Peace Doesn't Get Much of a Chance in "August: Osage County"

Watching an excellent ensemble cast working together in a film can be as satisfying as listening to a band or an orchestra working together to create a wonderful piece of music or watching an outstanding football team work together to win a game. In “August: Osage County,” director John Wells (“The Company Men,” Showtime’s “Shameless”) has assembled a brilliant ensemble cast to tell, admittedly, a story with a familiar set of circumstances involving a rural Oklahoma family and their secrets involving love, hate, pain, misery, all that fun stuff. The film is written by Tracy Letts, based on his Pulitzer Prize and Tony Award winning play.

At first, seeing this film did not appeal to me. I was not interested in watching a movie about a “dysfunctional” family full of quirky, but lovable, people who all get along and love each other despite each other’s quirks. Fortunately, this is not the type of scenario created in this film. The playing of Eric Clapton's, "Lay Down Sally" during the opening credits made me feel even more tretipatious about my decision to see this movie. This song, when used in films, is usually used to direct the audience's attention to the fact that we are in the South. It's a song stereotype. It sounds country and twangy, so it is used oftentimes in films that take place in the South. I lost a little lifeforce. It turns out, however, that this song plays a role not only in the final scene, a powerhouse moment in the film, but throughout not just as soundtrack filler.
In “August: Osage County,” most of the characters are hateful, angry, mean, bitter, profane, deceitful, just all around unpleasant people. Normally, this might be something I would have no interest in seeing, however, the fantastic cast pulls this material together to make a thoroughly watchable and compelling tale of a family full of secrets and hate, created, as we find out early in the film by matriarch Violet Weston (Meryl Streep in a brilliant performance), in large part due to her reliance on prescription medication. It is no secret that an overuse of prescription medication, especially when not closely monitored by one’s physician, can lead to serious mental health issues. Violet appears to be, especially when “in rare form,” under the influence of many medications which influence her body chemistry.
I say all of this about prescription medication and its effect on one’s mind to emphasize that I do not think that the character of Violet is, at her core, a horrible person, but, rather, is under the influence most of the time of the cocktail of drugs she is taking and her addiction to said drugs. I don’t think the film addresses this issue as much as I just have in these last few sentences, however, it must be addressed so as not to dismiss the character of Violet as just a mean, old bitch who hates everyone. Whatever Letts wants the viewer to think of Violet, Meryl Streep gives an outstanding performance in the role and owns every scene she is in.

Not to be overlooked is the performance of Julia Roberts as Violet’s daughter, Barbara Weston. Barbara, her husband from whom she is separated (Ewan McGregor), and some other members of the family gather at the beginning of the film to attend the funeral of the patriarch of the family, Beverly Weston (I know. Beverly is usually a female name, but just go with it). Beverly passes away so the family gathers at his and Violet’s home in Osage County, Oklahoma to pay their respects. Beverly is played very nicely by Sam Shepard. The remainder of the film consists of learning about the other characters, the burdens they keep inside, the anger they feel, and the way they deal with their burdens and anger.
For some, this may be an uncomfortable movie to watch, however, I was compelled throughout by the wonderful performances, not only by Streep and Roberts, but also by Julianne Nicholson, Benedict Cumberbatch, Chris Cooper, and Juliette Lewis. Not one false note is hit by any of the performers in the film as they create characters that are not necessarily pleasant, but do remain interesting.
The uncomfortableness one may feel in watching “August: Osage County” is similar to the way one may feel watching a David Mamet play, or a film based on one of his works, films like “Oleanna” (1994) and “Glengarry Glen Ross” (1992). Check out these two films if you have not already. In “Oleanna,” you watch a college professor and his student in an ever-intensifying discussion about a grade the student received. One may not instantly seek out this film, and it would be difficult to talk most into seeing this film from my description of it, however, the passion of the performances in that film, as with the passion of the performances in “Glengarry” and Terry Letts’ film herein discussed in this review, make these films completely worth your time. Something else that helps this film is the fact that the anger inside some of the characters is legitimate feelings of mental anguish, not petty arguments, but tangible issues with which one may be able to relate. The characters in the film do not just throw insults at each other for the sake of cheap laughs. The emotions in the film are not at all contrived or cheaply written.
One word of warning should you decide to see this film: “August: Osage County” is not a quirky, folksy “Steel Magnolias”/”Fried Green Tomatoes”-esque slice of life, feel-good movie. The only way one may feel good is the way I described having felt good having watched great actors give brilliant performances. I remained interested in the story the film presents throughout. The performances in “August: Osage County” and the fact that, despite the resentment and bitterness most of the characters feel, and the conveyance of these emotions onscreen, are so well done, making this one of my favorite films of 2013. I am a sucker for films with strongly written characters and a reliance on script and character development over effects and other tricks that filmmakers sometimes use to disguise the fact that they have nothing interesting prepared. "August: Osage County is entertaining and soulful in its anger and bitterness, an anger and bitterness that will leave a positive film-going impression on me.

The Story is Familiar, The Performances are Above Average, Ain't That American Hustle?

People being conned by people who are being conned. This is not the most original concept for a film and by the end of “American Hustle,” my opinion of this fact was unmoved. David O. Russell, who has made some very good, edgy films in the past (“Spanking the Monkey,” “Three Kings”) has assembled a fantastic cast, however the events portrayed in this Russell directed film are moderately interesting, at best. What stands out in “American Hustle” are some of the performances, especially those of Amy Adams and Bradley Cooper. Amy Adams, who can also be seen in and delivers the best performance in Spike Jonze’s, “Her,” is beautiful and sexy as hell as the partner in con-artistry to Irving Rosenfeld, played well by Christian Bale. Adams plays Sydney Prosser. Sydney meets Rosenfeld at a party sometime in the mid-1970’s. They bond after discovering mutual interests, namely Duke Ellington, and as they soon find out, conning people out of money. The notion of a film about con artists already had me losing interest in the story the film was presenting by the 20 minute mark. What held my interest in the film for the duration of the 138 minute running time were the performances and some late points of interest and a surprise (or at least a surprise to me) guest star who shows up about ¾ of the way into the film. I sat up in my seat at this point as the appearance of this person and the story gets kicked up a notch and maintains an amount of interest through the end of the film.

My main problem with “American Hustle” is that, and for comparison’s sake, I am going to compare it to last year’s “Argo,” “Hustle” is too long. Length does not usually bother me (I hear you chuckling) if the story in a given film holds my interest. I already knew that it was not the story presented in “American Hustle” that was holding my interest, but, rather it was the performances. “Argo” ran 105 minutes, 30 minutes shorter than “American Hustle,” and “Argo” felt much more compact, every scene in “Argo” felt important, unlike in “Hustle,” in which there are some scenes, especially in the first 30 minutes, that feel superfluous, and no, I don’t feel sick. It is not until the second half of the film that I felt any amount of adrenaline rush, and it wasn’t really even that much of a rush. I did appreciate the fact that, like “Argo” used the 1970’s era Warner Brothers logo at the beginning of that film, “American Hustle”uses the 1970’s era Columbia Pictures logo at the beginning of this film. “American Hustle” does get more interesting the more the story is fleshed out, the more the details are explained, however, because I am not given to seeking out movies involving con-artists, the mob, FBI guys, etc, this film did not resonate with me. It is a good, well-made film, however, I do not see myself wanting to see it again, other than to, perhaps get another look at Amy Adams with her sexy 70’s hair.

It is stated at the beginning of the film that, “Some of this actually happened,” specifically ABSCAM, the massive FBI anti-corruption operation conducted by the FBI in the late 1970’s. Here is a video from ABC News from February of 1980 that explains all about ABSCAM:

 Feb. 2, 1980: FBI Abscam Probe | Video - ABC News

While “American Hustle” does not tackle the inner-workings of this operation, it does incorporate it’s characters into and does, at one point, acknowledge that Bradley Cooper’s FBI agent character, Richie DiMaso is part of this operation. The film is not about ABSCAM, but is about how a couple of small-time con-artists get hustled into helping DiMaso’s investigation and the interaction of these characters with each other. I did learn more than I knew going into the film about ABSCAM and the fallout of it all.

“American Hustle” does use music well and places some fun 1970’s songs well throughout the film. The songs used are a pretty nice mixture of familiar and unfamiliar tunes from that decade. The music in the film adds spark to the film. I must say, though, that the best usage of a song from the 70’s in a film released in 2013 was the usage of the 1978 Hot Chocolate tune, “Every 1’s a Winner” in “Frances Ha.” That film is set in modern times, however, the use of that song in that film is a winner for sure.
"American Hustle" is not nearly as good as "Argo," the Best Picture winner for 2013, the film to which I have compared it. I would not place "American Hustle" on my list of Top 10 films of this past year, however, it is fairly entertaining and is worth a blu-ray or regular-ray rental from your nearby Redbox.

"Night Train to Terror" Never Derails

“Night Train to Terror” is the cinematic equivalent of saying, “Screw it.” This horror anthology, kind of, film is comprised of three, at the time, unfinished films condensed into a 95 minute fun-filled delight. It is not a true anthology film like “Creepshow,” in which the segments were meant to be 25-30 minutes each and were written that way. “Night Train to Terror” takes what are presumably the best parts of these three films and places them amongst wraparound bits in which God and Satan discuss whether a particular character in each of the three segments deserve damnation of salvation. Before any philosophical debate begins, though, we are treated to the sounds of an on board nameless 80’s band that performs the same song four different times. You can enjoy the song here: It’s not a bad song and it never gets tiresome, nor does the film, despite it’s slapped together-edness. If you add “ed-ness” to the end of some words, you can maybe convince some of your friends that this new word actually exists. At first glance, one may instinctively think that the slapped together nature of “Night Train to Terror” means that it is going to be a heap of dung. Such is not the case. It’s more of a heap of fun, especially if you go into to it with the right mindset. I originally saw this film on a crappy quality dvd, an obvious vhs to dvd transfer. I believe this is one of those many public domain films that get subpar dvd releases and usually are vhs to dvd transfers. Seeing “Night Train to Terror” on blu-ray (yes, I saw this movie on blu-ray….and paid to do so) is like seeing a different movie. The image is not distorted and the picture quality is very good. To be brief, the three stories are: 1. A man (John Phillip Law) is used as bait to lure women into an organ harvesting operation. Richard Moll from “Night Court” is in this segment as an orderly. 2. A man has an affair with another man’s girlfriend and is, as a strange kind of revenge, invited to participate in a “death wish club.” This is not a club that involves repeated viewings of those Charles Bronson movies. This segment features some curb-jumping style acting and an automotronic flying bug. 3. A writer’s latest book makes the claim that God does not exist. This man is played by Richard Moll from “Night Court,” so we get to see Bull once again, this time wearing what must surely be a toupee. Satan or one of Satan’s employees wants Bull to work for him at Satan Industries (We Put the “E” in Evil). The man who plays Satan looks like a cross between David Cassidy from “The Partridge Family” and Simon Ward, the actor who played a Satan-esque character in “Holocaust 2000.” That’s pretty much all you need, but this segment also features some funny Claymation effects, Cameron Mitchell hamming it up, and disco music!! The first film appears to have made in 1982 or 83, the second film around the same time, and the third film is definitely of the 1979 vintage. If it’s not obvious from the big collars and the disco music, it is from when Cameron Mitchell looks at a newspaper article from 1944 and says, “that was 35 years ago.” I can do math good. “Night Train to Terror” is one of those many horror/sci-fi/adventure films of the period between 1974-1990 which are, to some, from the outside, disposable and unworthy of a second glance. I, however, embrace such films and, more often than not, am rewarded with a fun movie-watching experience. It all depends on your mindset as you go into it. If you go into such a movie thinking it will have no redeeming qualities, chances are your mind will not be changed. If you allow yourself to be immersed in a bizarre world full of oddities, you will sometimes be rewarded.

The new Vinegar Syndrome blu-ray release of “Night Train to Terror” contains two enjoyable commentary tracks. One track features the guys from the slasher movie podcast, “The Hysteria Continues.” This track is the more informative of the two about the film. These guys have done quite a bit of research and help to unravel some of the mysteries of this film. One very interesting note is that the first segment, about the man used as bait for women so as to harvest their organs, was again re-edited into a film released in 1992 entitled, “Marilyn Alive and Behind Bars.” The star of this segment, John Phillip Law, was brought back ten years later to shoot new scenes in this film which pretty much revolves around a different plot. The guys have lots more information to divulge and I will not repeat any of it here as it is their research, not mine that has uncovered this information. I did suspect, though, and it is mentioned in the commentary track, that the three segments in “Night Train to Terror” were originally Mormon movies, made to teach life lessons. It is mentioned in the commentary that the gore and nudity in the film were filmed separately from the tamer parts of these segments so as to make the film more marketable and to recoup some money. It is not referenced in the commentary track the connection between participants in “Night Train to Terror” and “Savage Journey,” aka “Brigham,” the 1977 Mormon film about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. In that film, Maurice Grandmaison, who appears in the third segment of “Night Train” as Pipini, plays Brigham Young and Richard Moll plays Joseph Smith. The third segment of “Night Train” (later finished and titled “Cataclysm,” and later released in a Troma box set) in which they appear was made only 2 years later. “Cataclysm” and “Savage Journey” were both directed by Tom McGowan. John Carr directed the first and second segments. One of the other credited directors of “Night Train to Terror,” Jay Schlossberg-Cohen, provides an interesting commentary track, however, his is more of the story of his career in show business. Eventually, the topic of “Night Train” is covered and we learn more interesting bits of information about the background of this film. Schlossberg-Cohen directed the gore and nudity portions of the film. “Night Train to Terror” is a fun potpourri of strangeness, something most welcome by me. I suggest you purchase the set (it comes as a blu-ray/regular ray combo pack) from the retailer of your choice, unless the retailer of your choice is Lane Bryant or Home Depot, in which case you may have a hard time finding it.

The Brilliant and Beautiful "12 Years a Slave"

Steve McQueen’s “12 Years a Slave” is at the same time a beautiful, fantastic film and a rough and very difficult film to watch. For this reason, it achieves what few films can. It brings the viewer into a difficult place and time and while we watch events unfold, we marvel at how brilliant the performances are and how deftly handled storytelling in film can be in the right hands. In an Oscar-nomination worthy performance, Chiwetel Ejiofor, who you may remember as The Operative in Joss Whedon’s “Serenity” and as Lola in “Kinky Boots,” plays Solomon Northrup, a free black man living in Saratoga, New York. He has his own property, a wife, and children. He is kidnapped and sold into slavery. Solomon’s struggle to keep his dignity and never lose faith that he would someday regain his freedom is the focus of the film.

The story, perhaps, is a familiar one, however, the way in which it is told by director, McQueen, and screenwriter John Ridley, based on the 1851 work entitled “Twelve Years a Slave,” written by Northrup, is not of a “feel-good” nature. The audience sees the horrors of slavery and the utter abhorrent attitudes of some slave owners, especially Edwin Epps, played wonderfully by Michael Fassbinder, who you may have seen in McQueen’s previous film, “Shame,” an almost equally uncomfortable, yet satisfying film. My mindset regarding film viewing is that if a film wants to show me uncomfortable things, that is great, as long as the film has redeeming qualities and the uncomfortableness makes a point. I don’t mind watching such things in a well-made film, in fact the gutsier a film is, the more I enjoy it, given the mentioned caveats. The scenes of violence and the inhumanity portrayed in “12 Years a Slave” serve a purpose. Further, “12 Years a Slave” is not another “slavery is bad” movie. The film is about Northrup and his unflinching desire to reestablish his life as a free man. I do applaud McQueen for not going the “feel good” route and not sugar-coating the reality of this deplorable and savage portion of our nation’s history. This is a strong, gutsy film, one that I hope will be recognized when Oscar nominations are announced in February. Another standout performance is that of Lupita Nyong’o as Patsey, a young slave who sees Solomon as a father figure, to put it, perhaps tritely, but this is basically their relationship in the film. Solomon sees her as a daughter as he has not seen his family in several years. It would not at all surprise me to learn that Ejiofor as Solomon, Nyong’o as Patsey, and Fassbinder as Epps have been nominated for Oscars. It would disappoint me if they are not nominated and if the film is not nominated for Best Picture. I do not believe I am overselling this film. It is that good as long as you have the constitution for it, as long as you can endure the harsh reality, mental and physical, of this part of American history. In “12 Years a Slave,” McQueen, several times throughout the film will stay on one shot for several seconds, sometimes even more than a minute or two. The purpose of this technique is for the audience to completely soak in what is being stated at that point in the film. It is a kind of way of the director telling us to “think about what you are seeing and let your mind come to grips with it.” It is not at all exploitive and the technique is not used to excess, however, when it is used, it is quite effective. I don’t know if it was the director’s intention, but there were times during the film that I was reminded of Werner Herzog’s technique of letting the audience, through the camera, be a bystander, someone watching from a distance, however, McQueen then, by staying on a shot for a long time, makes us more a part of a scene. Just as with another young director, Jeff Nichols (“Take Shelter,” “Mud”), Steve McQueen appears to be a director to watch for many years, one who, if form holds, will continue to make important, well-made films.

The entire cast of “12 Years a Slave” is outstanding, especially those performances already referenced. Brief appearances by Benedict Cumberbatch (“Sherlock,” “Star Trek Into Darkness”), Paul Giamatti (“Sideways,” “Win Win”), Alfre Woodard (“Grand Canyon,” “Star Trek: First Contact”), and co-producer, Brad Pitt, are very good. It’s always nice to see familiar faces in an excellent film. It is perfectly reasonable for me to think that the way I watch movies is uncommon and that the films I greatly enjoy are not ones enjoyed by a mass audience. I suppose it depends on how one defines “enjoy.” I take happiness from placing myself in a satisfying cinematic experience. If a film is well-written, well-acted, and manages to be unique in some way, even to the smallest degree, I have found enjoyment. “12 Years a Slave” fits those criteria, at least for me. If you are like-mined, I think you will enjoy this film as well.

The Return of Angela

In the world of “film as art” it is not a popular notion to comment positively about a slasher/dead teenager movie, especially a sequel to a slasher/dead teenager movie. Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert coined the term, “dead teenager movie” back in the early 1980’s when a myriad of “Friday the 13th”/”Halloween” clones were being produced, so, being a perfect term for these films, I have adopted it. The first “Sleepaway Camp” movie succeeded in creating a bizarre world for us to enter, one that, despite being about the 46th film up to that point in 1983 that had been set at a summer camp, still managed to entertain thanks mostly to the casting of Felissa Rose as the quiet and shy Angela, but also thanks to the probably unintentionally strange pacing of the film. It felt like a gen-u-wine low-budget horror film and it worked very well. I was not expecting much from the 1988 sequel, “Sleepaway Camp 2: Unhappy Campers,” by then somewhere around the 195th film to be set at a summer camp, however, I was pleasantly surprised by this film, directed by Michael A. Simpson.

Pamela Springsteen, sister of Bruce and now a still photographer, does a great job of playing an older version of Angela, a version that has undergone the necessary amount of therapy to be allowed to be a counselor at a camp, a camp that is only 65 miles from the one at which Angela completed her handiwork in the first film. Yes, that’s right, this is a silly horror film, but, like the first film, for a silly horror film it works nicely. Pamela Springsteen is great as the insane Angela who despite belting out a lovely song about how fun camp can be and despite her overwhelmingly chipper nature is quite obviously disturbed. Angela is not pleased to know that some of the campers at Camp Rolling Hills are engaging in such things as sex. From the first film, we have learned things about Angela that I will not reveal here as some readers may not have yet seen the first film. Angela is more than a throwaway slasher film character with no personality. As played in the first film by Felissa Rose and in the second film by Pamela Springsteen, Angela is brought to life and is an interesting character to watch. As far as a connection of the character from the first to the second film, it works quite well. I could believe that the Angela from the second film was the same person as the Angela from the first film. This is a notable achievement as, if the character in the second film had seemed distant from that of the first film, it would have taken away quite a bit from the dramatic and suspenseful tension. Yes, I just wrote “dramatic and suspenseful tension” in regards to this film. I’m not changing it. “Sleepaway Camp 2” makes an attempt to incorporate a sense of humor to the proceedings and succeeds occasionally in that regard. My guess is that “Sleepaway Camp 2” is funnier than “Meatballs Part 3,” but I have not seen that entry in the “Meatballs” saga. If you have been lucky enough to see “Meatballs 4,” you may have been pleased to find that it stars Jack Nance, the lead actor from David Lynch’s “Eraserhead” and Sarah “Ursa” Douglas, but it also starred Corey Feldman. No film can be perfect. In the same way, kind of, “Sleepaway Camp 2” is not perfect. Luckily, Corey Feldman is not in it, but it does get very close to reaching slasher movie perfection, which is a different kind of perfection from regular film perfection. You always know what to expect in a slasher film. There will be deaths, mayhem, 27 year old actors playing teenagers having sex, blood, and, if you are lucky, some pretty bad music.

If a slasher film offers something extra, then, in my mind it is better than average. The performance of Pamela Springsteen as Angela and most of the performances of the supporting cast rises above what one may expect from low-budget slasher movie acting. Even though we know Angela is several cashews shy of a full can, I enjoyed every time she was on camera. I usually find it difficult to navigate my way through a conversation that includes my attempt to defend slasher films of the 1980’s. I am a fan of several of these films including “Final Exam,” “Silent Scream,” “Halloween 2 and 3,” “The Pit,” “The Unseen,” and the aforementioned “Sleepaway Camp.” At the same time, I would be perfectly willing to engage you in a conversation about the films of Pier Paolo Pasolini, Woody Allen, Werner Herzog, and Stanley Kubrick. My love of movies is not limited to one or two genres, but just about all genres. I’m not a big fan of the rom-com, but I do not discount the idea that, over the years, there have been some good ones made, such as the wonderful, “The Goodbye Girl,” “When Harry Met Sally,” and “Groundhog Day.” Like it’s predecessor, “Sleepaway Camp 2” was very good for what it sets out to accomplish. It’s not Fellini or Bergman, but it kept me entertained. I think that accepting what you are heading into is important in whether or not one will enjoy a film. If you expect a slasher film from the 80’s to be more than a slasher film from the 80’s, you will likely be disappointed and offended by the kills in the film. If your mindset is such that you know what you are getting yourself into and you end up getting more for your time than a fill in the blank script, you have won. I feel my time with Angela in “Sleepaway Camp 2” was successful and I am looking forward to watching the third film in the series, though, I do not know if lightning can strike twice or if the campfire will burn out……..so…….. Director Simpson mentions in the commentary track for the film that he would not have had any interest in this project if it had been a straight-forward horror film. The humor in the script by Fritz Gordon compelled him to have more of an interest in taking on the directing reigns. Like “Friday the 13th Part 6,” “Sleepaway Camp 2” very much benefits from attempts to include gags throughout the film, not all of which work, but enough do to keep the film from becoming a groanfest. The humor in the film allows it not to take itself too seriously and revel in the otherworldly silliness that these kinds of films inhabit. Slasher films are just as “out there” as science fiction films or fantasy films. Yeah, I know. They involve death and gore, but no film is perfect. One either accepts the nature of horror films or does not. There is not much way around that fact. As someone who enjoys a good horror/slasher film from time to time, I can endorse the above average “Sleepaway Camp 2” as a film that tries hard and most of the time succeeds in being entertaining thanks mostly to it’s strong performances and brisk pacing.

This May Be the Disney Film You Are Looking For

The latest film sensation hitting the internet these days is a movie which was filmed mostly surreptitiously at Disneyworld and Epcot in Florida. The makers of “Escape From Tomorrow” did not seek, nor would have gotten most likely, permission from Disney to make their film there. I would love to hear a director’s commentary for this film. Writer and director, Randy Moore’s account of how this film was made and the stories he has to tell about how and why he made this film may be more interesting than the film itself. The subtext, or what I think is the subtext of the film, is also more interesting than the film as executed. In telling the story of a family that encounters strange and horrific things while on a trip to the aforementioned Disney parks in Florida, Moore tackles themes that he may or may not have intended to handle.

Parents Jim (Roy Abramson) and Emily (Elena Schuber) and their children, Sara and Elliot (Katelynn Rodriguez and Jack Dalton) appear to be laboring to enjoy their last day on their Florida vacation. At the beginning of the film, it is implied in the dialogue that their trip, up to that point, has not been the best, especially with the added news that Jim has been told he has been fired over the phone. The “just the messenger” person who delivers the news over the phone to Jim makes sure to give Jim some advice about what attractions to see while on vacation. I believe that there is definitely an anti-corporate subtext in the film, though, other than this scene in which we learn of Jim’s job loss, we can only infer from the use of Disney as the backdrop for all amounts of seediness and unhappiness that this is true. As their last day of vacation proceeds, the family continues to encounter strange goings-on, especially the father. Jim is exposed the most to this Disney nightmare. The character of the father is also the least likable. He does not appear to be very bright, is foolish in his decision-making, and, throughout the course of the film, is subject to temptation of the alcoholic and female variety. The screenplay makes it clear that Jim and Emily’s marriage is not at all on good footing, however, it is a bit weak to introduce this fact at all into the film as it does not do anything to add to the terror that one anticipates. The health of their marriage should be a non-factor in a horror film about macabre things going on at a Disney park. It simply gives Jim the opportunity to follow around a pair of French girls and hook up with an otherworldly older woman. Are these female characters part of the weirdness of the situation in which Jim finds himself? Probably, but they lessen the tension of the film. As mentioned, the lack of sympathy generated by the character of Jim does not help either. The wife, Emily, is painted as an unhappy shrew, however, she probably has reason to be unhappy. The father’s boorishness is unnecessary as this particular character does not have to be such an ass in order for the film to convey what it wants to convey. It takes “Escape From Tomorrow” a very long time to become weird. The first hour depicts how the family is unhappy, the father is an oaf, and the mother is unhappy, mostly because her husband is an oaf. They do see strange things going on around them during the first hour, but not enough. Of course, I must remind myself that this was probably a very low-budget film so the filmmakers did what they could given their circumstances. Still, though, some of the first hour could probably have been cut to make the film a bit tighter and more suspenseful. More than halfway through the film, we meet “The Scientist,”(Stass Klassen) who is German (groan). Not all scientists in movies have to be German, but this one is, just so we know he is a scientist…oh, yeah, a mad scientist (yawn). It is in “The Scientist’s” underground lab that the fun of the film starts and the craziness begins. I would have liked to have seen more of “The Scientist” and his machinations, however, he comes and goes fairly quickly. Klassen appears to be the most seasoned actor in the film. “Escape From Tomorrow” is best thought of as a collection of bizarre images that undermine the manufactured “fun” of Disney and how families put themselves through the experience of going to such parks even though such experiences, for the parents, may represent a growing bitterness over one’s life and where they are in their lives. It appears that, according to the film……again that’s ACCORDING TO THE FILM…..going on a trip to Disneyworld or Disneyland with one’s family is equivalent to “giving up” in life. You have kids, are stuck with a spouse you may have grown to dislike, and dealing with all the crying, whining, long lines, etc. only adds more to that burden. Again, that is what the theme of the film appears to be. An underlying hatred of Disney and how it represents the angst of people in such situations is obviously at work in the film. The film drags a bit during the first hour, but it does pick up in the final thirty minutes thanks to an increased amount of strangeness that inhabits this portion of the film. It is worth a viewing simply because of the oddity that it is in addition to the fact that it does contain a nice amount of creepiness and can be unsettling at times. To think of Disneyland or Epcot as a cover for a den of bizarre, creepy, dastardly things is a fascinating idea. To the film’s credit, given its low budget and the nature in which a film like this had to be made, it succeeds even though I have pointed out some criticisms that might hamper a film with a higher budget. Seek it out online from iTunes or Amazon.

Get Pulled In by "Gravity"

Like the film about which I am writing, this review will be short and to the point. Amongst sci-fi blockbusters of the past ten years, Alfonso Cuaron’s “Gravity” ranks highly as it primarily focuses on the action of the story and does not get sidetracked by annoyingly uninteresting subplots. The audience is introduced to the main characters, all two of them, two astronauts, Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (George Clooney). About ten minutes into the film, after the two astronauts and the short-lived third member of the crew have been working on repairing a satellite, they receive a message from mission control (voiced with what I suspect may be a wink to the audience by Ed Harris who you may remember from “The Right Stuff” and “Apollo 13,”) that space debris is headed their way and is on a collision course with the satellite. The remainder of the film is about Stone and Kowalski’s attempts to get back to Earth. It’s a simple story, but told with a great deal of suspense and outstanding visual effects. Clooney and Bullock are excellent in their roles.

They do not ham it up at any point, making you realize you are watching two big-time actors. Their performances are so good that I never thought about the fact that I was watching George Clooney and Sandra Bullock. The absence of subplots and tedious back story adds urgency to the film so the focus may be on what is going on. Screenwriters, father and son, Alfonso and Jonas Cuaron, understand that being stranded in space is enough plot and anything more would be extraneous and detrimental to the flow of the film. Sometimes brevity and succinctness are the best policies. If possible, see “Gravity” in 3-D, as the visual effects are very good, though, not as many objects or space stuff flew into my face as I wished. To compare, the 3-D in “Gravity” was not as good as the 3-D in “Avatar” or “Star Trek Into Darkness,” however, it was more impressive than the 3-D effects in “Hugo” or “The Hobbit.” “Gravity” is suspenseful and complex in its brevity, a trait I wish more screenplays would adopt. It is by no means a brilliant film, however, it is very entertaining and worthy of a visit to a theater, where one should see the film, if at all possible. I was pulled in by “Gravity” and I think most who see it will be as well.