New Release: Quartet

There is always a danger with the title of your film - another movie might use some part of it and you'll get them confused if they come out at the same time (A Late Quartet and Quartet).  It's almost as bad as two movies with the same story coming out at the same time (Mirror, Mirror and Snow White and the Huntsman).   It's nearly inevitable that one will fail in comparison.  I feel I can safely say it is NOT going to be Quartet that fails, and you should get your butt to the theater immediately and see this.

Quartet is directed by Dustin Hoffman, and there are moments of his whimsical sense of humor throughout, though subtle.  The movie follows former opera singers and musicians at their retirement home, specifically Wilf (Billy Connelly), Cissy (Pauline Collins), and Reggie (Tom Courtney).  They once performed together in Rigoletto. Now they relive their dreams and try to stay coherent as they decline in health, but often get to practice and live their diva-natures to the fullest.  They're getting ready for a benefit to save their home directed by super diva Cedric (pronounced "see-dric", Michael Gambon in a house dress).  A new resident arrives and throws everything off, an uber famous soprano Jean (Maggie Smith), but eventually she agrees to help - she was the fourth in the Rigoletto quartet with our three heroes and now their reunited.

This movie has a simple premise - once a diva, always a diva.  And put all of them into a house together living out their golden years and a lot humor and heart will result.  It's true - I loved this movie.  There is a lot of great music, lots of snide British comments, a love story, past wrongs righted, and so much heart yours will nearly burst.  I won't give you more examples, and just urge you, and everyone you know to see this as soon as possible.

New Release: Oz, the Great and Powerful

There is a lot of pressure on anything hoping to reinvent a franchise or capture the magic of a classic film or character and Oz, the Great and Powerful was attempting to do both.  And sadly, failed miserably on many fronts.  Our story starts in sepia tones in 1905 Kansas on the dusty plains where a circus has come to town featuring Oz (James Franco), a magician/con man.  We see that his act is barely holding together (he's seduced too many farmer's daughters) and there just isn't money to be had, let alone enough to share with his assistant (Zach Braff).  To escape one of the men he's wronged, Oz jumps in his hot-air balloon and is swept away by a Tornado to the land of Oz.  He sees improbable flowers, gorgeous mountain tops, beautiful bugs and birds.  Then he meets Theodora, a gorgeous young woman.  This first 25 minutes of wonder and set up work.  There's an originality to it, a glimpse of the whimsy of the original Wizard of Oz.  From here it's mostly downhill.

Theodora (Mila Kunis) is convinced Oz is the wizard who fulfills a prophesy that will save the land of Oz and make our con man king and very wealthy.  She falls for him, and intends to be his queen (much to his chagrin).  However, Oz still has the same smarmy nature - he hasn't been altered by the magic around him yet.  He does confess to a young monkey, Finlay (voiced by Braff) who becomes his servant that he might not be a wizard.  Then we get to the Emerald City and meet Theodora's sister, Evanora (Rachel Weisz) who wants the Wizard to fulfill the prophesy and kill the "wicked witch", and so off he heads in order to get the money.  Before he meets Glinda (Michelle Williams, who everyone knows is the Good Witch of the North), we get a new character, China Girl (Joey King) whose village was destroyed, and she goes along with our heroes.  Of course the first sisters are the wicked ones, and a plan is hatched to defeat them.

The story follows The Wizard of Oz almost exactly, including almost all the details (amassing partners, defeating the sleeping poppy field, etc.) and attempts to link us with all of the main ideas we see in the film we love - Margaret Hamilton's green cackly witch on a broom, the man behind the curtain version of the Wizard, even the cowardly lion.  Usually, I'm all for this kind of self-referential humor - I like being in the know.  But this is lazy, uninspired, and bogged down by some really, really terrible acting on Franco's part.  Gone is the wit and humor he had in 127 Hours where he held the screen alone for 90 minutes.  The writing and delivery of a smile and a dollop of charm just don't cut it when you want to be the king and actually energize the underdogs.  He just doesn't pull it off.  The ladies are okay - they have some terribly dialogue to work with, and Mila Kunis should never have agreed to attempt to be Margaret Hamilton - she isn't.  The not-so-subtle anti-feminist message is pretty overblown too - the women are witches who fight with each other and need a man to settle things.  I did not like this and do not recommend you see it.  Ever.

(the .5 is for the China Girl, and the costumes)

New Release: Identity Thief

I love Melissa McCarthy.  Just wanted to say that up front.  She was Sookie St. James in "Gilmore Girls", which I also loved, and now she's doing her own thing and I'm all for it.  I'm also a huge fan of Jason Bateman - "Arrested Development" is amazing.  So I went into this expecting to like it quite a bit - and honestly, I did. However, if you don't already like both of those actors, this movie isn't going to do much to convince you.  McCarthy plays Diana, an over the top con artist in Florida who has her own credit card making machine.  She scams people over the phone and gets their important info and then builds some credit cards for herself and then goes out to have fun on their dime.  One person she calls is Sandy Bigelow Patterson (a man with an androgynous name perfect for her needs) played by Bateman. He works for a jerk and is about to get a promotion leaving the firm.  Unfortunately, Diana has gotten arrested under her assumed name, and maxed out a few credit cards.  Sandy finally figures out what's going on, and tries to convince the police, and his boss who wants to fire him.  Even more unfortunately, she hasn't broken any laws in Denver, so the local cops don't care at all about the real Sandy's problems.  The only way they'll get involved if she shows up in Denver and confesses.  I don't know enough about how actual identity theft works, so I'm just going with their premise.  Sandy decides to go get her, offer not to press charges for the credit cards, as long as she talks to his boss and gets his job back. 

The rest of the movie is their misadventure to get back to Denver from Florida.  It turns out she's pissed off a few people in Florida (the rapper T.I. plays one of them) and of course has jumped bail for her mix-up with the law, so a bounty hunter is after her.  Of course things work out - and Diana only gets killed like 3 different times.  But they make the rest pretty much make sense, if hard to believe.  It's a similar idea of Due Date with the road trip and two totally crazy companions.  It's much better than Due Date, and funnier in some ways than Planes, Trains and Automobiles, but not as well written.  I liked the mix of characteristics they each bring to the story, and it made for some really funny moments.  However, if you're one of the incomprehensible people who doesn't already like these actors, then you might not like this.  Oh, and there's a scene with snakes that means I'll never be watching it again. 

New Release: Warm Bodies

The month of romance brought us the age-old tale of star-crossed lovers, one a beautiful, lively young woman and the other...a zombie.

R (Nicholas Hoult) is a high-functioning zombie who collects things, can grunt actual words occasionally, and, upon seeing the very alive Julie (Teresa Palmer), even falls in love. Once the other zombies see the connection between R & Julie, something in all of them begins to change and they feel as if they may actually have something to live for. Unfortunately, Julie's father (John Malkovich) still sees them all as lifeless, brain-sucking fleshbags that must be destroyed.

It's becoming increasingly difficult to escape the zombie craze that has taken over cinema, television, literature and many more forms of art in recent years. Zombies have been used for horror and comedy, social commentary and pure entertainment. So how can one possibly bring anything new to the sub-genre? Well, they really can't. Granted, a film from the zombie's point of view (in this case R narrates the film) is a new-ish spin, but it's not entirely original, just original for the mainstream. A quick search on Netflix streaming turns up endless zombie films, and even a few zombie-point-of-view films, but these are certainly low-budget and easily overlooked, though the concept of Aaah! Zombies!! is good for laughs as we actually see the humans turning into the undead from their perspective.

So now that zombies have a voice in the theater, what do they actually have to say? For Warm Bodies, it's nothing entirely new. The film is a very on-the-nose interpretation of Romeo and Juliet, with characters R, Julie, Perry, M and Nora (who even wants to be a nurse) and an actual balcony scene. But there's nothing like a new spin on an old classic, and Warm Bodies delivers the laughs along with the warm fuzzies as two beings who really shouldn't be together find a way not only to make their love happen, but change the world for the better.

It's not the first zombie-point-of-view-film and it's not the first story about star-crossed lovers, but so far Warm Bodies is the only zombie film that ends with genuine love and hope, where the world is a much better place by the end of the film, possibly even better than before the outbreak occurred. And that is rare.

30 Days of Oscar: Day 21 - Flight

Movie: Flight
Year: 2013

Nominations: Best Actor (Denzel Washington), Best Original Screenplay (John Gatins)

Wins/Snubs: While there are still 10 days to go before the big show, we know that Denzel isn't going to take it this year.  Daniel Day-Lewis has a lock, with Bradley Cooper possibly being the dark horse.  Screenplay, too, is not going to Flight, but that one is harder to call.  

This is a great performance, don't get me wrong.  Washington has every right to be up there.  But this is not a great movie, but I'll admit I'm having trouble separating several issues I have with this film.  First, it's not my cup of tea - I'm really not a fan of watching people go through addiction, and Washington plays Whip Whitaker, an airline pilot with a SERIOUS alcohol and cocaine problem.  However, I really like his performance - he's nuanced and doesn't actually seem to care that his life is a mess.  He knows he is damned lucky to be alive with that kind of addiction, but he even says at one point, it's his choice.  And, thanks to a miraculous series of events, he saves almost everyone on a doomed flight that essentially falls from the sky, which makes him feel a little bit like he deserves to be a treated like a hero.  He even attempts to act the part by getting rid of all of this booze after the crash (partly to act the part of the hero, and partly as an attempt to really be a good guy).  
Unfortunately, I never got behind the story this movie is telling, which is why I don't think it's got a shot at Best Original Screenplay.  In the hospital, after the crash, Whip meets Nichole, a recovering addict in the hospital after an overdose, but getting clean.  He helps her out and they stick together for a little bit, until she realizes she'll never stay sober with him.  Don Cheadle did help the story a bit as the attorney for the pilot's union who has blocked some damning evidence (he was high and drunk during the crash, but that didn't cause it and may have saved the plane), and actually wants to help this guy he thinks is a hero - we get to see our own frustrations acted out in Cheadle's eyes.  Because it is frustration.  There is nothing new in this story of addiction, he falls down, he falls down some more, he makes an attempt, he fails, and eventually, like all addicts, he reforms or dies.  They didn't actually pull on the audience heartstrings by making us feel his heroism much after the first 30 minutes.  They play on it being a miracle, or luck, but only in one great scene by Cheadle do we think the save might actually something to do with Washington.  Meh.  2.5/5 stars

New Release: Zero Dark Thirty

There are many examples of filmmakers immortalizing our history, good and bad - several even nominated for Oscars this year (Lincoln, Argo).  Yes, filmmakers are putting their own stamp on history by choosing what facts to present and how, but that doesn't limit other filmmakers from telling the same story with a different focus or definition.  Whether or not they intend to, filmmakers provide a point of view for the audience to experience our own history.  Zero Dark Thirty tries to provide a point of view through which to reflect on the hunt for and killing of Osama bin Laden (OBL).  The movie has been the subject of controversy - that torture is shown and that Americans are portrayed as torturers.  Both are true, but that way oversimplifies what the movie is attempting to do - yes, torture is shown, but more the consequences of different kinds of torture (no ones fingernails are pulled out, no one is screaming, just whimpering after psychological torture).  And yes, Americans are doing it - but unlike other movies that portray torture of prisoners, no one is enjoying it.  It's not hard to watch, but it's easy to dislike.  So not particularly controversial, effective, but hardly groundbreaking.

The overall story is told by watching the CIA agents in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Maya (Chastain), Dan (Jason Clarke), Jessica (Jennifer Ehle) and station chief Joseph Bradley (Kyle Chandler), as they amass information, some from torturing the detainees, and some from mining all of the global intelligence.  We see the periphery of some of their failures - they knew an attack on London was coming, but didn't know what or when.  They were able to thwart a few small things, but mostly weren't able to make huge strides in either predicting new attacks or stopping Al Quaeda from planning new ones.  Ultimately, Maya is able to follow a very old, under appreciated lead to the likely home of OBL.  Then we get to watch the Seal team invade the compound and take out OBL.

I did not like this movie.  It was incredibly dull until the final 30 minutes (it's a 157 minute movie though).  I have lived through the past decade in a state of consciousness (I wasn't a child, I wasn't in a coma, and I don't have children) so I felt well prepared.  The movie would put a date on the screen, going chronologically.  When a date appeared, I knew what event was about to be explained.  Then it happened.  Then another date would appear, and more events would be uncovered.  Sometimes, instead of a date, a "section heading" would appear (like a card in a silent movie) and we'd learn more about a few of the characters under that theme.  This meant that the terrific acting Jessica Chastain turned in took place in a vacuum - there was no support for her outrage, pleading, fighting, etc.  There was no tension build up, which is key when we know what's coming.  At the end a tear runs down Chastain's face, which did get to me - we were seeing that she had devoted her life to something that had ended.

New Release Double Header: Les Misérables

Jess' Review

I saw this on the day after Christmas.  I have seen Les Miserables on stage 4 times - twice on Broadway, including the first time when I was 9.  This is to explain that I was seriously predisposed to like this movie.  And I really, really did.  I liked hearing the songs I love put to music with, mostly, such amazing acting. Hugh Jackman brought some pretty great skill to recreating Jean Valjean, a man who got out of prison and managed to change his life and the life of a young girl.  Anne Hathaway is going to completely deserve her Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for playing Fantine, a young woman with a child who gets turned out of her job on moral grounds and ends up a prostitute.  Fantine's daughter, Cosette (an amazing Isabelle Allen), is raised by Valjean after Fantine's death.  However, this means bringing her into his life of hiding from Javert (Russell Crowe), a policeman who was there when Valjean was initially released, and has continued to hunt him.  I really, really liked Eddie Redmayne who played Marius, a young man who is fighting for equal rights, but falls in love with Cosette. And finally, the last thing I loved was Samantha Barks as Eponine, Marius' friend who helps him find Cosette.  I really liked each of these things individually, including Russell Crowe's interpretation of Javert (and yes, his voice too).

Now, the things I would have rather they'd done differently.  This movie is an EPIC story.  The book it's based on is nearly 1000 pages.  The opening scene set me up to think that the movie makers knew this too.  A huge ship being dragged into a hanger by prisoners (Valjean).  That's the last time this movie felt epic.  Almost every other major shot is a close-up of the person singing, until the last moment that still doesn't live up to the epic concept.  That's not to say many of the shots aren't great, Fantine's singing close-up is perfect. When we get to the barricades (student's rioting for freedom in Paris), it only looks about 15 feet wide in a tiny corner of the streets.  It didn't look as big as the version that appeared on stage.  It didn't live up to what this kind of story required.  If they were trying to show that it was a smaller and more futile struggle than we knew, it worked, but it was a let down.  Also, the performance of Amanda Seyfried was not up to the strength required to sing the part of Cosette, grown up falling in love with Marius.  While that part is particularly difficult to sing, it's very high and often on a single note, she was not the person to sing it.  The other big thing that failed was the staging and performances of the lighter moments with the Thendariers (Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter) - they were very difficult to hear or understand and really didn't bring any of the humor or light-heartedness that every version I've ever seen on stage.

Overall, I still really enjoyed it.  I did notice another beef when I bought the soundtrack that I should mention.  I didn't notice this during the film, but there is a really bad mixing of the sound - the voices really often do not line up with the beat of the orchestra.  They sang the songs live (as opposed to lip syncing later) and I think it did improve the performance and emotion, but the next step was to carefully match the entire orchestra to the voices instead of the other way around, and I think this was a bigger problem than I realized.




Rachel's Review

I am on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Jess. I have never seen the stage production of Les Miserables, I haven't read the book nor (yet) seen the non-musical film staring Liam Neeson. I only know about the story in a pop culture context, and of course every girl who's ever thought she was God's gift to music has at one time attempted (and likely butchered) "I Dreamed a Dream" or "On My Own," or both if she's particularly delusional. What does all this amount to? I had zero expectations going into the theater. And overall, I liked it.

The winning factor of the film is the performances and how well the "live-singing" benefited the actors. No the singing wasn't perfectly polished, but it felt more in tune with the gritty surroundings and darkness of the story.

Unfortunately, that's the only really good choice Tom Hooper made, because his directing was atrocious. It's all a bit too much when you have virtually 2.5 hours of straight singing and 90% (I didn't really keep track) of the shots are tight close-ups on the actors' faces. In the end, I left theater with a whopper of headache that lasted for the rest of my weekend thanks to the visual attack I suffered. Can you imagine the suffering if the film had been offered in IMAX? Blindness most likely.

And then there's the story. I know it can't be easy chopping a million-page book down to a passable time in the theater (stage or film), but somethings just felt rushed and a bit silly. I like Valjean's story, his hardships and attempts at redemption. I loved poor Fantine's heartbreaking demise. However, her eager willingness to hand over her daughter to a man she did not know, and little Cosette's eagerness to go with a strange man she met in the woods, was disturbing at best. And of course Marius "falling in love" with older Cosette (on the brink of revolution no less) after seeing her for 30 seconds on the street was plain silly. It wouldn't be a big deal if their love story didn't help drive the second act of the film, but thankfully there was a large body count to balance it out, because the revolution was excellent.

As a Les Miserables first-timer, I mostly enjoyed the film, but it wasn't quite as sweeping as I had hoped, given its reputation. Alas, I walked away with a feeling that it could grow on me with time, and that rarely happens.

New Release: Jack Reacher

It's unusual for us to start with our scale, but Jack Reacher is a solid 3.5/5 stars film.  However, I think should not have been made.  Let me explain.  I've never read the books, and have no idea what the eponymous character is supposed to look like or act like, so I have no problem with Tom Cruise playing this role.  So that's not my problem with the film.  I actually really, really liked the character of Jack Reacher - he's a retired military police detective with pretty exceptional deductive and reasoning abilities.  He solved crimes for the military and then chose not to live "on the grid" and drifts about now.  We don't get much more than that for his back story, but this is only the first of what was obviously supposed to be another franchise (and there are many books from which they could have drawn).  Now he's been brought back to the real world, on behalf of a guy, Barr, who has been accused of killing 5 seemingly random people on a waterfront from a parking garage far away.  The guy wants the police to bring in Jack Reacher on his behalf.  The rest of the movie follows Reacher's attempt to figure out how and why this guy might have committed these crimes.  He's helping Rosamund Pike (whom I adore), the attorney defending Barr.  He works with the police, David Oyelowo, to examine the evidence, and the DA, Richard Jenkins, to understand what might be the bigger picture.  Of course it all ends up being much bigger and more convoluted than I could possibly explain.  Werner Herzog is the bad guy - and this is NOT a spoiler.

But back to my original statement that this movie should NOT have been made, and likely will never become a franchise.  I think the character of Jack Reacher was one that could have become a long franchise - similar to Jack Ryan, they could have gone forward or backward in time with successive actors.  However, I'm glad that it won't, if only because it might mean that they stop making movies where the main character is a man with a gun who kills a lot of innocent people.  I know, the first response is that there are a lot of movies out right now with gun violence, why is this one different.  Django Unchained is MUCH more violent than Jack Reacher, and many of the people are killed with guns.  The difference is the tone - there is nothing realistic about either the violence or the bloodshed going on in Django - it's in another time, and bad people line up to be shot, and pretty much everyone gets what they deserve.  In Jack Reacher we watch them fight to protect the rights of someone accused of shooting a group of innocent people.  After a very, very cursory look at those people, they are forgotten and their deaths neither revenged, nor justified.  They just become part of the reason we hate the bad guy at the end, but only in the abstract.  As a society, if celebrating this kind of movie, and the violence it contains, is even a small part of what has driven people to commit crimes like this in real life, I think we have an obligation to not make these movies.  There is so much more creativity available to us, that to choose limit our storytelling on film to other choices does not limit us as a people who value both freedom and free speech.  ** Stepping off the soapbox.  Thanks for reading.

New Release: Life of Pi

Maybe with the "end of days" approaching in roughly three weeks, the big name filmmakers thought 2012 would be a good year to put religion under the microscope. Ridley Scott went big and bold by having scientists search the universe for mankind's creators, while P.T. Anderson kept it grounded between two exceptionally flawed men. But for me, the only one that has worked is Ang Lee's adaptation of Life of Pi.

During a terrible storm at sea, a teenage boy, Pi (Suraj Sharma), is the sole human survivor of a shipwreck. After losing his entire family, he finds himself helpless in the middle of the ocean on a life boat with nothing but a grown Bengal tiger as his only companion.

Prior to the tragedy, we're given a good deal of backstory on Pi's childhood, particularly his fascination with religion. But not just one religion, three. Raised Hindu by his mother (a choice frowned upon by his atheist father), Pi eventually finds God in a Catholic church, before becoming a Muslim. However, he never rejects one religion for another, but welcomes the teachings of all three. So when he finds himself dying in the ocean, his multiple faiths are equally tested. The film also explores the human spirit and the will to survive in the worst circumstances. And by the end, it's revealed that the struggle to live with one's own actions for that survival are the biggest challenge.

Lee's film is visually delicious as it dishes difficult situations and themes many of us will never have to face or could ever fully understand. It is larger than life, yet still stays on an intimate scale, and it all comes together in the end as a sad, hopeful and beautiful journey.

New Release Double Header: Skyfall

Rachel's Review

It's no secret that James Bond has never really held much interest for me. In fact Skyfall is only the second 007 film I've seen in the theater. (My first? "Christmas Jones" ring a bell? Ugggh.) With only a small sample of others under my belt, I found the half-century old franchise to be silly, repetitive, cheesy and sexist. Of course the Craig era has helped, at least in Casino Royale, but not enough for me to keep up with the super spy. However, if you hear enough praise of a film for a long enough period of time, it seems worth a matinee trip on a holiday weekend to see what all the fuss is about. And for once, the rumors were (mostly) true.

The thing that sets Skyfall apart from the few others I've seen is that the plot is actually good. It's not just a terrorist threatening mayhem for the sake making money or pissing people off: Silva (Javier Bardem) is a bad guy with a vendetta against M (Judi Dench) and that suddenly makes things more personal than any idiot with his finger on a trigger of a nuclear device. In the process, he blows up MI6 headquarters as a warning to M, whilst threatening to expose the true identities of undercover agents in terrorist organizations. It's not just about exacting revenge on M for past indiscretions, but making her suffer in every way possible. And it's quite cruel.

And this time around Bond didn't just get back to his roots to make the film better (no exploding pens! no invisible cars!), he also dug up his own past a bit. I always feel a little backstory goes a long way, and Skyfall proved that because for the first time I saw Bond as a real person, instead of an MI6 puppet that can be changed out every decade when his expiration date is up. Though the rough patch of the film is too-long-for-its-own-good third act, I still respect it for what it gave to our hero, as the climax plays out at his childhood estate. On top of his past coming back to an emotional surface, 007 also had to face the sad fact that he is not a machine, as he struggles physically after a very close call with death. Even the ladies of his life (Naomi Harris and Berenice Marlohe) had more personality than I remember in others of Bond Girls past.

So a healthy dose of character development and deeper plot mixed with stunning actions sequences (did I forget to mention those?) made a great recipe for what might actually be a Bond film I will be able to pick out of a line up of the other films from the franchise.



Jess' Review - This is the twelfth Bond film I've seen. And I must say it felt the least like a Bond film of all of them. Is that necessarily a bad thing? No, I still enjoyed both the character and the world as much as ever. It definitely lacked some of the whimsy and humor of many Bond films (there was only one major smoldering smile), but it did a great job being full of action, but with a fairly strong story too. The action sequences are broken up with dialogue - who knew that narrating a fight scene over ear pieces would make it that much more exciting!

Bond (Daniel Craig) is trying to find a baddie who stole the list of MI6 agents before their identities are compromised. He goes off the grid for a while, until MI6 is attacked and he returns to help M (Dame Judi Dench) save the day. Unlike a lot of previous Bond films, we meet the bad guy, Silva (Javier Bardem) fairly early in the movie and actually get to spend a while getting to know him. Most Bond films spend time keeping the "larger than life" criminal hidden behind levels of thugs and secret dealings, but this was refreshing in introducing us to the faults of the good guys and the niceties of the bad guys. The Craig era of Bond has been much more focused on Bond as a man, and we do get a lot of his back story in Skyfall.

My biggest issue with the film was the aging Daniel Craig. I don't necessarily mean that he's too old to play the part, but they must have joked about his age, and M's age at least half a dozen times (all without much humor). Since Bond must, out of necessity, be ageless, this seemed like a stupid tack to take. Also, either Craig is actually looking old, or they put on make-up to accent his jowls and general cragginess. It felt like it was getting ready for only one or two more movies and wrapping up the story. Since he's the 6th person to play Bond, I don't understand the point of going in this direction. And for a movie over two and half hours, it's surprising how little really happens. But I still liked the film a lot, more than Quantum of Solace and as much as Casino Royale.

New Release: The Fitzgerald Family Christmas (VOD)

Just in time for the holidays, Edward Burns is giving us a return to the Irish-American family at Christmas.  I got to see this at TIFF, with a question and answer period with the director, Mr. Burns.  That's how I even knew to look for this On-Demand or for rent on itunes.  Burns said that the budget that goes into marketing a film for wide release can kill the ability to make these really small budget films, so he's been going the digital route for a few films now (Newlyweds).  The nice thing is that he's been in the business long enough that he can call on friends and put together a pretty convincing cast from all his films, spin a story, and poof - a solid, creative, funny, relate-able, holiday flick.

Gerry Fitzgerald (Burns) owns a bar in a little town outside New York City.  He has lots of grown up brothers and sisters, all raised by his mom, Rosie, (Anita Gillette) after Big Jim (Ed Lauter) left them.  The kids range in age such that the youngest two have no memory of Dad being dad.   The older ones, including Gerry have fond memories of their father.  So when he asks to spend Christmas with the whole family one last time, after 20 years with a new family, there is discord in the family, particularly with the youngest and Rosie.  We get to see glimpses into each child's life, just enough that you feel you actually could be part of such a big family.  As a member of a large Irish-Catholic family, keeping up with all the gossip and discussion made me feel right at home.   If that isn't your upbringing (or you feel family members should mind their own business), this might be a bit gossipy for you.  But I'm sure you'd still find something in these characters to relate to by the end.  And if all you want is a holiday love story, that's there too when Gerry meets Nora (Connie Britton) working for a neighbor.

There were a lot of tiny things I really liked about this movie - the small touches like overly decorated houses with every Christmas knick-knack/towel/garland/etc. you can imagine.  The tight corners and spaces of the houses really showed the family dynamic - constantly being on top of each other can bring a family pretty close.  And as a movie geek it amazed me how they could possibly get the angles to shoot.  The movie falls into the previously voted sweet spot for length (99 minutes) and there's nothing wasted.  The Christmas carols used as the soundtrack are really well done and give the movie character.  Unlike a lot of movies that contain Christmas, this one is really based on family holidays and figuring out how to celebrate when life is more complicated than that.  The family dynamic is really well done, the sisters band together, there are things you're always learning about each other in a big family, and there's always ONE person who annoys everybody (Gerry) and another who does whatever he wants, (Quinn - Michael McGlone), and the babies who must be pampered to a fault (Cyril - Tom Guiry).

New Release: The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2

SPOILERS (Even for those who've read the book.)

For those of you not in the know, I really dug this series, in an ironic sort of way. The hype around it brings a smile to my face for all the wrong reasons. I've read the books numerous times and I've watched the films numerous times (but always just once in the theater). And I know it's sexist, teen trash. Now, if my daughter(s) were in the target demographic, I'd feel differently, but I'm old enough to know what's right and wrong, and though I know everything this saga preaches is totally wrong, I still find it loads of superficial fun. And I'm not even there to drool over guys at least a decade my junior because by now everyone should know that I'm Team Charlie for life.

All that being said, Breaking Dawn: Part 2 wasn't all that bad. Not just for a Twilight movie, but for a movie in general. And this is coming from someone who hated  the last book with a passion. I honestly think it should have just ended after they defeated Victoria in Eclipse, but apparently creepy half breed, vampire-human children that tease grown werewolves are where the money's at in the teen literary market these days. I really didn't care for Part I, which painfully detailed Edward and Bella's wedding/honeymoon/c-section-by-vampire-teeth birth. It just dragged on and on, and the only hope left was that I had the last film to look forward to, when sixty people stand in a snowy field and stare at each other before anti-climatically going their separate ways. Thankfully, screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg finally took some pity on us.

Bella (Kristen Stewart) wakes up a vampire, something she's actually good at being, which showed, because this is the least annoying Bella has been throughout the series. She finally doesn't take crap from anyone, especially her new husband Edward (Robert Pattinson). Be it her new bloodsucking outlook on life or her new role as a mother, it took getting further away from Bella's first person point of view to quit despising her so much. And most of the awkwardness from the principal players that permeated the first films is mostly gone. It's as if they finally got comfortable in their characters in time for the entire series to end. Hence, there are far fewer silent pauses of everyone just staring at each other. Also hence, Breaking Dawn: Part 2 is much better paced than any of its predecessors.

And then there is the matter of the twenty minute (at least) action sequence that didn't exist within the book. Actually, none of the action sequences in any of the films were written out in the book, because Stephenie Meyer simply can't write. She always used some lame excuse to get out of writing anything adrenaline-fueled, by having our first person narrator in another place or just passed out. I wish I was making this up. But the action that takes place within the previous films was alluded to or referenced in one way another. However the actual fight we see on screen between the Cullens and the Volturi was never apart of the original source material in any form, because Meyer has admitted to being a big baby that can't hack killing off her characters. I'm sort of paraphrasing here.

So after the Volturi (vampire overlords) believe the Cullens have created a vampire child (a big effing no-no in the vampire world) they decide to pay them a visit and execute them. Alice's (Ashley Greene) psychic powers give the Cullens an advantage as they can know what the Volturi are planning and when they'll be coming. So the Cullens do the only logical thing: bring an ass-ton of vampires to Forks to witness that the alleged vampire child is Bella and Edwdard's half human daughter and not a threat to anyone. Yes, it's an incredibly thin plot when you think that with all their combined super powers, the Cullens could easily convince the Volturi of the truth, but this is all from the head of the woman who cursed humankind with the name Renesmee, so we just have to watch it play out at this point.

Now, besides the paper-thin plot, this is my main issue with the film. I like that we are introduced to a number of vampires from around the world, but few of them are given enough character to really matter. It takes awhile to gather them all up and for each to show off their magical powers, which drags down the flow of the film a bit, but I'm just waiting for the epic battle the trailer promised, so I didn't mind too much, because I know the book took even longer going through all this, so I should just be thankful the movie is only two hours long.

So the showdown with the Volturi finally arrives, but first we have to sit through a lot of talking, only made tolerable by the indescribable performance of Michael Sheen as leader Aro. Seriously, he's worth the price of a ticket and you have to see it to believe the insanity. But then something peculiar happens. During all this talking, Aro and Cullen leader Carlisle (Peter Facinelli) get into a scuffle that ends with Carlisle's beheading. Hmmm...that wasn't in the book. Then the battle that the trailer teased us with begins. And it's pretty awesome, counting the losses on both sides. And any time Dakota Fanning dies, I'm pretty sure an angel gets its wings.

However, in the back of my mind, as Jasper is ripped to shreds, then Seth is crushed to death and Leah falls into a giant crevice to the center of the Earth, I know it's not all real. I know that Stephenie Meyer, admittedly being a giant, thumb-sucking baby, would never allow the final film adaptation of her beloved art to fall to such heresy just for general popcorn entertainment. I almost finished typing that with a straight face. And in the end I was right, because that energetic action sequence with real sacrifices being made was just a vision that Alice showed to Aro, to change his mind of starting a war. Then there's more talking, the Volturi run off and everyone lives happily ever after, to repeat high school for all eternity.

Normally the fake-out ending is shat upon, as we all give a collective groan when it was "just a dream." But here it worked. Probably everyone in the theater had read (and hopefully loathed) the final book and when Carlisle died on screen, the game suddenly changed. This injection of genuine excitement appeased both the audience who had to have more than a long conversation in a snowy field and the Royal Overlord who refused to write a real climax. In other words, it was...satisfying.

And with that, it's finally over, kids. You can rest easy knowing you survived the five consecutive years of the Twilight saga milking your precious box office. That is until the next love sick, emo infused, supernatural young adult series hits theaters, which is probably a lot sooner than you think.

New Release: Wreck-It Ralph

What is a hero? What does it take to be happy with what we have? Simple questions, with hard answers, but Wreck-It Ralph meets the challenge.

In an old 8-bit video game, Wreck-It Ralph (John C. Reilly) is the nemesis to the game's hero Fix-It Felix, Jr. (Jack McBrayer). The game has survived at the local arcade for over three decades, but within in the world of the game, Ralph is tired of being the bad guy because he finds himself extremely lonely. Ralph decides to "game jump" to Hero's Duty to win (i.e. steal) a hero's medal so the other characters of his game will finally show him some respect, but an accident throws him into the new racing game Sugar Rush, where he meets Vanellope (Sarah Silverman), an outcast in her own world, whom Ralph decides to help gain acceptance.

In a society where heroes are shown as Avengers, Batman and Spider-Man in less than a three-month span at the theater, Wreck-It Ralph takes a more intimate approach of what it means to be a hero for its younger audience. Ralph sets out to become the hero to many, but what really matters to him is being the hero to just one little girl. It's an excellent lesson to a younger generation that has been bombarded with endless superhero films for the past few years. Our children need to know that helping just one person, especially when extreme bullying is involved and for which you may never receive any massive recognition, can be just as meaningful as saving the entire world. It's a lesson our children need to learn as they grow up and realize that the notion of superheroes is just fun and games, but real heroes exist in everyday life, just not as celebrated.

But Wreck-It Ralph holds just as much for the older, more cynical crowd, besides a nostalgic wink to the days at the arcade. In Ralph's gaming world becoming "unplugged" is a harsh reality for the characters at every turn. Characters whose games have gone out of commission are left to wander "Game Central Station" begging for scraps, no doubt a reflection on our own world's recession and rise in unemployment. Ralph's disgust with his "job" and his search for greener pastures, despite the threat to his own game should he not return, reminds the rest of us to be thankful for what we have and be the best at what we do, even if we have to take t one day at a time. We may not have ended up in the glamorous lives we dreamed of a kids, but that doesn't mean we're wasting the lives we do have.

With lovable characters, great animation, and a touch of genuine cleverness, Wreck-It Ralph imparts very important lessons to the entire family while making us laugh out loud.

New Release: The Sessions

Every now and then, a movie opens your mind to a different kind of life.  It makes you think about how another person must have lived their life without you ever knowing there were people who lived lives like that.  Sometimes we identify with characters because they are just like us, but sometimes you identify with a character because they are better and stronger than we know we might be in that situation.  Mark O'Brien (John Hawkes) is one such character - he has lived almost his entire life as a survivor of polio, which means he spends 20 hours a day in an iron lung to help him breathe.  He's in his thirties and despite his efforts, he's never been able to maintain a relationship (I imagine the logistics eventually get in the way), and has decided that he'd really like to lose his virginity.  But Mark was raised well by his Catholic parents who refused to put him in a home, and his upbringing forces him to ask Father Brendan (William H. Macy) for permission.  Father Brendan assures him that God will give him a pass.  Mark is also an author for the local newspaper (typing with a pencil in his mouth) and gets in touch with a few disabled people who were part of a story about sexuality, and gets in touch with Cheryl Cohen-Green (Helen Hunt), a sexual surrogate who helps people will problems (physical or emotional) related to sex.  Mark and Cheryl work together for a few sessions (thus, the title), and a stronger bond forms between them, but a lot of what Cheryl hoped to help him with, Mark does actually learn.

I saw this at TIFF in September, and this summary barely describes how much fun and how much heart this movie has.  John Hawkes is really amazing playing a man paralyzed, but hardly disabled.  He has to act with only his face, and voice and he makes you care without being a sad-sack character that just makes you feel bad.  He's really terrific.  One of  the big parts of this movie that made me nervous going in was Helen Hunt - I wasn't sure this was a role I would care about with her playing it.  But she's perfect - she's strong about her sexuality (even while completely naked), and conflicted about what happens after her sessions with Mark and returning to her real family.  She's really great making Mark think through his bigger issues.  And the supporting cast is really great - William H. Macy, as well as Mark's nurse, Rod (W. Earl Brown), and Mark's friend Carmen (Jennifer Kumiyama) who loans him a bedroom (why would someone who sleeps in an iron lung need a bed or a couch?).  Macy, in particular, is really great as Mark tell him the stories about his upbringing and how the sessions are going, we all get to hear more about Mark.  And Macy's ability to play a supportive, interested, helpful priest, without the smallest hint of negative issue is really amazing.

This is one of those movies that it's hard to describe, and is so much greater than the sum of its parts.  It's hard to explain how funny a movie like this can be.  Imagine all of the sex jokes from American Pie, but in a realistic, adult situation that also has a lot of heart.  Definitely go see it.

New Release: Argo

Argo is the title of the fictional movie the CIA was planning to make in order to scout locations in Iran in 1979 in an effort to save 6 Americans. I saw this at the Toronto International Film Festival and wrote some initial thoughts when I got back. Now that I've had a month to reflect on it, I liked it even more.

In 1979, Iranians overran the US Embassy in Tehran, but 6 employees made it out the back door to the Canadian Ambassador's (Victor Garber) house. With really, really huge targets on their back, they can't leave. Back in the US, ideas are being floated about how to rescue them specifically - international diplomacy was taking care of those in the Embassy. CIA 'exfiltration' expert Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) has an idea of creating a Canadian movie crew that is scouting locations in Iran for shooting - relying on the idea that people in Hollywood have a reputation for being a little crazy (it's the "best bad idea the CIA has"). He goes to see a costumer, John Chambers (John Goodman) who sets him up with producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin). They need to make the film and production company seem real in case it gets checked, so they pick a script for a Sci-fi adventure, Argo, and set up casting and a reading. Then the adventure begins - actually getting into Iran and rescuing 6 people. Much of the tension does come down to timing as the Iranians try to figure out if they captured everyone in the Embassy by going through shredded documents.

A big part of my enjoyment of this movie was the actual experience of seeing it with a Canadian audience in a huge theater, after an introduction by Ben Affleck, the director, himself. Since seeing this will be a different experience for most patrons, I'll mention the other things I really enjoyed about the film. In real-life stories like this, the casting can often give you an idea of who lives and who dies. However, since it's also a real life story, we know that no Americans died, which makes the casting even more impressive - Bryan Cranston is Affleck's boss at the CIA, Tate Donovan is the person in charge of the 6 hostages who completely don't believe that Affleck's scheme can get them out of Iran. And then there's the chemistry between many of the characters - Goodman and Arkin are completely believable and hysterical as the "production company". They have to find a script that is believable, but won't draw too much attention. And then there's Affleck - I am one of the few who really enjoys The Sum of All Fears, but his earnestness and slight goofball attitude have been replaced by a believable strength, intelligence and attitude. And of course there's his 1979 haircut that isn't distracting, but isn't particularly attractive either. But the directing, particularly building tension for a real-life event, is a master stroke. Usually tension in real-life events is highly manufactured to create an entertaining movie. But I have no doubt that the tension and fear of the fake production crew at the Tehran airport is as real as it gets.

There are 3 great reasons to see this movie:

1. It will inform you about events from 33 years ago that's pretty likely you're unaware of and would benefit from knowing, mostly because you won't believe the story (it was declassified in the 90s).

2. The acting is really terrific - witty dialogue that will make you laugh delivered without a sense of fake bravado.

3. It's intensely entertaining, funny, tense, thrilling, mysterious, and uplifting (pun intended once you see it).

New Release Double Header: Looper

Jess' Review - I don't think Looper is the kind of movie you need to go in blind, but knowing very little about the details might keep you from waiting for things. There were some distracting details I won't spoil in case you don't know them, but I really didn't like them. There, that's all I didn't like. Looper tells the story of Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt AND Bruce Willis), who makes money as a Looper, an assassin for the mob of future baddies. How does he do that you might ask? It doesn't matter. That's one of the absolute best things about this movie - the almost lack of need to explain all of the time travel and origins. However, the story also rests upon the details - whether you can harm the future by changing the present and what that means. We see an almost lethal example right near the beginning of the consequences of messing with the present when Paul Dano screws up on the job and lets the person he was supposed to kill leave. After Joe makes the same mistake, he tries really hard to fix it. However, he's smarter than he knows and starts to figure out that knowing something of the future can let you actually do something about it.

Joseph Gorden-Levitt and Bruce Willis are both fantastic. Smart bad-asses make for pretty terrific movies. Emily Blunt, as the mother of a telekinetic little boy, is amazing. Oh, yeah, the TK factor is only a red herring/MacGuffin, but it fills its purpose just fine. I gotta say I loved Emily Blunt with an unexplained Southern accent. The best thing about this movie is its total originality. There is very, very little in the film that relies on sci-fi cliche or time travel genre-bending rules or anything particularly expected. When I left the movie more than two hours after I sat down, it felt like I'd JUST arrived.




Rachel's Review

It turns out Looper's trailer didn't show us all its cards in two minutes, a real rarity these days. I went into the film under the impression the plot was merely Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) tracking down an older version of himself (Bruce Willis) sent back in time to be killed. Yet there is so much more. Old Joe actually has a purpose, a goal to change his and Young Joe's future/present. And therein lies a wonderful mystery wrapped around a morality tale.

Looper asks some really tough questions of its audiences without patronizing them with an overabundance of silly sci-fi elements. Time travel is possible and there is no need to harp on the details. There are a handful of futuristic elements, but we're not given a completely alien world. It's one that our own could believably become someday. And without all the smoke and mirrors of a grand sci-fi epic (*cough*Prometheus*cough*), Looper focuses more on a simple, well-structured plot and organic character development to challenge the audience, asking "What would you do?"

Just ignore the poorly chosen tagline, because in the end it's past Joe who does the hunting and future Joe who does the haunting. (Nitpicking at its finest.)