions on any front, our freedom depends on being watchful, prudent, and sometimes proactive. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

300 (2006)

300 Makes (Movie) History New Again

[8/10 · 11 March 2007]

300 takes us back to about 500 years before the birth of Christ to a time when men who dreamed of conquering the world — at least what was known of it — could actually do so. At that time, the all powerful conqueror was Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro), a man whose ego may have been the only thing bigger than his substantial army. As Xerxes made his way across the Mediterranean leaving subjugated peoples in his wake, he set his sights on Greece.

The city-states that then made up modern day Greece had varying reactions to becoming targets. A few simply agreed to annex themselves to Xerxes' rapidly growing kingdom. But among those that refused Xerxes' emissaries was the small region called Sparta. Ruled by King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) and his Queen, Gorgo (Lena Headey), Sparta was known for the caliber of its fighting men as much as for its pride.

King Leonidas petitioned his priests for their blessing before battle, but the priests consulted with an oracle whose confusing message was interpreted by them to mean Sparta should not fight. Because Spartan law required that the king obey the priests, Leonidas gathered up a few hundred of his best men and called them his "bodyguards." Tongue in cheek, Leonidas announced that he was "going for a walk," and he and his bodyguards departed for the coastal "hot gates" (named for the hot springs nearby) in the hopes they might funnel Xerxes' army into the narrow pass there.

Allying himself with a few men of like mind (some 700 Thespians among them), Leonidas commanded a force that might have totaled 3,000 at its peak. Formulating a battle plan, he prepared to face an army whose numbers are estimated to have been anywhere from 200,000 to two million soldiers strong.

Meanwhile, back at home, Queen Gorgo is doing all that she can to urge the ruling Council to send forces to bolster her husband's stand. She maneuvers with the politically-astute Theron (Dominic West) to gain his support for her efforts, but even as Leonidas faces betrayal from within, Gorgo also has to deal with those whose greed outweighs all else. She is among the few who, along with the king, knows full well that a victory for Xerxes means far more than a change of allegiance. Instead, it means the loss of everything Spartan, including first and foremost real freedom.

Gerard Butler is as loud and defiant as you'd expect King Leonidas to be, and Lena Headey presents a flawless portrait of a wife who is really just as brave and stoic as her husband. Vincent Regan and David Wenham are terrific soldiers under Leonidas' command, and Andrew Tiernan manages despite substantial prosthetic effects to convey the desperation as well as the twisted greed of the deformed Ephialtes. Rodrigo Santoro, meanwhile, is transformed with the aid of make-up and computer magic to a man one might actually believe has some godhood running through his veins.

Director Zack Snyder does a good job (though there are moments I felt Leonidas' mood was too instantly volatile and some edits too abrupt), particularly when it comes to some of the most amazing camera techniques I've ever seen. There are repeated instances of slow motion that are jaw-dropping, and camera angles that add immeasurably to the scope of the battle scenes. When you put that talent together with a good cast and CGI work unlike anything I've ever seen, 300 is more than a little impressive on screen. The CGI is so good, that even the water looks real let alone the stony cliffs of the "hot gates." The battle scenes are flawlessly rendered amidst background action you'd swear was really there; the graphic wounds and deaths are as real as can be (with a couple of lamentable exceptions which, in the midst of so much brilliance, are almost forgivable).

The only real flaw I saw in 300 is a script (co-written by Snyder) that could have been quite a bit better. The dialog is often stilted in its attempt to sound something like the ancient Greeks might have spoken (though there are moments of sheer genius), and the story occasionally proceeds in something of a "herky-jerky" fashion. 300 could have been better, I think, its message was as good as it gets.

King Leonidas rallied his soldiers in the film by saying, "A new age has come, an age of freedom. And all will know that 300 Spartans gave their last breath to defend it." 2,500 years after the fact, we still know. That's one hell of a legacy for liberty, and one I think not enough people can know enough about.

FAMILY SUITABILITY: 300 is rated R for "graphic battle sequences throughout, some sexuality and nudity." 300 is unequivocally not for small children. The blood and gore alone is substantial, and much of the subject matter is quite adult. Remember, though, that 300 is based on a graphic novel which is often the bailiwick of the teen-aged boy. Given their pre-existing exposure to such pictures and plot lines, I believe that most 14 year-olds would be perfectly fine.

That being said, given the lessons offered up by 300, I'd hope that the movie gets a broad exposure and that you take what you learn to heart enough that you take the time to learn more. Leonidas died a long, long time ago, but his courage can still inspire. Here's hoping that it does.

Meltdown: Days of Destruction (2006 TV Movie)

Meltdown...does.

[2/10 · 11 February 2007]

Meltdown opens on a scene of scientists preparing to conduct an important test on a missile system developed to deflect asteroids should they be on a collision course with earth. Nathan (Vincent Gale) mentions some misgivings to his, but the test appears to be an unqualified success. Then the asteroid breaks apart, and the largest piece is pushed into a direct collision path with earth. Fortunately, the huge rock skips off of earth's outer atmosphere and ricochets into space. Unfortunately, the glancing blow is just enough to alter earth's orbit, and the planet begins to spiral closer to the sun.

While all of this is going on above their heads, Los Angeles cops Tom (Casper Van Dien) and Mick (Greg Anderson) are on a stake-out. They're supposed to collect evidence against a suspected drug dealer, but the deal they're watching quickly devolves into a shooting match. Afterward, Tom takes a few minutes to be interviewed by a local television reporter who also happens to be his girlfriend, Carly (Stefanie von Pfetten).

At a nearby hospital where Mick is treated for a minor injury, Tom has a brief chat with his ex-girlfriend Bonnie (Venus Terzo), who is a nurse. He tells her he's concerned about the fact that their 17 year-old daughter Kimberly (Amanda Crew) is dating a man named CJ (Ryan McDonell). Once Tom explains to Bonnie that he's discovered CJ has a criminal record, she's a little worried herself.

It's not long, however, before everybody has something else to worry about. The temperature is rapidly rising all around the world. Carly is one of the first non-scientists to learn what's really happening. Nathan, who is her brother, calls her to say he may have a way that they can survive. Carly calls Tom; he, of course, promptly contacts Bonnie.

In relatively short order, the motley group is on the road. Before they can reach their ultimate goal, however, they've got to make their way through bands of looters, deal with a catastrophic water shortage, and manage to travel in temperatures that are high enough to kill.

Casper Van Dien is a good looking guy, and I actually enjoyed him in Starship Troopers. That may be because he's good in action scenes. It might also be because he didn't talk much in that movie. In Meltdown, he's unfortunately given just enough lines in situations that are just dramatic enough to showcase his entirely average acting abilities. Amanda Crew is also okay, and Ryan McDonell isn't bad, either. Vincent Gale and Stefanie von Pfetten are also both reasonably good, but Venus Terzo is sadly on a par with Van Dien.

What really makes or breaks a movie, though, is the story and the script. While the story here is okay and actually has some real potential, the script is just awful. The science part of the science fiction is non-existent starting with the asteroid pushing the earth out of orbit and escalating with the notion that the "gravitational balance of the solar system" might "pull the earth back" into its usual orbit "over time." When the temperature in LA hits 120 degrees, cars start blowing up.

You know what's even worse than the bad science? The bad continuity. Okay, really hot. Why are people in the movie not only wearing long sleeved shirts, but jackets, too? Why are people mugging each other for bottled water instead of turning on the taps at home? Why are the streets completely empty, but the freeways completely full? And why are the freeways full of unexploded? It's almost superfluous to note that the sets, costumes, and production values were good, especially when that only forces me to say that the edits were not.

So basically, you take a pretty good story idea and combine it with mostly mediocre acting, a terrible script, low-end special effects, utterly irrational plot twists, and poor edits, and what do you have? A movie that's even less than the sum of its inconsiderable parts. I'm sorry to say that I can't recommend Meltdown: Days of Destruction to anyone.

POLITICAL NOTES: There is mention here that Congress finally loosened the purse strings enough to fund the tests that start the movie rolling. While the tests here were wholly irresponsible (targeting an asteroid with a nuke and not knowing the composition of the big rock is, in fact, well beyond irresponsible and approaching the insane), the fact is that such scenarios are a very real danger to the planet. Unfortunately, we've tracked nowhere near all of the near earth asteroids that could be worrisome in some orbit some day; and our ability to spot something on a collision course with us is limited at best.

Once we do discover we're going to be hit, we quite literally have no system in place to deal with it. There are no nuclear-tipped space missiles we can launch; the space shuttle is completely incapable of going beyond earth orbit, and if it were, we couldn't launch enough of them or launch them quickly enough for it to matter. I'm not big on the government doing anything beyond its constitutional mandates, but I certainly think protecting the planet from destruction coming at us from outer space could be construed as defending the country, don't you? FAMILY SUITABILITY: Meltdown: Days of Destruction is rated R for "some violence." I frankly didn't find the violence here anything beyond a fairly typical T-rated video game. If your teens are keen on seeing Meltdown and you can't talk them out of it, the R-rating shouldn't dissuade you from letting them see it. It's not, however, a good idea to leave the younger kids in the room with their elder siblings. While the shootings aren't too graphic in the main, some of the dead bodies are.

Jesus Camp (2006)

Jesus Camp

[7/10 · 28 January 2007]

Filmmakers Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady determined to make Jesus Camp after they learned just how widespread and how, well, evangelical the evangelical movement is in this country. To tell the story, they chose to focus on a few people who are intimately involved in both one evangelical church or another as well as the "Kids on Fire Summer Camp" in Devil's Lake, North Dakota.

Levi is a young boy who dreams of being a preacher,. His mother homeschools him, and has obviously done a credible job of it. That's what makes the next scene so disturbing: she proceeds to question him on such matters as global warming and evolution, both of which he categorically denies based on biblical accounts rather than anything relating to science.

Rachael is nine. She's cute, energetic, and talks almost non-stop. In one scene, she's bowling with her family when she wanders over to a young woman at a nearby table. She very seriously tells the woman that God has told her she must speak with her, and that she must be saved. She leaves a brochure with the woman and returns to her family where her father praises her and tells her, "Way to obey!" Victory (Tory) is ten. She's a pretty blonde who loves to dance. She very soberly tells the cameras that she dances for Jesus, and then admits that sometimes she dances "for the joy of the flesh." She assures the cameras, though, that she's trying really hard not to do that.

Becky Fischer is a youth minister and the founder of the "Kids on Fire Summer Camp." In her interviews, she shares with the camera that the Muslims indoctrinate their children at an early age, and that Christians must do the same. Later, she tells a radio talk show host that if she can reach children before the age of seven, she can turn them into soldiers for God.

Much of the interviews and intertwined discussions are leading directly toward this particular summer's camping experience. At the camp, parents and children spend time in services and seminars all of which are geared to fire them up and to prepare them to overwhelm the political process to "take America back." At one service, small children are sobbing hysterically because they are made painfully aware of the fact that they're bad. They beg Jesus for forgiveness. A small blonde boy sits on the floor and sobs heart-rendingly. Soon, some children are "speaking in tongues." The adults appear pleased.

Eventually, we travel with Levi to Washington DC for abortion protests on the steps of the US Supreme Court, and to Colorado Springs for a sermon by Ted Haggard (the now discredited pastor who, after gleefully mugging for the camera, gives young Levi some advice on sermon-making). In an interview, Haggard smiles his broadest, toothiest grin and says that evangelicals, if they vote, can win any election. Because the filmmakers have given us the occasional statistic throughout the course of the film, we've no choice but to acknowledge that Haggard is probably right about that.

I can't tell you that I enjoyed Jesus Camp because I didn't. I did, however, find it profoundly disturbing. The featured children and, I suspect, many of the others, are smart as whips. They're also utterly convinced that everything they've been told is right, and that anything contradictory must therefore be wrong. They're intolerant of others at best because, as Becky Fischer puts it, they've "got the truth." In the case of those who are homeschooled (one of the film's helpful statistical offerings informs us that the vast majority of homeschooled Americans are evangelicals), they're grievously lacking in science knowledge and the ability to think logically which, in my opinion, seriously hampers both the individual and society as a whole.

Fischer is, unfortunately, absolutely right about one thing: If you can get a child young enough and indoctrinate him thoroughly enough, he's going to grow up just as you intend him to be. And these children are effectively intended to be weapons. Oh, they may not blow themselves up as some Muslim children grow up to do, but I'm convinced the education process and the end goals aren't dissimilar. Both appeal to the highest and the lowest of emotions. Both employ fear and guilt at least as frequently as praise. And both are looking to convert everybody they can, and to subjugate everybody who won't convert to their own religious notions by force of law.

POLITICAL NOTES: Any group that's out to infringe the rights of others as a matter of course is dangerous to freedom by definition. While it doesn't really matter to me what religion a politician may espouse, it matters a great deal to me if he takes it as part and parcel of his office to make the rest of us follow along. That's what the evangelical movement is apparently aiming for, and if that goal is reached, every one of us who doesn't toe the line will suffer one way or another. Although the Constitution assures us freedom of worship and speech, and even the Bible claims that God Himself granted us free will, the evangelicals obviously don't see it that way.

FAMILY SUITABILITY: Jesus Camp is rated PG-13 for "some discussions of mature subject matter." I don't know that kids will really get Jesus Camp anyway. But any adult who's a little leery of those who would legislate morality (among other things) is going to find Jesus Camp a real eye-opener! As such, I recommend every adult see it. Know your enemy. However good and decent these people may be as friends, neighbors, and co-workers — and they are — if you value freedom, remember that their stated goal is to take it from you. And if that doesn't, at the bottom line, make them an enemy, I'm not sure what does.

The Queen (2006)

The Queen

[6/10 · 28 January 2007]

The Queen focuses on a few months in the reign of Great Britain's Queen Elizabeth II (Helen Mirren). Those few months begin with the landslide election of the young and dynamic Labour Party candidate Tony Blair (Michael Sheen) to the office of Prime Minister.

At home, the lives of the two principals of British rule couldn't be more different. Blair, whose wife Cherie (Helen McCrory) is a strong critic of the monarchy in general and the royal family in particular, breakfasts with three boisterous children and urges his staff to call him "Tony." The Queen has her day rigidly scheduled and is treated with distance and deference even by those closest to her. Unfortunately, the two are soon brought together in ways they couldn't have imagined to deal with a situation neither could have anticipated: the untimely death by accident of Diana, the former Princess of Wales.

Blair is wakened in the middle of the night by a telephone call giving him the news. The Queen, who is vacationing at Balmoral, has her sleep interrupted by her personal secretary, Robin (Roger Allam). Bizarrely, both watch the news unfold on television. With another call, they each receive the news that Diana has died of her injuries, and now must determine his or her next step. That's where differences between the two become a chasm Blair in particular fears cannot be breached.

Blair speaks immediately to the people, referring to Diana for the first time as "the People's Princess." The Queen, on the other hand, repeatedly points out that Diana is no longer known as HRH (Her Royal Highness), and her death is thus a private matter (to his credit, Prince Charles seems to realize that more is required from them than the family is offering long before the elder generation grasps the fact).

The growing resentment for the apparent lack of grief on their part combined with the need to express grief of their own escalated matters with the people to the point where even the Queen was forced to pay attention. What few but Tony Blair could understand at the time was that the Queen wasn't unfeeling, but was instead utterly lost in the midst of an unprecedented event for which there was no protocol she could reference and the nuances of which she genuinely didn't understand.

In the end, of course, Diana was given what the vast majority of people around the world felt was her due. She was laid to rest with every bit of pomp and circumstance royalty might expect, and she was mourned by all from those in government to those with great celebrity to ordinary men on the street who wept with their wives and their children when the casket passed them by.

Helen Mirren is deserving of the accolades she's received in this role. Though not overtly emotional — that's what the Queen has been criticized for, after all! — it's clear in the film at least that she's far from unfeeling. She's merely been trained to rise above her emotions and to present a calm and stoic face to her subjects no matter the provocation. That Mirren makes us actually see that without being told is an indication of just how very good she is. Michael Sheen also gives an excellent performance as Prime Minister Tony Blair, and his resemblance only adds to it.

Helen McCrory, James Cromwell, Sylvia Syms (as the Queen Mother), Alex Jennings, and Roger Allam are all good, too. McCrory in particular does a fine job, but part of that can be credited to her uncanny resemblance to the real Mrs. Blair. Cromwell is fine, but the otherwise perfectly good performances of Syms and Jennings are in my opinion significantly harmed by the fact that neither look much like the person they're supposed to be playing.

Director Stephen Frears (who also helmed the wonderful Mrs. Henderson Presents) does a nice understated job here. The interspersing of real news footage is a nice touch and unquestionably adds to the realism; putting it on the TV currently being watched by the Queen is especially deft. The script (by Peter Morgan, who also penned The King of Scotland), is okay, but I frequently found myself questioning various parts and pieces of it. Though I understand the story was written after a good deal of research and with the assistance of those close to the Prime Minister or the Royal Family, there are private moments that must, by definition, have involved guesswork. While I'm tempted to believe some of the guesses are accurate, I can't quite push myself over the edge into buying into the movie as a whole, and that hurt my overall enjoyment of it more than I'd like to admit.

The Queen is a reasonably good movie with spectacular sets and locations, and some very, very good acting. Anyone who appreciates those things will like The Queen. Those who remember Diana's death and who, even now, suffer a twinge of pain as a result, will also find much of The Queen of interest. On the other hand, those who don't care, and those uninterested in a behind the scenes look at royal protocol, aren't going to find much else of value in this movie. I recommend The Queen, but not without some reservations.

FAMILY SUITABILITY: The Queen is rated PG-13 for "brief strong language." I don't really see much here that wouldn't be okay for the average viewer of about age 10 and up. But the story itself is sufficiently mature, and frankly the rendering of it so staid (in fairness, that was intentional and it does help to convey the stuffy and stifling history of it all) that children aren't going to enjoy themselves at all. As such, I'd save this one for some evening when it's just the adults who are headed out for an evening at the movies.