Allow Me to Point You in the Direction of "Cloud Atlas"

I had read about 60 percent of “Cloud Atlas” before seeing the film based on said book, written by David Mitchell. I believe reading what I read of the book helped me to follow what was going on in the film. It is difficult for me to imagine watching this film without prior knowledge of the characters and events of the book. The film, directed by Tom Tykwer, Andy Wachowski, and Lana Wachowski, is a wonderment of imagery and storytelling, though, by the end of the film, the point of the film seemed, unless I am much shallower than I think, to be quite a simple one.

Our lives connect with those of other people in the past and will connect to other people in the future. These connections may be perfectly random, not necessarily familial connections, but connections to people we may know of because of a random mention of a name or discovery of something said person did or wrote. “Cloud Atlas” would be a great film to discuss over numerous cups of coffee and try to comprehend what it all means. At the same time, however, the point of the film, as I mentioned, does not appear to be too terribly deep, but I do not imply in saying that, that the point of the film is simplistic. “Cloud Atlas” is very successful in that it weaves together six stories from six different time periods and connects them through the fact that the characters in the stories intertwine throughout the course of time, whether it be through chance or through reincarnation, however, I do not think the point of the film is that reincarnation exists. I suppose it could be surmised that this is the point of the film, however, it did not appear to be so. I believe the point of the film is that the lives of others, even if those others exist many years before us or many years after us, effect us in some way. It is a complex film and the meaning of it can be debated, which is one of the strengths of the film. Again, I try to imagine what it would have been like to watch the film without having read more than half of the book and I wonder if my grasp of the film would have been weaker without prior knowledge of the plot of the book.

The stories in the film are intercut with each other throughout the course of the 175 minute running time. The film goes back and forth from one story to the other. The six stories take place in 1849, 1936, 1973, 2012, 2144, and “106 Years After the Fall.” Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Susan Sarandon, and Hugh Grant play multiple roles in the film, all of which are performed very well by all. There is some fantastic makeup work in the film, some of which should be nominated for an Oscar, however, I believe the reception of the film will be lukewarm in the end, so it seems that a film such as “Cloud Atlas” will be ignored come nomination time, even for awards that have nothing to do with story or comprehension of the film. At the end of the film, all of the actors are shown in brief shots as the characters they played. I admit to being surprised a few times at who played what characters. I was surprised to find out who played a Kona warrior in the "106 Years After the Fall" story. "Tom Hanks was recognizable in all of his roles, however, and he did a wonderful job at playing all of them.

In the same way, Halle Berry was fantastic in her many roles. All of the performances, the many characters played by each actor, are very well done. The only character miscast was Tom Hanks as Zachry, the, as presented in the book, young Hawaiian man who appears in the story that takes place “106 Years After the Fall.” Though Hanks'performance as Zachry is good, in the book, this is clearly a young Hawaiian man, something Hanks is not. Sometimes I enjoy films that are not easily comprehended, but, at the same time, are not so perplexing that I lose interest. “Cloud Atlas” skillfully weaves it’s stories together in a very well-edited and well-paced way. Again, I believe having read a good deal of the book allowed me to follow the stories and never get lost in the proceedings. I would still recommend the film to those who have not read the book, which I imagine would be quite a few people. The film reminded me of films like “Grand Canyon,” (1992),a film which featured the lives of several people being intertwined with the purpose of trying to make a connection involving a meeting at the Grand Canyon. For a different reason, Wim Wenders’ “Until the End of the World” (1991) also comes to mind as I think about “Cloud Atlas.” Wenders’ film told a straight-forward narrative, however, it was also slowly paced sci-fi film, the uncut version of the film running a long, but never boring 280 minutes. Both “Grand Canyon” and “Until the End of the World” are challenging films, challenging in the sense that they require patience on the part of the viewer, not because they were poorly made, but because the themes of both films are somewhat ethereal and not simplistic screenplays. “Cloud Atlas” has more in common with “Until the End of the World,” however, they are clearly different kinds of films. What does this write-up about “Cloud Atlas” mean? Did I like the film? Did I like the book? Isn’t everything in life up for debate, up for discussion? Aren’t all of our lives intertwined in some way? Isn’t there some composer from the past or clone from the future that we are connected to in some way? It is all difficult to say, however, it is easy to say that I greatly enjoyed the film, “Cloud Atlas.” The performances are great, the pacing is brisk without being too fast or too forced. The set design, throughout the film, is awesome to look at. The stories and the thread that I do not pretend to fully comprehend at this point, are interesting and not at all pretentious, as it easily could have taken a pretentious turn, but never does so. I purposefully did not read any reviews for “Cloud Atlas” before I saw the film or before I wrote this thrilling and impeccably well-written write-up about it. I suspect the film was not met with a terribly warm reception as it seems like a film that may be too difficult to digest. I can see the words “confusing,” “mess,” and “ too long,” being used to describe the film. Because I predict this kind of reception does not mean I agree. Perhaps reading most of the book did help me embrace the film and welcome it into my brain. I liked the film so much that I would not be adverse to seeing it again soon and buying the blu-ray when it is released. I enjoy challenging sci-fi films that do not have an air of pretentiousness. Such unpretentious sci-fi films include the aforementioned “Until the End of the World,” the original Russian version of “Solaris,” “Blade Runner,” and “Prometheus.” Though Cloud Atlas may not be classified as sci-fi, I feel it belongs in that genre. I did not find any of the six stories or sets of characters to be dull, however, the story of the Korean clones in the year 2144 was my favorite, though this story contains the most action movie scenes, incorporating sci-fi gunfire, but thankfully these scenes are brief and do not bog down the film.

Doona Bae is excellent as the clone, Sonmi-451 and Jim Sturgess is good as Hae-Joo Chang, Sonmi-451’s protector. Jim Broadbent is also very good in the story of Timothy Cavendish, an elderly gentleman who writes a book about the murder of a book critic, only to be sent to a less than favorable fate through various circumstances. I recommend “Cloud Atlas” highly. It is not my favorite film of the year, however, it is well worth 175 minutes of your time if you choose to map out a time to see it.

Pocky Plus: A Look at Jiro Dreams of Sushi

Pocky Kitty has been practicing his writing. He recently watched the 2012 documentary, "Jiro Dreams of Sushi." Here are his thoughts:

If you decide to watch “Jiro Dreams of Sushi,” do one of two things. Eat first or get some Japanese food to go and eat it while you are watching the movie. “Jiro Dreams of Sushi” is a 2012 documentary about Jiro Ono, an 85 year old Japanese gentleman who owns a small sushi restaurant in Tokyo. Jiro has been a sushi chef for 70 years and has perfected the fine art of preparing sushi. We learn that, at his restaurant, only sushi is served. As the film progresses, the audience learns why this is so. Jiro employs only seven people and his restaurant only seats ten. Jiro is a perfectionist who has trained his two sons to prepare sushi perfectly as well. His older son, Yoshikazu, now prepares a lot of the sushi himself and could be considered a co-owner of the restaurant. Takashi, Jiro’s younger son, has his own restaurant, one which is quite similar to Jiro’s except it is said in the film to be less intimidating.

“Jiro Dreams of Sushi” is a wonderful documentary. It follows the primary rule of documentary filmmaking: Tell the audience about a subject they did not know about before. “Jiro Dreams of Sushi” is not political, it does not have an agenda, it contains no fake drama such as one would see on a reality tv show, and the film is entirely in Japanese. The film is directed by David Gelb, an American filmmaker. There is no English or Japanese narration in the film. The information imparted in the film is from interviews with and observations of the main subjects of the film. This was a very effective way of documenting Gelb’s subject. I loved the fact that the subjects of the film were telling their own story and that they were allowed to do so in Japanese. Of course, they may speak only Japanese, however, the fact that we got to hear the language and the film did not use English voiceover narration for translation was very much appreciated. I learned a lot about the subject of the film in the brief 81 minute running time. Not only did I learn a lot about Jiro and his sons, but I also learned quite a bit about the preparation and proper way to serve sushi. I recommend this film highly, especially to documentary film fans. It was available to rent from Netflix, but I eated it. They have more, though. You can still see it there. Bye!

I Recommend Klowning Around

“Klown” is like an extended episode of “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” “Klown” is less bitter than “Curb,” however “Klown” is structured in the familiar template that involves two or three set-up scenes setting up a payoff scene near the end. I believe this sort of structure in comedy may have begun on “Seinfeld.” Jerry or George would do or say something which would set up disastrous repercussions at the end of an episode. “Curb Your Enthusiasm” uses the same structure. This is not to say that I am tired of this structure. It usually works very well. It is just a familiar structure on some sitcoms and it is used in “Klown.” Two or three events occur, some of them just hinted at with a single camera shot, but mostly they occur as brief scenes during the course of the film.

It seems as though this kind of structure would be difficult to write, as it is evident that careful planning must occur for events to progress in such a fashion so as to result in a comedic end. The basic story in the film,“Klown,” which is based on a six-season, 60 episode Danish television series, is that a man named Frank Hvam (the actor’s real name and character name are the same) is assigned the duty of babysitting his nephew, Bo (Marcuz Jess Petersen). Frank has promised and wants to go on a canoe trip with his friend, Casper (Casper Christensen). Casper does not just want to go canoeing, however. The purpose of this trip for Casper is to row to a remote brothel and spend a night with the world’s best prostitutes. Casper calls this trip the “Tour de Pussy.” It is evident what Casper is looking for. Frank wants to go on this trip, but does not, obviously, want to haul a 12 year-old boy along. Well…stuff happens and more stuff happens. I am not going to go into how it all plays out since I am encouraging you to see the film. I do not like to divulge spoilers. The film works very well, as do most episodes of “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” I get the impression, even though I don’t do impressions, that the tv show, “Klovn,” (with a “v”), is a lot like Larry David’s HBO series. The guys do harmless, sometimes foolish, things which lead to bigger, worse things happening as a result. Their wives are nonplussed by their actions, as are those who are victims of their foolishness. Having seen the movie, I am very interested in watching the television series.

I do not think comedy like this is easy to write and it takes skill to organize events and plot points carefully so as to lead the audience to those funny things that result. This is why I champion “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” It may seem like a show about a grumpy, unpleasant guy who hates everybody. The character of Larry has evolved throughout the course of the series and about 75% of the time, he is right about what he is ranting about. The way he goes about things is usually wrong. So, “Klown” appears to the a film-length version of a tv show which is similar to and probably influenced by Larry David’s “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” Not that there’s anything wrong with that. The script is well-planned and well-organized, leading the viewer through Hvam and Casper’s journey of uncomfortableness which is very amusing. If you enjoy uncomfortable humor such as what one would find on “Curb Your Enthusiasm” or Lisa Kudrow’s shamefully underrated, short-lived HBO series, “The Comeback,” you will likely enjoy “Klown.” So, no more clowning around. Find “Klown” and enjoy it

How Can You Love "Argo" Not?

“Argo” begins with the 1970’s era Warner Brothers logo, the one in which the white “W” comes towards you then another one comes towards you over a red background. Even though, in the 70's, Warner Brothers was a Warner Communications Company and not a Time Warner Company as it is today, I still loved seeing the old logo. Yep, I am a big dork. Let’s go!

“Argo” is the best film I have seen so far this year. Ben Affleck’s film is a tense thriller based on true events that occurred in January, 1980. In 1979, Iranian militants had taken over the American Embassy in Tehran and had taken 50 Americans hostage. The film does a great job of outlining the history of what had happened up to the point of the action in the film. Six of the people who worked at the office were able to get to the home of the Canadian ambassador for temporary safety. The story of “Argo” surrounds American efforts to sneak these six people out of Iran and back to the United States. Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) is given the task of coming up with a plan that will bring home these six. As the trailer for the film suggests, so it is no secret, Mendez devises a plan of setting up production of a fake movie that will necessitate desert-like locations. Mendez is given permission to go to Hollywood where the U.S. government has a contact in make-up artist, John Chambers (John Goodman). Chambers and Mendez convince Hollywood producer, Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) to go along with the idea, giving Mendez everything he needs to set up a hopefully perfect ruse. Ads are printed in Variety for the upcoming film, actors are hired for a table read, papers are produced to present to the Iranian government stating that said film will be filmed in Iran. “Argo” is the name of the fake movie. It is to be a science fiction film. At the time, in the late 70’s, there were many low budget sci-fi films being made to cash in on the popularity of “Star Wars.” Remember “Battle Beyond the Stars” and the greatness of “Star Crash” starring Marjoe Gortner? So everything is in order for Mendez to go to Iran and meet the six Americans who are living at the Canadian ambassador’s home. The plan developed by Mendez, Chambers, and Siegel is a very risky one. As noted by Jack O’Donnell (Bryan Cranston), Mendez’s boss, when presenting the idea to the Secretary of State, “This is the best bad idea we have, sir.” This is one of many great lines in the film. I am glad I did not know anything about this particular story. It is based on true events, however, my knowledge of the “Argo” story was non-existent. This made the film even more tense, a tenseness of the good variety.

“Argo” works perfectly as a thriller. It is also a very funny film, as witty and sometimes, smartass lines of dialogue are spread throughout the film and these lines and the film's sense of humor work perfectly to compliment the drama and tenseness of the film. All of the performances are brilliant, most of note being Ben Affleck. I have never seen a better performance by Affleck. I hope he gets an Oscar nomination for his acting and his direction of the film. Goodman and Arkin are fantastic as the gentlemen from Hollywood. Bryan Cranston, who is beyond brilliant as Walter White on the television drama, “Breaking Bad,” is solid as Tony Mendez’s boss at the CIA. The actors and actresses as the six Americans are wonderful as well. I love this movie!! The final 45 minutes is some of the best, tensest filmmaking I have seen. The story unfolds in a spellbinding fashion. The film is 120 minutes, not overlong, and it speeds by. I cannot recommend this film any more highly! Every section of the film works very well—the set-up of what is to come in the film, the set-up of the plan, the events that follow, and the end of the film is very well done. As well, the look of the film is flawless. The hairstyles, costume design, and set pieces perfectly represent 1979 and 1980. I appreciated the film’s nod to science-fiction film action figures which dorks like me will definitely notice and appreciate. I appreciated the fact that the film is not overrun with music from the era. It is common for films set in a particular era to overuse songs of the day. "Argo" does incorporate a few songs during the Hollywood segment of the film, however, they were songs of which I had a cursory knowledge, songs not heard often in movies. We didn't hear "Car Wash" or "I Will Survive" at any point during the film. I only have one problem with anything in the set design category. At one point, Mendez is eating a McDonald’s hamburger. The burger was wrapped in paper, as it is today. I remember when I was a kid, which would have been in 1979-80, McDonald’s burgers being served in Styrofoam containers. That is my biggest problem with “Argo.” See how perfect it is? Go see it as soon as you can. There will surely be more excellent films released between now and the end of the year, however, I do not anticipate being as highly entertained and emotionally involved in any film this year more than I was with “Argo.”

"Mausoleum" is Full of Life

Thanks to companies such as Code Red, Blue Underground, and Anchor Bay, many of those late 70’s/early 80’s horror/slasher movies that Siskel and Ebert used to delegate to their “Dog of the Week” segment have made their way to dvd over the last 12 years. Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert were two people who influenced my interest in movies during my youth, however, I think they were way too hard on many of the films in the horror and sci-fi genres of that era.

I do not remember if the 1983 film, “Mausoleum,” was ever featured on their PBS Sneak Previews program or on their subsequent syndicated program, however, having now watched it twice, I find “Mausoleum” to be quite an enjoyable, though imperfect, low-budget horror film. The film stars Bobbie Bresee and Marjoe Gortner as a married couple who appear to live quite a nice life in a very nice home somewhere in the U.S. There is one slight problem in the fact that Susan (Bresee) has, as a youth, been possessed by a demon. Susan can summon said demon at any time. This is the most convenient part of being possessed by a demon, I would think. It would be most difficult to have a demon in you that emerges at inopportune times, such as during an important speech one might be making, or while driving, or perhaps during sex, though, for some, this may spice things up a bit. Did I mention that “Mausoleum” features the acting stylings of Marjoe Gortner, one of the most unique personalities of the 1970’s and early 80’s? Prior to “Mausoleum,” Gortner starred in the films, “When You Comin’ Back Red Ryder,” “Star Crash,” “Bobbie Jo and the Outlaw” (in which he shares a sex scene with Lynda Carter—if you’re going to get something good, you sometimes have to accept something bad) and the classic made-for-tv film, “Pray For the Wildcats” in which he co-starred with William Shatner and Andy Griffith. For more about Marjoe, I encourage readers to seek out the 1973 documentary entitled, “Marjoe,” in which he is interviewed and gives his full participation documenting his life up to that point. When I see that Marjoe Gortner is in any given film or episode of a tv show, I watch said movie or episode. His work is always worth the time. So, in “Mausoleum,” Susan and Oliver (Marjoe!) Farrell live comfortably, except for the previously mentioned demon which Susan can summon whenever she wants. Throughout the course of the film, Susan disposes of some people whom she does not favor. Dr. Simon Andrews (Norman Burton) has been Susan’s psychiatrist since she was a child and knows of her condition. Oliver contacts Dr. Andrews and reports that Susan has been doing some strange things (like killing people) and arranges a meeting with the doctor. Things transpire and Susan, at the end of the film, returns to the scene of where she became the object of possession, which is presented at the beginning of the film. I am intentionally vague about details of the film should any reader, at some point, wish to endeavor to rent or buy this film and watch it.

I encourage anyone so inclined to do so for a few reasons. First, as discussed earlier, you really cannot go wrong with Marjoe Gortner. His acting style is not bad, it is simply different. It is not Shatnerian or Walkenian, however, it does contain a certain non-genericness that is always welcome. Let’s call his style the Gortnerian Style. Second, there are several instances of interesting framing in which a character’s head will be off to the side a bit too much or too much space above a character’s head will be present. These are welcome imperfections which set films such as “Mausoleum” apart from the current slick-looking, but still bad horror films. Third, the print of the film, as presented by Code Red DVD, is wonderfully scratchy! This is great! Reel changes and the scratchiness and bits of film that get cut off before and after reel changes are present! It is as if one is watching an original theatrical print of the film. If you like to watch films that have been remastered, this may leave you disappointed. I love watching old prints of movies with all the scratch marks and missing frames. This is the love of nostalgia in me, I suppose. It is a lot of fun watching these films in an imperfect condition, such as watching the prints of the films presented when Quentin Tarantino was hosting is QT film festivals in Austin, Texas. The films he showed were on 35 MM film, not digitally presented. Of course, some of the films he presented were not on dvd and the prints he had may have been one of only a few prints of those films. Whatever the reason, it was a great experience to watch these films with all of their imperfections. Code Red has released, in the past few years, several films in which an original print was used as a source, three other ones being the 1978 Hal Holbrook film, “Rituals,” Romano Scavolini’s 1981 horror film, “Nightmare,” and the 1974 film, “Horror High.” My interest in watching films that are in imperfect condition hightens my interest in films such as “Mausoleum,” a film which, by some, may be dismissed as “just another bad 80’s slasher film.” For the reasons outlined here, “Mausoleum” places itself among some of the better of these kind of films. The story is well laid out. It is not a terribly complicated story. There are several oddball scenes, most of which, feature the greatness of Marjoe, and there are some interesting looking low-budget, early 80’s special effects to enjoy as well. I suspect that the intention of the filmmakers may have been to release “Mausoleum” in 3-D, as the early 80’s also enjoyed a resurgence of 3-D films such as “Jaws 3-D,” “Amityville 3-D,” “Parasite,” “Metalstorm,” and “The Man Who Wasn’t There.” There are a few scenes that are shot for, what appears to be, the sole purpose of thrusting or throwing things at the audience. It was not officially released in 3-D, but my guess is that that was the original idea. I encourage you all to find a copy of “Mausoleum” and enjoy an evening of Gortnerian acting. I believe you will have found the 95 minutes spent with Marjoe to be well worth the time. “Mausoleum” is full of life so I do not feel I am dead wrong in recommending it to anybody.

Play This One, Rewind it Even and Watch it Again

The ease with which one is now able to showcase one’s creativity on the internet now allows many people to show off their talents, something which would have been fairly impossible 20 years ago. The ease with which anyone browsing the internet may happen upon subpar musicians, filmmakers, and writers plying their craft with nobody telling them that their stuff sucks is in full view with just one click to You Tube. At the same time, it is easy to see that there are many talented and creative people out there sharing their talents with the public on the webbernet. The fact that it no longer takes a great deal of effort to get your stuff out there, as they say, is one of the subjects focused upon in the 2011 documentary, “PressPause Play.”

There is no doubt that the ways in which aspiring musicians, filmmakers, and writers may thrust their goods upon society are much less arduous than in the past. Amazon, for example, will allow you to self-publish a book. Of course, it’s up to you to write something good—----well, to write something people will want to buy and download to their mobile device. Amazon allows the forum for one to profit from said creative endeavors. Musicians can create as much as they want and upload their work online in hopes of being discovered, or sometimes, just simply so they can share their music with the public. “PressPausePlay,” directed by David Dworsky and Victor Kohler, does not present one side or the another in presenting the current state of artistry and the means in which artists showcase their talents. The film does present, through interviews, a sense of frustration from artists who did not have the benefit of the internet and mass distribution of their work. The musician, Moby, though not completely bitter, does voice a bit of frustration about how he had a more difficult time getting his music heard than musicians do now. The point that because of the ease with which people can distribute their music, films, or writing allows for much, much more inferior content to be seen resonated with me. Though I am happy to be able to have my own forum on this blog you are hopefully reading on a regular basis---you are reading it on a regular basis, right…and telling your friends about it…and liking it on Facebook……and clicking right up there above where you are reading where it says “More” and you see the little drop-down arrow. Yeah…that’s right. You can share this wonderful, time-killing blog with Facebook or Twitter. Go ahead and do that, if you do not mind. I will wait. ..........................I'm still here, thanks again........................... Ok, cool. Thanks. As a means of presenting how someone can gain a certain amount of fame from distributing their work online, “PressPausePlay” follows an aspiring Icelandic musician named Olafur Arnalds from his home in Iceland where he creates his music, to being invited to play at the Royal Northern College of Music in Manchester, England. His story, which is chronicled in scenes throughout the film, was semi-interesting, however, his music did not move me one way or the other. His story, though a necessary part of the documentary, was not entirely interesting. Perhaps, this is the best the filmmakers could do as far as finding somebody who is an example of someone who found a bit of success from using the internet to market oneself. I am glad that the story of Arnalds was used in the film, despite my lack of interest in his music, as presenting an example of semi-success is crucial to the thesis of the film. What “PressPausePlay” does best is present several interesting points of discussion regarding the future of distribution of artistic content and what the future of said content will be, meaning, without boundaries to showing off one’s creativity, more and more mediocre stuff will be available for viewing, listening, and reading. As mentioned previously, this digital age in which we live also allows for those who are truly talented and, in the past, would not have had a place to show off their talent, access to a very large audience. In the end, “PressPausePlay” does not take anyone’s side, which is good. It documents what is going on in the digital world of creativity, presents some who have valid arguments, not so much against this openness, but who state that such openness breeds mediocrity at an exponential rate. I agree with this notion of a massive amount of mediocre crap is now available online. Have you heard of that goofy blog that guy has---Epistemology Tonight? What a weirdo. What the heck is epistemology anyway and why does it have such a dumb title? You can stream “PressPausePlay” on Netflix and spend a pleasant 80 minutes watching this well-made documentary which, if you have any bent towards a desire to express yourself artistically, will most likely interest you. The subject of the film is interesting so go to Netflix and click on play and pause whenever you want to for a refreshing Dr.Pepper or orange soda.

Bouncing on "Hope Springs"

“Hope Springs” may be a difficult film to watch for those who are either in a bad marriage or are headed towards the end of a marriage. Though it is a well-acted, and well-written film, the subject matter is not easy to digest for those I have described.

The film stars Meryl Streep and Tommy Lee Jones as Omaha, Nebraska married couple, Kay and Arnold. They have been married for a very long time. I do not remember if an exact number of years is given, however, it is safe to guess that they have been married for, at least, 30 years. Through time, as will happen to some married couples, the flame of intimacy has burned out. Kay plans a trip to Maine for her and her husband to see renowned marriage counselor, Dr. Feld (Steve Carrell). Arnold is very reluctant to go all the way to Maine just to see a marriage counselor. Arnold thinks his marriage is just fine, however, Kay knows that it is failing badly. Throughout the film, it is clear that the emphasis, as far as who is feeling more distraught about the marriage failing, is focused on Kay. The script, in showing the angst from mostly Kay’s point of view misses a fantastic opportunity to show that sometimes the man in a marriage may also be suffering from depression or anxiety about his marriage failing or a lack of passion existing anymore. This is the major fault of the film. Although the script, as written, is good and the performances are wonderful, I felt the film missed a great opportunity to show the pain of the disintegration of the marriage from both sides. Arnold is written as a curmudgeon who is unaware of his wife’s emotional pain. In emoting this pain, Streep is, not surprisingly, very good. While watching the film, I felt satisfied by the it. I felt that the subject matter was handled very well and with a commendable amount of tact. I still feel this way, however, I wish that screenwriter, Vanessa Taylor, would have fleshed out Jones’ character, rather than simply making him a stereotypical old man who thinks all is well and there is no need for change. Jones does play the character well as far as giving the audience reason to see him as the one to blame for their marriage failing. Arnold is not a likable person and his curmudgeonly personality is quite grating. He constantly complains about irrelevant things and it is easy to see why any woman would fall out of love with him. This fact about the script and how Arnold is written instantly puts his character at a disadvantage as far as with whom the audience will sympathize. Preferable would have been to make both characters equally to blame for the marriage failing. To do this, more unlikable qualities could have been given to Kay, or conversely, make both characters likable and without any glaring issues. I understand that Arnold’s curmudgeonliness exists to provide comedic moments in the film, and, admittedly, because of Jones’ screen presence, some of these moments do work, however the character of Arnold, as written, does begin to grate on one’s nerves quickly. Steve Carrell as Dr. Feld, the marriage counselor, gives my favorite performance in the film. He plays the character with the perfect amount of concern for both Kay and Arnold. His performance is more of a dramatic one. His performance, I suppose, could be described as “down the middle.” He does not play Dr. Feld for laughs or for high drama. He is quite good and Dr. Feld, as written, is a great character. His advice for Kay and Arnold makes sense and seem to be good steps to give to a struggling couple. Up until the final ten minutes of the film, I thought I would be very satisfied with how the film ends. Not this time. This is a Hollywood studio film, so only one kind of ending to a film with such heavy subject matter will do, even if that ending does not fit. That is all I will say about the end of the film. Ok, one more thing: The end of the film defies everything that has been established about Kay and Arnold throughout the rest of the film. The resolution of the film is not entirely unbelievable, however, as presented and as set up for the first 90 minutes, the end of the film rings false. Did I say I liked this movie? Despite it’s flaws, “Hope Springs” is an entertaining film, due entirely to it’s cast. Streep, Jones, and Carrell are all very good even with the flaws in the script. This happens sometimes in films. A great cast can sometimes make an average film better than it should be. “Hope Springs” handles extremely weighty subject matter with care and deftness for most of the running time, however, it fails to challenge the audience with a satisfying conclusion. My hope springs that Hollywood can, at some point, find a way to not placate it’s audience and challenge it. My hope will be springing eternally, I fear.

Discover the Salton Sea

A good documentary introduces the viewer to a subject he or she knew little about or expands upon a commonly-known subject and adds more valuable information. The former is true about the 2004 documentary, “Plagues and Pleasures on the Salton Sea,” directed by Chris Metzler and Jeff Springer.

Around 1901, a series of man-made accidents created what is known as the Salton Sea, a large body of water in the desert in California. It is about 120 miles northeast of San Diego and just a little bit south of Palm Springs. I wish I had known about this place when I was taking trips to San Diego a few years ago. I know it sounds simplistic to say that a series of accidents created a giant body of water in the middle of the desert. The opening of the film does a fantastic job of explaining how the Salton Sea was created. Film director, John Waters (“Pink Flamingos,” “Cry Baby,” “Serial Mom”), provides the narration for the film.

There is not a great deal of narration in the film because a bulk of the information about the topic of the film is provided through interviews with residents of the towns around the sea. The Salton Sea was quite a popular tourist destination in the 1950’s and 1960’s, however, natural disasters crippled the area and laid waste to any and all remaining future tourism. The residents of the area consider the Salton Sea area to be a pleasant, peaceful place to live, even though summer temperatures there reach 100-110. I know another place that gets like that in the summer. It would be cliché to refer to the people who still live there as eccentric, however, these people do have their own reasons for continuing to live there. These reasons are given in the documentary. “Plagues and Pleasures on the Salton Sea” is a salient look at how the sea was formed, the prosperity that the area enjoyed for two decades, and the result of a series of natural disasters that eliminated said prosperity. In the mid-90’s Congressman, Sonny Bono, did lead efforts to improve the conditions in that area, however, his early death and the lack of anyone to further lead these efforts stalled and, in time, ended these plans of reclamation.

Netflix has this film available to rent in the old-fashioned dvd format. I recommended, especially to documentary lovers, this film. The film covers an interesting subject and is structured very well.

It's OK to Forget About This Movie

I expected much more from Tobe Hooper’s 1986 film, “Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2.” It starts out well with the always cool Cannon Films logo of the 1980's. Things pretty much go downhill from there.
Many of the horror film sequels released in the early 1980’s have the reputation of being very bad films, however, my opinion of most that I have seen is quite different. I remember Siskel and Ebert telling me that “Amityville 3-D” is horrible, in fact one of the worst films of 1983. I purchased the wonderful British import dvd of “Amityville 3-D” which features a very good commentary track by British horror film expert, Kim Newman. The film is not bad at all and watching the 3-D effects in 2-D is kind of fun. I also enjoyed “Halloween 2” and especially “Halloween 3: Season of the Witch.”
My dislike of “Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2” lies in the decision to abandon any and all character development after the first 30 minutes of the film. We meet a very likable radio dj named Stretch Brock. Stretch is played by Caroline Williams. Williams’ performance is very good and she gives her character a very cool personality. She also has a very sexy Texas accent.  Her board operator is a fairly likable guy named L.G. (Lou Perryman). He has a crush on Stretch and who can blame him?

The opening scene of the film features two very annoying college guys driving from Austin to Dallas for Texas/OU weekend. As they are driving along, they are apprehended by a vehicle from which Leatherface emerges and proceeds to kill the two annoying college guys. After this mayhem is over, we meet Lieutenant Lefty Enright (Dennis Hopper). Lefty appears to be a no-nonsense lawman who has a keen interest in the chainsaw murders that have continued to occur for the last ten years. The character of Lefty is an interesting one for the first 30 minutes of the film as well. I thought the film would explore the background of the family of chainsaw-wielding killers and we might learn some new things about them and Lefty’s connection to them…………no. After the first 30 minutes, the film makes no effort to continue to be interesting or entertaining, even in a silly 1980’s low-budget horror film kind of way. The largest problem is the introduction of the chainsaw family, characters which, as written in this film, are beyond bad and are completely uninspired by any kind of desire to be entertaining. We first meet the father, Drayton Sawyer (Jim Siedow), the father of the chainsaw family as he is winning a chili cook-off. This is one of the very few gags in the film that work. More silly or sick jokes like that would have been nice. A few scenes later, Stretch is chased around the radio station by Chop Top Sawyer, one of Drayton’s sons, and Leather face. This scene is endless as Caroline Williams’ role is diminished to one of simply screaming and running around. It gets much worse. After this scene, we do not get to see any of her charm as the script just places her in a new location in which to scream endlessly and be chased around by idiot characters. What was Tobe Hooper thinking? Did he care about making an interesting movie? Ok, so none of the early 80’s horror/slasher movies I mentioned earlier are ever going to be confused with works of Henrik Ibsen or Tennessee Williams, however, some of them do have enough interesting elements to make them worth watching. “Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2” has very few interesting elements, and what interesting elements it does possess, it throws in the garbage after the first two reels. It was a true struggle to finish watching this movie. The last 45 minutes are quite painful and repetitive. Even Dennis Hopper’s character turns into an automaton, not literally—that would have been a welcome addition, quite honestly. The film devolves into people chasing people chasing people in an underground chainsaw family lair of stupidity.
“Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2” attempts to add itself to the list of comedy-horror films of the mid-80’s, a genre that includes the far superior films, “Return of the Living Dead (1985) and House (1986). The poster of “Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2” is funny as it mimics the poster for “The Breakfast Club.” This is where any progression of the making of this film should have ended. “It’s a good poster. Let’s just stop there while we are ahead.” So, I guess I did not really care for this film. Let me think about it a bit longer.  (1 second passes)  Yep, it was awful.

Baseball, Barbara Hershey, Apple Pie, and David Carradine

David Carradine’s 1973-1981 film, “Americana” takes it’s time to tell it’s story. What? 1973-1981 film? What does that mean, sir? According to information on the webbernet, David Carradine (“Kung Fu,” “Kill Bill”) worked on this film for eight years, beginning in 1973 and completing it in 1981. The copyright year given at the end of the film is 1981.

Carradine stars in this film which he directed. He plays a character with no name, known simply as “The American Soldier” in the closing credits. He arrives in a small town in Kansas dressed in his military uniform. The year in which the action takes place is 1973. We assume he was in the Air Force, serving in Vietnam, as his uniform has a patch on it that says “Airborne.” We do not know anything else about this character. Here lies the wonderful simplicity of the film. The soldier asks the residents of the town if they have any odd jobs for him so he can earn some money. He is given a job cutting weeds in a field in which an old, dilapidated merry-go-round sits. The soldier decides to fix the merry-go-round. Why does he want to fix the old merry-go-round? In a film like this, such reasons are never stated. It is up to the audience to try to figure out the motivations of such a character. Perhaps he wants a challenge or perhaps he wants something to occupy his mind so he does not think about the horrible war from which he has returned. Whatever the case may be, and it may indeed be more profound than I am implying, the film tells it’s story very well and avoids all the tropes of a “long-haired guy returning home and trying to find work in a small town” story. Every time you think an older character is going to start hassling the soldier, he or she does not. The people in the town are helpful, though, the performances do portray an amount of suspicion and underlying distrust of the soldier. Their distrust is not evident in the forefront of their minds,however. A scene involving a policeman and the soldier seems to be moving towards an uncomfortable confrontation in which the policeman becomes a complete asshole, however, this scene successfully avoids such conventions as well. A scene in which a young Barbara Hershey seems to be a likely target for two young attackers does not proceed the way one might think. Hershey plays a character known as “Jess’s daughter.” Her character is a young woman who watches with interest as the soldier fixes up the merry-go-round. She brings him lunch and tools. The American soldier is given a job at the local station. The station is run by Mike (Michael Greene). The soldier and Mike get along very well until the soldier learns something about the town that disturbs him greatly. The soldier’s outward disdain for this fact angers Mike and turns the soldier into a target for the local hooligans and this precipitates the dramatic tension of the film, which occurs at about the 60 minute mark. I am being purposefully nebulous in my description so that, should anyone seek out this film, they will not be the victim of a spoiler attack.

“Americana” is about the soldier’s determination to complete a project he started. He wants to fix something that is broken regardless of the ugliness he sees around him. Every moment of this film is fantastic. I wish it was a more famous film and that it would be mentioned amongst other great films of the 1970’s, especially those films which reflect young filmmakers’ disdain for war and the effects of war on the psyche of society. “Americana” is a profound film in a simple film’s body.

Molto Bene!

How can a movie starring Alec Baldwin, Jesse Eisenberg, Ellen Page, Woody Allen, and Roberto Benigni, written and directed by Woody Allen, a film that features a lively soundtrack and set in and filmed in Rome be so horrible? That is an easy question to answer. It does not come anywhere close to being horrible. Nowhere close. Allen’s new film, “To Rome, With Love,” is fantastic and it is a lot of fun.

“To Rome, With Love” is not deep and profound, nor does it try to be so. I believe that Allen’s intention with this film was to make a light, breezy comedy set in another wonderful European city that he likes. So, what is wrong with all that? It is very well-written and well-constructed as one might expect from a Woody Allen film. I don’t think Allen is capable of making a complete train wreck of a film. In “To Rome, With Love,” we meet four different sets of people who all find themselves in Rome at the same time. The film moves from story to story quite deftly. As it goes with films such as this, one or two stories usually are more interesting than the others. In the case of this film, I preferred the stories involving Roberto Benigni as a man who becomes instantly famous and the story of Giancarlo (Fabio Armiliato—the actor is a professional opera star) who sings opera at a professional level, but only with some assistance. I am leaving out details of these stories intentionally so I will not be the giver away of spoilers. I do not believe that details of the plot that give things away need to be in a review of a film. Why ruin the movie for someone who has not seen it yet but plans to do so? Pardon my vagueness. Another story in the film involves Jesse Eisenberg, Greta Gerwig, Alec Baldwin, and Ellen Page, in a tale of romance involving an actress and a student and his girlfriend. The fourth story in the film involves a married couple, each of whom becomes involved with another person through a series of misunderstandings. Hold on. Yes, I know. None of the stories in “To Rome, With Love,” are original, however, it is the telling of these stories, and especially the expert writing of these stories that make this film special. I laughed out loud several times while watching this film. The best performances in the film belong to Roberto Begnini as the man who finds sudden fame, Woody Allen, who always gives himself great lines, Fabio Armiliato as the singer, and the quartet of actors in the Eisenberg/Gerwig/Page/Baldwin story. There are not any bad performances in this film. The ones I highlighted were simply the ones that I fancied the most. The only statement that Woody Allen seems to make in the film is a commentary about fame in today’s world of popular culture. You will know what I mean after you see the film. Other than that, I did not find that Woody Allen, with this film, is making any social commentary or is trying to make us think. Allen's script made me laugh often throughout the film. Some of the humor in this film stems from the absurdity of the situations in which the characters find themselves. The Benigni and Armiliato stories, in particular, reminded me of situations you may find in a Luis Bunuel film. I am thinking especially of Bunuel's 1972 film, "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" and his 1974 film, "The Phantom of Liberty." Check out these movies, as well. They contain alot of humor that is created from absurd situations. I enjoyed the song that is used throughout the first thirty minutes of "To Rome, With Love." It is called, “Amada Mia, Amore Mio,” by The Starlite Orchestra. As I suspected while watching the film and hearing the song, it was recorded in the 1970’s, 1977 to be exact. It is a very lively song and sets a perfect mood for the stories we are about to watch. Because of my interest in strange European exploitation films of the 70’s and early 80’s, this song was even more appealing to me as it has the sound of a song one might hear in one of those films. That may sound strange, however, many of those crazy European exploitation films would feature at least one song in them that was out of place and not fitting with the tone of the film, thus, part of the appeal for me of some of those films. The funky song, “Bargain With the Devil,” from the 1974 Italian horror film, “Beyond the Door,” is just one example of this.

“Amada Mia, Amore Mio” fits very well with the setting of the film. I felt as if I was there in Rome. My mind was taken back to the fun times I spent in Italy twenty years ago as a student of the University of Dallas where one may take a class in epistemology should one be so inclined to do so. Perhaps you may say that I was seduced by this film because I had spent such a wonderful time of my life in Italy. This did not hurt, however, as I outlined earlier, there are several reasons why I enjoyed “To Rome, With Love.” If the film would have been set in Tokyo or Stockholm, I would have enjoyed it just as much. While it is still in theaters, I encourage you to see this film, however, it would make a very nice dvd selection as well should you decide to Netflix it at some point. “To Rome, With Love” is like a pleasant walk through the city of Rome. Having seen it once, I want to go back.

The New Spider Man Has No Bite

“The Amazing Spider Man” is as fresh as a week-old donut. I admit to not knowing the difference between the different Spider Man comic book series, however, though it has been 10 years since I saw Sam Raimi’s “Spider Man,” this new film did not feel much different. The new “Amazing Spider Man” feels, most of the time, lifeless , as if it is following a scriptwriting template. My understanding is that the Spider Man stories in these two films are different which is why it is against the law to say that this new film is a remake of Raimi’s film and it’s two sequels. It did not seem that much different. I do remember that in Raimi’s film, Peter Parker is bitten or stung by a spider which is the catalyst for giving him his powers. The same thing happens in this new film. Parker is bitten, he discovers that he has become much stronger and that he can now climb walls and has cat-like, or I guess, spider-like reflexes.

All of this would be much cooler if I had not seen it done better before. The actor who plays Parker/Spider Man, Andrew Garfield, does not have a very interesting screen presence. His Peter Parker is annoyingly meek and frail. I did not believe for a second that his rendition of Peter Parker would have the stomach for or the guts to become Spider Man. He seems meek and without confidence. Remember how we knew Clark Kent, as played by Christopher Reeve, did not lack confidence? Even though Kent had to act wimpish to conceal his identity, the audience still knew that he was confident and that he knew he was a badass. There are brief hints of this in Garfield’s performance, however, the Spider Man that he becomes seems to be a completely different character, completely removed from Peter Parker. Peter Parker has an internal strife that is boiling within him as his Uncle Ben was killed by a petty thief as said thief was running away from a convenience store he had just robbed. In this film, internal strife does not appear to be realized in Garfield’s portrayal of Peter Parker. I understand that he is a young actor, and he was ok in “The Social Network” as Mark Zuckerberg’s friend and Facebook founding partner, Eduardo, however, even in that film, he did not knock me out. For sure, “The Social Network” was Jesse Eisenburg’s film.
“The Amazing Spider Man” is presumably supposed to be Andrew Garfield’s film, however, his performance is dull. As such, coupled with a tiresome narrative, this new version of the Spider Man story is only as entertaining as the Spidey story, which is still enough to save this new film from being completely uninteresting. Sally Field and Martin Sheen are good as Mae and Ben Parker, Peter’s aunt and uncle with whom he lives. Denis Leary is good as the father of Peter’s love interest, Gwen (Emma Stone). It is always nice to see Denis Leary as he usually instills some bite into any film in which he appears. This is true in this film, in fact, this film could have used more of him as he does not overdo his role as Gwen’s protective father who also happens to be the chief of police of New York City. Big shock! Emma Stone is ok and is more interesting than Andrew Garfield, but not much more interesting.
The fact is that not much about “The Amazing Spider Man” is interesting or fresh. Like the previously mentioned ten-day old donut, I may eat it even though it would be hard and chewy, however, I would not eat two of them. I am in no hurry to see this film again. Do not spend the extra money to see this in 3-D. I counted 3 times in which the 3-D effects were used to any interesting effect. I may write quite a rant about the new 3-D trend at some point and the main point of this rant will be that I want crap thrown at me in a 3-D movie! I don’t just want depth. That is cool, but I want characters to throw mice, knives, footballs, donuts, boobs, turnips, and heads of lettuce at me for the price of seeing a movie in 3-D! None of these or anything similar is thrown at the audience in “The Amazing Spider Man.” The 3-D usage philosophy in this film seems as hesitant as Garfield’s performance. Just throw stuff! It’s flippin’ 3-D!!
Bye the way, how does Dr. Curt Connors, aka The Lizard (Rhys Ifans), get all that lab equipment down into his secret lab in the sewer? What happened to the guy that killed Uncle Ben? I liked the appearance of one of those old 4-in-1 pens in the film. Remember those thick blue pens that had four different colored inks in them? You would snap down the little doohicky for the color you wanted, blue, black, red or green. The green ink was never any good for some reason, but the whole idea was way cool.
The dialogue in “The Amazing Spider Man” is not very fresh or interesting either, which, in this day and age of Joss Whedon and the discovery of his talents by the masses, is quite a detriment. Some may ask how I can expect every action/sci-fi/superhero movie now to be as witty and sharp as a Whedon film. Why not expect this? “Thor” did a fine job of infusing humor into that film, especially into the main character of that film.

I am hoping for three things to happen as a result of the release of this new “Amazing Spider Man” film. I hope that we see the return of the outstanding strawberry flavored Spider Man cereal to grocery stores and I am hoping that we finally see the release of the 1977-79 CBS Spider Man tv series on dvd, or at least, maybe some obscure cable network will broadcast the 13 or so episodes that were made. The likelihood of seeing the 1977-79 series released seems slim, so I would also take an American release of the Japanese Spider Man series from 1978, the intro of which is featured at the beginning of this review. If at least one of these things happen, then I will ultimately consider “The Amazing Spider Man” a success.

"Nukie" is Not a Glowing Example of Filmmaking

“Nukie” contains a talking monkey, a nun, and people in rubber alien suits. These elements would normally gel quite nicely into a fantastic film, however, in the case of this 1988 film, they do not. Perhaps an elephant that shoots lasers from it’s eyes or a boxing kangaroo is all “Nukie” needed to rise above the mediocrity into which it falls. I usually champion crazy, low-budget, bad movies from the 1970’s and 1980’s. “Nukie,” unfortunately, is bad in the most common sense of the word.

An alien named Nukie and his brother, Miko, crash land on Earth. Nukie lands in Africa and Miko ends up at the facilities of what is known in the film as “Space Foundation” in Florida. Miko becomes the subject of study by scientists at the Space Foundation while Nukie is befriended by two brothers, Tiko and Toki (Siphiwe and Sipho Mlangeni), who are apparently members of an African warrior tribe. When it is discovered that something strange involving aliens is occurring, Dr. Eric Harvey (Steve Railsback) is sent to Africa to investigate. What Dr. Harvey discovers is that “Nukie” does not have any of the bad movie charm as do classic fun bad movies like “Samurai Cop,” “R.O.T.O.R,” “The Room,” “Birdemic,“ “Mac and Me,” or “Blood Freak.” Dr. Harvey is amazed at the lack of anything terribly interesting or amusing in the film. The acting in “Nukie” is not very good, but it is not horrifically fun as some of the performances found in “The Room” or “Samurai Cop.” Steve Railsback is uncharacteristically restrained in “Nukie.” In the 1978 film, “The Stunt Man,” he played every scene with an unflinching intensity which was a bit distracting. He played his role in Brian Trenchard-Smith’s 1982 film, “Turkey Shoot” in much the same way. Whenever I watch a Steve Railsback film, I plan on sitting a few extra feet away from the screen because I know there is a very strong possibility that his intensity may cause him to fall out of the screen into my living room. Railsback does not have as much screen time in “Nukie” as does the titular alien or his brother. This is a case in which I would have preferred to see more Railsback and less Nukie. Nukie is a rather boring alien creation and Miko is no better. They do not look goofy enough, just rubbery and dull, like bad pizza crust. I was talked into buying a vhs copy of this movie from a trailer I saw online somewhere, probably on You Tube. It was not expensive, thankfully. It was worth the 95 minutes I spent watching it to learn of it’s lack of delivering on a promisingly bad trailer, that is, the trailer made it look like the film would be marvelously horrible. Alas, “Nukie” is just bad, not fun bad. Not even Joel, Mike, or the bots could find much to laugh at with this one. The vhs sales marketing flier pictured below is more interesting than the film. Wait a minute!! "Nukie" does have "broad audience appeal" and it features Ronald France from "Sanna." Maybe I should reconsider what I have written thusfar.

The talking monkey did have some promise, or at least, the idea of a talking monkey held promise, however, as written, the talking monkey does not deliver much in the way of entertaining badness. “Nukie” is as flat as a pancake and does not even have any blueberries in it or any syrup on it and it’s not even fluffy. “Nukie” is not quite a bomb, but it does fizzle out.

I Was Bound to Write About "Prometheus"

The straight-forwardness with which “Prometheus” tells it’s story is the film’s most impressive feature. If you liked Ridley Scott’s 1979 film, “Alien,” there is a very good chance you will enjoy his new film. I am not going to pretend to understand everything that happens in the film. You will likely have several questions after watching it. I did. Normally, this bothers me, however, in the case of “Prometheus,” I was so overwhelmed by the scope and superiority of the filmmaking that these unanswered questions became only minor nuisances that soon left my brain. I would not be surprised to hear that “Prometheus” is the first of two or three films that will serve as a prequel to the 1979 film. I do not know if “Prometheus” is supposed to be a prequel to “Alien” or not. Arguments could be successfully debated on both sides. It does not really matter to me. As a stand-alone film, “Prometheus” succeeds in being very entertaining as a result of a focused narrative and very good performances aided by some very good science fiction writing. What I mean by “very good science fiction writing” is that the script never gets sidetracked by silly subplots or a need to explore a character’s past love affair with another character, for example. References are made to relationships in the film and it is made clear at the beginning of the film that the characters Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) are a couple, however, that is all we need to know. No backstory about this subject is necessary in this film, and fortunately, none is given to bog down the proceedings. Characters are introduced smoothly in the film. It is as if the viewer walks into the room and encounters somebody for the first time. There is no fanfare and the trope of showing someone from the back and having them turn around slowly is not used. One of the most egregious uses of this kind of trope was used in “Star Trek 2” to introduce Captain Kirk. Yes, it’s Shatner. Yes, it’s Kirk and he is an iconic character. It was still pretty corny, though. In that scene, Kirk was first shown in shadows, then the lighting is adjusted as he walks closer into the frame to reveal that it is the massively cool Captain Kirk. Make no mistake, he is massively cool…but that was corny. Charlize Theron’s performance as Meredith Vickers, the leader of the mission of which the ship, Prometheus, undertakes, is fantastic. She could have played her character as a soulless bitch. Fortunately, Theron is an excellent actress and she stands out playing her character as a no-nonsense woman who understands her role on the ship and with the company for which she works. The script allows her to be more than a two-dimensional cardboard cutout. Such is the case with most of the characters in the film. Noomi Rapace also stands out as Elizabeth Shaw, one of the scientists aboard Prometheus, a vessel assigned to locate the source of a mysterious image which was found in seven different locations on Earth. The planet the crew of Prometheus is on course for is discovered to be full of many surprises, none of which I will divulge. As I inferred, I was left with some questions after watching the film. I have discussed the film with friends, as this film will surely inspire conversation. Said conversations have helped explain some, but not all, of my questions, as it does not appear that answers to some of our questions were in the film, which leads to my estimation that one or two more films will follow. “Prometheus” is very good science-fiction/horror entertainment and is among Ridley Scott’s best films, but not quite as good as “Alien” or “Blade Runner.” Those two films are science-fiction classics. “Prometheus” falls just a bit short of the level of greatness of those two films. It is no slight to “Prometheus” to make such a statement. Though I do not want you to feel bound to see “Prometheus,” I do hope that my words will direct you to some interest in it.

"Rock of Ages" is Not Like Bad Medicine

I was a bit trepidatious going in to see “Rock of Ages,” the new film about a guy, a girl, and a band set in 1987. The story in the film is quite a simple one, however, “Rock of Ages” is not about the story, so the more comfortable you are knowing that going into the film, the better off you will be as far as your enjoyment of the film is concerned. Julianne Hough, who I admit, I knew nothing about, which is probably best, plays Sherrie Christian, a girl from Oklahoma who travels to Hollywood to find fame and fortune. Diego Boneta, who I know equally as little about as Julianne Hough, plays Drew Boley, a young man who works at a music club owned and operated by Dennis Dupress (Alec Baldwin). Here is a big surprise---Drew has his own band and also wants to become famous. “Rock of Ages” takes place in a two day time frame, which is a very good idea as far as structuring goes. The film is not interested in character development. Usually, this is not wise, however, “Rock of Ages” is not about character development or profound storytelling. It is about the music and the fun of seeing people like Alec Baldwin, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Tom Cruise, Russell Brand, Bryan Cranston, and even Paul Giamatti sing 80’s songs. The film, as mentioned, takes place in 1987. It is based on a musical by Adam Shankman. Shankman also directs this film version of his show. What works best in the film is the placement of the 1980’s songs. None of the musical numbers, which are all popular songs from the 80’s, are forced or seem shoehorned into the action. This, I believe, would be a very difficult thing to achieve, that is, directing a movie musical and being able to place the musical numbers at just the right time in the film. The same perfect placement of songs into a musical can be seen in the film versions of “Grease,” “Hair,” “Chicago,” and the fantastic 1972 film, “1776.” In these films, the songs and music flow seamlessly into the action of the film. “Rock of Ages” is not of the caliber of these other four films, however, it is one of the better musicals I have seen. The musical numbers are full of positive energy and they move the plot along, as songs in a musical are supposed to do. It appears that the entire cast enjoys their chance to sing onscreen. We have seen some of the cast members sing in films before. Catherine Zeta-Jones was very good in “Chicago.” Tom Cruise sang in “Magnolia.” Remember that great scene in “Magnolia,” in which the entire cast is shown, one at a time, singing the Aimee Mann song, “Wise Up?” That was a great scene in a wonderful film. Another great thing about “Rock of Ages” is it’s flawless attention to detail. I almost always notice any imperfection in a period film, especially when a film made in 2012 is set in 1975 or 1985, etc. Usually, there will be a line of dialogue which will not match the time period. For instance, a character in a film set in 1975 will say he or she waited “online” for tickets to a movie. Regardless of time period, this is a horrible misuse of that word, but the idea of anything being “online” has become prevalent only in the last twenty years. Anyway, enough of my rattling on about the English language, a once proud system of communication, which is dying a horrible death as we speak. Every set, outdoor scene, costume, looked authentic, true to the year in which the film was based. Only one thing bugged me, however, my attention to music began to wane around the late 1980’s so this thing that bothered me may be correct after all. The character of Drew (Diego Boneta), near the end of the film, joins a boy band, a new and alarming phenomenon that, we all rememeber, began at that time. In one of the closing numbers in the film, Drew is wearing one of those ridiculous over the ear microphones that always make singers look like they are taking phone orders from somebody. Since my music awareness waned in the late 80’s, due to the quality of popular music badly dwindling around that time, I may have not noticed that these silly over the ear microphones may have begun being used around this time. Madonna was the first artist I remember using these. That was in the early 90’s, I think. Anyway, that is not a big issue. I did enjoy the film’s attitude towards the intrusion of the boy band into the popular music scene. The film basically gives this entire notion the finger, a feeling for which I am in complete agreement. I think the film understands and, I know I understand, that music does evolve, however, in that evolution must come quality, not the lazy sameness that has plagued the music industry for the last twenty years. Obviously, there are some exceptions, however, there are not that many exceptions. Anyway, back to “Rock of Ages.” The entire cast seems to be having a great time. The two leads, Julianne Hough and Diego Boneta, are very good in their roles. Neither seem to be suffering from a lack of talent, which is refreshing. One minor concern is the continued underuse of Bryan Cranston. I am 100 percent certain that anyone who watches the first few episodes of his tv series, “Breaking Bad,” will have know doubt that he is one of the most talented actors working in the film/tv industry today. As shows like “Breaking Bad,” “Dexter,” “Game of Thrones,” and “Six Feet Under,” have shown us, there is some wonderful writing and acting going on on television these days, some which is as good as anything you would discover in a movie. Cranston’s talent is on display on every episode of “Breaking Bad,” and it astonishes me that his talent is not used more often in films. He was underused in the 2011 film, “Drive,” as well. Despite this, “Rock of Ages” is a good film. All of the performances are great and not forced. There is no overreaching for some extra bit of goofiness by any of the performers in the film. I believe it is understood that the humor in the film is in the premise of the film. It is a musical set in 1987 with all 1980’s songs used. That is why it is fun. It is not profound and thought-provoking. It does not try to be so and that’s ok. It’s just fun watching Tom Cruise, Alec Baldwin, and Paul Giamatti sing. The best musical number is one performed by Alec Baldwin and Russell Brand. You will know why. Malin Ackerman's hair is perfect in this film. She and Tom Cruise share another memorable scene which worked quite well for it's intention. See “Rock of Ages.” It is not overbearing and it does not overstay it's welcome. It's just a lot of fun.

You Will Beam With Joy at "Moonrise Kingdom"

Wes Anderson’s latest film, “Moonrise Kingdom” follows in his ability to create his own unique world in which the action of his films take place. In Anderson’s films, the viewer is taken to an alternate world. This world is similar to our own, however, there are enough unique things present in his world to make it quite appealing and makes for a wonderful setting for his films. “Moonrise Kingdom” takes place somewhere off the coast of the Northeastern United States. We are never told exactly where the location is, however, we do know that it takes place on some fictional islands including New Penzance. The locations are beautiful. They look similar to the coast of New England. The closing credits thank some government authorities in Rhode Island, so it is possible it was filmed there. The story involves two young people who have developed a friendship through the miracle of letter-writing. The film takes place in 1965, so, as some of us may remember, letter-writing and calling on the phone were the only means of communication back then and into the early 90’s. The youngsters in question are Suzy (Kara Hayward) and Sam (Jared Gilman). Neither of these actors, according to IMDB, which is as good a source as any without having access to Wes Anderson or the actors themselves, had ever acted in anything before this film! Hayward and Gilman are fantastic in this film! I will repeat. Hayward and Gilman are fantastic in this film! I had no idea that they were new to acting. There is absolutely nothing in their performances to indicate that they are novices. The film is theirs. Most of the screen time is devoted to these two outstanding young actors and this was, I am sure, an intentional choice. The supporting cast includes very good performances by Bruce Wilis, Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Harvey Keitel, and Edward Norton. It is clear that the film is all about the two young leads. Their performances are exceptional. The film is not a kid’s film, nor does it make an attempt to be so. At the same time, it would be a great film for young adults to see. There is nothing in the film to offend anyone or attack anyone’s paper-thin sensibilities. The relationship that Suzy and Sam develop throughout the course of the film is natural and a false note is never detected. As usual, Anderson places objects of the era in the film. For example, Suzy carries around with her a children’s record player, like the ones kids who grew up in the 60’s and 70’s may have had. She carries with her her favorite record as well. You may recall in Anderson’s “The Royal Tenenbaums,” the closet full of vintage board games from the 1960’s and 1970’s. Even though a dialogue scene takes place, at one point, in this closet, I could not help looking at all of the many board games that were intentionally onscreen. There is not as much of that in “Moonrise Kingdom.” There is, however, the same amount of appeal that will satisfy fans of Anderson’s other films (Rushmore, The Life Aquatic, and the before mentioned Royal Tenenbaums). The characters in Anderson’s films are somewhat flawed, but not so much that they are unlikable. Anderson knows just the right style of acting to get from his actors so they mesh with his vision and match the specific scenes in his films. Such is the case, as I have highlighted in this exceptionally well-written piece, with the characters of Suzy and Sam in “Moonrise Kingdom.” I always enjoy a well-written and well-acted film more than a loud, in your face action film. As with Jell-O, there is always room for a good action film, such as “The Avengers” or Liam Neeson’s film, “Taken,” however, the most fun I glean at the movies is from witnessing wonderful writing and acting. I have avoided describing much of the plot of the film, mostly because it is a relatively simple story and I would hate to give much away. Simplicity, in this case, does not mean pedestrian. It just means that to outline the plot of the film would take away from your future enjoyment of discovering what happens in the film. Plus, isn’t a dissection of the plot of the film the most boring part of a movie review? To me it is. So there. Go see it. “Moonrise Kingdom” is fantastic! Don’t let the sun go down on you before seeing “Moonrise Kingdom.”

Turn The Other Cheek to "Vigilante."

The 1983 film, “Vigilante” is exactly what you might expect with that title. Robert Forster plays Eddie Marino, a man whose wife and child are killed by a gang of street thugs. A group of citizens who are sick and tired of street violence and police indifference to said violence acts alone in cleaning the streets. This group is led by the great Fred Williamson, a veteran of many exploitation films, including several of the Italian variety, including the awesome, “1990: The Bronx Warriors.” After the man accused of killing Eddie Marino’s wife and child is sentenced to a mere two years in prison, Marino expresses his frustration about the justice system in the courtroom and is convicted to one month in prison for his outburst. During his one month in prison, Marino gets roughed up and is befriended by a fellow prisoner played by the older, but still physically impressive Rake (Woody Strode). One of the coolest scenes in the film involves Rake, so watch out for it. After Marino is released from prison, he is ready,with the help of Nick (Fred Williamson) and his group to kick some ass. If you go into this film ready to watch some ass-kicking, you will be pleased with the result, however, to my surprise, there was not as much ass-kicking as I thought there might be. The film is a bit more subdued than I thought. This works to the film’s advantage as it does not focus on the violence, either of the gang members/thugs or of the vigilante group. The story focuses more on what was perceived at the time as indifference and inaction of big city police departments to respond to violent crime. The inaction of the police in the film is the catalyst for all of the unfortunate things that happen to Marino’s family.

I liked Robert Forster’s quiet, subdued performance as Marino. I also enjoyed Fred Williamson’s performance as the no-nonsense leader of the citizen vigilante group who helps Forster enact his revenge. “Vigilante” is a very straight-forward film. It does not waste time with any extraneous elements. There are no subplots involving a love triangle, a romantic backstory, or anything else that would derail the action. One does not usually begin watching the dvd of such films wanting to be embroiled in a tired story of failed romance. One thing “Vigilante” does well, however, it was probably not by design, though it may have been, was to make the audience understand the gravity of what has happened to Marino’s family without beating the audience over the head with extra scenes of the family having a great time or showing how cutesy the child is at being cute. These kinds of scenes are usually unnecessary and are often present in weak scripts. The audience does not need to be reminded of the cuteness of the child to be enraged at the fact that street vermin has committed murder. There is one scene that introduces Marino and his wife and child to the audience. They are at a park playing. They are having fun and Marino loves his wife. The scene is brief and the point is made. That is all that is needed. The poster for "Vigilante" is a tad misleading, as it leads one to believe that the focus of the film is a street gang. This is not the case. The focus of the film, as you have, by now, gathered, is the story of Eddie Marino and his desire for justice. I am not a big revenge movie fan, however, when made well, such as is the case with “Vigilante,” they can be quite rousing. Another revenge film which is very exciting is the recent Liam Neeson film, “Taken.” “Taken” is fantastic and never stops for any superfluous bullshit. Nor does “Vigilante.” William Lustig (“Maniac,” “Maniac Cop”) directs “Vigilante” with fast-moving precision, while, in the quick pace of the film, allows for the story to unfold coherently and allows for sympathy to be gained for the character of Marino. Seek out the dvd of “Vigilante” and turn both cheeks towards it.

A Fine Cast in Dark Shadows

The best part of Tim Burton’s “Dark Shadows” is the performance of Johnny Depp as Barnabas Collins, a member of the Collins family of Maine who is awakened after lying in a coffin, imprisoned, for 196 years until a “yellow dragon” awakens him from his slumber. I have never seen an episode of the 1968-72 television series upon which this film is based. I consider that a good thing so I could go into the film fresh without any expectations. I did know the film was going to be a comedy. The trailers for the film allow for no mistake to be made in that regard.

I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed “Dark Shadows.” Now, I do not think it is a great film, however, it is a good, surprisingly subdued film. I am not a huge Tim Burton fan, so I was a bit hesitant to see this film. I am glad I did, as I enjoyed a fantastic performance by Johnny Depp. He is not as overbearingly over-the-top as he was in “Pirates of the Caribbean.” The best thing about Depp’s performance in “Dark Shadows” is that his portrayal of Collins is not one of bumbling stupidity or the typical “fish out of water” scenario. Collins, who emerges in 1972 from his imprisonment, though thrown into a completely different time period from what he knew, is able to quickly adjust to his new surroundings and lead the Collins family towards regaining their once proud name. In fact, once adjusting to his new life, Barnabas Collins’ focus is on reclaiming the town of Collinwood as his family’s own. He does this not for personal gain, but for family pride. This is a very wise choice by the screenwriter. There are plenty of opportunities for goofiness, stupidity, and other unnecessary tomfoolery, however, thankfully, the film, only briefly on one occasion strays into such territory. You will know that occasion when you hear the Barry White song. That is a goofy, but thankfully, brief scene. The rest of the cast is fine supporting Depp. Michelle Pfeiffer, is always pleasant to see…and is still pleasant to look at, I do not mind saying. Pfeiffer plays Elizabeth Collins Stoddard, a how ever many great-greats, relative of Barnabas Collins. She lives in the run-down, but still ornate, Collins mansion with her husband, Roger (Jonny Lee Miller), their daughter, Carolyn (Chloe Grace Moritz), and their son David (Gulliver McGrath). Also living in the house are caretaker of the mansion, Willie Loomis (the great Jackie Earle Haley), and Dr. Julia Hoffman (Helena Bonham Carter). Dr. Hoffman has been employed to treat David, who is thought to have some psychological dysfunction. “Dark Shadows” is a pleasant film, mostly thanks to Johnny Depp’s excellent performance. Again, there are few bumps in the road as far as the screenplay goes. The played for laughs romantic scene between Barnabas and business competitor, Angelique Brouchard (Eva Green), is a bit cringe-inducing as the good, but overused “You’re The First, The Last, My Everything” by Barry White plays on the soundtrack. We find out at the beginning of the film that Angelique is the woman who cursed Barnabas Collins to a life of imprisonment, the imprisonment from which he escapes thanks to the earlier referenced “yellow dragon.” The best part of the film is the frequent usage by Barnabas Collins of the old English used in the 1700’s. It is a typical trope used in films involving a character who has emerged in modern times. In “Dark Shadows,” this type of dialogue is fresh and Depp’s delivery of this dialogue is perfect. This dialogue of which I speak is a character in the film. As music can be sometimes a character in a film, the old English dialogue spoken by Barnabas in “Dark Shadows” is also a character, and a good one. Every time Depp’s Barnabas Collins appeared on screen I was happy. This is a very complimentary thing to say about an actor’s performance. The film took a tad too long to wrap up, as is a trend in big-budget Hollywood films these days. The finale of the film is heavily CGI-laden and my mind numbs at such heavy usage of CGI. Despite that, however, I recommend Tim Burton’s “Dark Shadows,” for Johnny Depp’s wonderful performance and his dialogue delivery. Anyone who fancies themselves a lover of language will likely enjoy the film for his line reading. Go forth into the dark shadows and see it or the yellow dragon will swallow you whole.