Cinema Fan - Movie Reviews

The Black Dahlia **

2006-10-02T09:39:00.000-07:00

Brian De Palma must be the best ‘worst’ director in the industry today. This film marks another new low in cinema. So, with that as a preamble, let’s see what we have here.

The book, “The Black Dahlia” is a novel by James Ellroy that is also a fictionalization of the famous LA murder of Beth Short. So far, the real crime has remained unsolved, and this film is another fictionalization of the truth.

Our film opens with one of the two police officers who will work on the investigation. Bucky Bleichert (Josh Hartnett) is a boxer who is going back into the ring for a charity event to help promote a new bond measure that will provide more funds to the LAPD. His opponent is Lee Blanchard (Aaron Eckhart), also professional fighter, and the two become partners. This story takes place in the late 40’s, after WWII and the ‘Zuit-suit’ riots.

As the overly-intricate plot unfolds, we find that Bucky hangs around with his partner, Lee and his partner’s girlfriend, Kay (Scarlett Johansson) during his off hours. Lee also has a thinly-veiled connection to some very seedy people who cause the pair some trouble. Just after a shootout with a few of these under-world types, the body of a woman is discovered. She has been carved up and gutted and left in an open field.

Our two main characters are pulled onto the case. During their investigation, Bucky meets Madeleine Linscott (Hillary Swank). This woman appears to be an insatiable sex addict that once met the deceased. She and Bucky have an affair while his partner appears to have lost himself in a script that was written by a Chandler wanna-be. The ‘surprise’ ending is totally inane.

I give this film 2 stars (out of five). By the end of the film, not only did I not care who killed Beth Short, but I was willing to stab someone in the theatre if it would have made the lights come back up. The reason it even rates 2 stars is that it does have excellent photography and art direction.

I am going to put the blame all on De Palma. The acting was stilted and the plot and editing was confusing (there was no real sense of where we were in the time-line of the main plot). Even the point of view (POV) of the camera was totally random. At one point, the POV is that of the character (Bucky), creating a caricature effect of the Linscott family.

Now, supposedly, all these seemingly random events tie together at the end: the partner’s graft, the partner’s girlfriend’s past, the lover’s relationship to the dead girl, the father’s wealth, the mother’s lover, yadda, yadda, yadda.

My recommendation is that when you see this film on the rental shelf, pick it up and drop it into the nearest trashcan.

Superman Returns ****

2006-07-15T18:49:00.000-07:00

Up front, this film is dedicated to Christopher and Dana Reeves. My only qualm with this is that they waited to the end of the film to make that statement. That said, let’s visit the new “Man of Steel” and his life after a 5-year hiatus.

We open to find the infamous Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) consoling a dying woman and having her sign her worldly goods over to him. Superman (Brandon Routh) has returned back to Kansas, to the farm and the mother that raised him. He remembers his youth and why he was sent to Earth. After traveling back to his home planet, which was sighted by astronomers, he confirms that he may be the only one of his race left in the Universe.

So, as Clark Kent, our hero goes back to Metropolos and the Daily Planet. He meets his true love Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) and discovers that she has a boyfriend and a son. We see Superman rescue Lois from a terrible fate that was indirectly caused by Lex. It seems that Lex has discovered Superman’s ‘Fortress of Solitude’ and has obsconded with the powerful crystals that help Superman learn.

Lex has a plan to use the crystals to create a new continent, thereby destroying much of the existing land, and making himself very rich in the process. OK, you can probably guess the remainder of the plot, so let’s move on.

I give this film 4 stars (out of 5). It does have the real human element in it, but there was something spooky for me watching this guy, who looks a lot like Chris Reeves, playing this role. It is not that I didn’t like it, it is just that it felt funny, and took a little of the magic out of the movie for me.

Certainly, this is a big-screen event, so even if you think you may like it, definitely see it in the theatres. I believe this picture will loose something when viewed on TV.

The Devil Wears Prada ***

2006-07-15T18:45:00.000-07:00

Yes, it is a chick-flick. Yes, I went to see it to see both Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway. But, you, may not want to rush out to watch this, unless you are totally in love with either (or both) of these women.

Andrea Sachs (Hathaway) is looking for a job as a journalist. Fresh out of college, she has that mid-west charm and look that gets her nowhere in New York. She stumbles into an assistant’s job working for the queen witch of the fashion magazines, Miranda Priestly (Streep).

Miranda is so wrapped up in her self-importance, that she treats those around her with distain and indifference. Her world is fashion, and everyone knows that she can make or break a season of clothing sales. So Andrea is invited to stay, despite her appearance, and eventually she changes from the girl next door to the girl of glamour. Her boyfriend, a struggling chef, is also impressed, at first. But the constant demands of the job and Andrea’s desire to succeed get in the way of their relationship (there’s a big surprise).

Amanda makes contacts and also gets help from a co-worker (Stanley Tucci) who sees her potential and also intimidates her into loosing weight.

I give this film 3 stars (out of 5). It is too long in many parts. Although there are some excellent bits of dialogue explaining what the fashion industry is about, it still lacks any depth or any surprises that make it a special movie. Unless you are a fashion fanatic and love the magazines, you should wait for the DVD.

Nacho Libre (** ½)

2006-06-24T11:31:00.000-07:00

Jack Black is back, and he made an indy (independent film) down in Mexico. Nacho (Jack Black) is the alter ego of a monk living a very poor monastery. If you really liked ‘School of Rock’, with all of Black’s mugging and exaggerations, then you will enjoy this film also.

In a nutshell, the poor brother is an orphan helping to run an orphanage. He gets mugged for the food that is donated to the children and eventually befriends the robber (Hector Jimenez). Also, a very pretty nun (Ana de la Reguera) joins the monastery to help teach the boys. Of course all the young monks are thinking the same thoughts.

In order to help raise the standard of living for the orphans, Brother what’s-his-name decides to become a wrestler, which was a dream of his since he was a boy. He jumps on his three-wheeler (not what you think) and finds the robber. Together they get paid even though they loose every match.

Eventually, the two men get a chance to turn pro and battle the greatest wrestler in Mexico, Ramses.

I give this little passion play 2 ½ stars (out of five). Once again Jack Black tries to be funny, and sometimes he is. This time he is in charge of his own film and gets carte’ blanc to do his shtick. Unfortunately, much of the dialog is in Spanish, so you have to guess at the dialog.

Some may think this film is a little racist, with the less-attractive Mexican actors they have in the film. I think they are just trying to be funny, and I am guessing that this movie will do well across the border (in attendance, not gross profit).

As I said, if you like Black, you will like this one. It seems he did temper his over-the-top posing a little. Maybe his stint in King Kong taught him something. But if I were to do it over again, I would have saved my money for something else.

The Da Vinci Code *** 1/2

2006-06-16T08:10:00.000-07:00

I am sure those few of you who still stop by and read this blog are asking, “Gee, Don, what took you so long?” Yes, I have been lax in my movie going, so that’s out of the way (for me).

Dan Brown’s book was published about three years ago, zoomed to the top of the best-seller lists, and has become the controversy of the decade. But, my friends, let’s remember one thing: it is fiction. So, we take this intricate story of knights and death and the origins of the Christian church and stuff it into a two-hour film.

Tom Hanks plays Robert Langdon, the handsome and adventurous ‘Symbologist’ from Harvard. He is summoned to the Louvre, where a museum employee has been murdered.

Up pops a French cryptologist, Officer Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), who secretly tells Langdon that he is a suspect in the murder. It turns out that the murdered man was Neveu’s grandfather. She even helps him escape and together they solve the coded messages (actually, he does all the solving) and search for the greatest treasure of all time.

The messages that are left are based on a centuries-old conspiracy surrounding the Priory of Sion, a secret society dating back to the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli and Leonardo Da Vinci. The trail leads them through Paris, London and elsewhere to solve the puzzle and uncover the ancient conspiracy before the answer is lost forever.

I had heard the talk about the movie, and, I agree. There is no sense of tension or paranoia that is so prevalent in the book. Yes, the French police are always on their tail, and the albino monk is lurking dangerously close, but for some reason, it was too easy, or too expected.

Ron Howard (the director) and Tom Hanks have been together before and did ‘Apollo 13’. In that movie, we all knew the ending, but there was still the ‘air of impending doom’ for the three men. I still had the feeling that it could still turn into a disaster.

In this endeavor, I find Hanks so flat and lacking in any real charm. Where is the sexual tension between Langdon and Neveu? Where is the intellectual tension between Langdon and Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen)? Where is the French?

I am giving the film 3 ½ stars (out of 5). Don’t worry if you miss it, it will be fine to see this on DVD.

Yes it is a beautiful movie and does show some fabulous vistas and shots of the famous Louvre. Even though the plot was trimmed down and modified, I had no problem with the story. I am actually glad that I had forgotten most of the book because it would have probably frustrated me with the different story line.

My issue is that I did not find Tom Hanks a viable Langdon. Despite his Oscars and wonderful acting ability, it was not a good fit. His vitality was low and I don’t think he had a good grasp of the core character. There! I said it!

There are no reveals in this review, even though there are some good twists and turns in the film, so we call all stop reading here.

The Break-Up (*** ½)

2006-06-05T16:00:00.000-07:00

Brooke (Jennifer Aniston) and Gary (Vince Vaughn - Aniston’s new transition-pseudo-boyfriend) make a movie about a couple breaking up. After finding each other (which we see in the opening scenes) and living together, and investing in a Chicago condo together, we watch as this couple fall apart and go through the pains of separating.

Because they were never married, it would seem like a simple thing to do, but because neither of them wants to give up their space in the condo, they remain in the same residence living somewhat separate lives.

Actually, they do still love each other, but it seems their egos and mis-guided plans to pull the other one back keep pushing them apart. It is a classic case of selfishness and stubbornness taking the place of communication and sacrifice. In the end, it finally crumbles as the condo gets sold and they must find other places to live.

What makes this film work is the energy of both Aniston and Vaughn. Each has a charm about them that makes them likeable, and they do seem to like each other. Also in the mix are the friends and relatives that add color to the situation, including Brooke’s brother who does have a questionable social orientation (did I say that correctly?).

I also liked the dialog throughout the movie. Along with the snappy and funny banter by Vaughn, there is also the deeper advice from friends. Especially good are the bar scenes with Gary’s best friend Johnny (Jon Favreau). John tells Gary why he will always have a problem with a relationship, and Gary finally seems to get it. These two (who are also friends in real life) do very well together on the screen.

I am giving this film 3 ½ stars (out of five). It is a good date movie, and not just a chick-flick. There are more laughs than what you see in the previews, and it has a well-written script.

I also enjoyed seeing another of my favorite actors, Vincent D’Onofrio, from “Law and Order: Criminal Intent.” He has also done some other significant work on film, including the first “Men in Black”.

I am going to reveal the ending here, so you may want to stop reading. Ready? OK, in the end, after the two roommates separate, she goes to Europe, and he helps get his company to grow. They end up meeting on the street and say hello. There is no big emotional reunion, no reconciliation, just a kind and civil meeting of former lovers who have moved on.

Many people have pooh-poohed this film because of the ending, but I liked it. It was real and honest and well done. I read that they actually filmed four different endings and the director chose this version for the release. I am happy with the results.

If you decide to wait for the DVD, no great loss. But, if you really can’t decide between X-men and DaVinci, give this a try.

X-men 3: The Last Stand ****1/2

2006-05-26T10:53:00.000-07:00

Hmmmm, where to begin… I saw this film at 12:01 AM, so I heavily caffeinated and ready to go. The crowd was not as much fun as it was with the Harry Potter midnight show and the theatre let us all in early, rather than stand in line outside till 11:30. Why am I mentioning this? Well, I have had very little sleep and I am at work the same day after a few hours sleep, so just deal with it, OK? Plus, there is a lot going on in this film. If you have not seen, or don’t remember the first two films, I highly recommend that you watch them first.

Here we have the third episode of a wonderful sci-fi franchise that once again pits Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) against Magneto (Ian McKellen) each with their own army of mutants. In between is humanity with the normal political turmoil. Only, this time humanity has found a cure for mutants. It comes from a young boy whose power is to cancel out the power of other mutants.

The movie opens with flashbacks of Xavier and Magneto (in civilian clothes) meeting a young girl who has phenomenal powers. It is Jean Grey. Xavier offers her parents to take her to his school and help her control her mutant powers. Next we see a young boy trying to remove the budding wings that are forming on his back. His father, it will turn out, is the creator of the anti-mutant serum.

Yeah, I know, you want some action! Some fightin’ and some sex! Well, just be a little patient and you will get all of that.

Scott Summers (James Marsden), aka Cyclops is still a basket case after the death of his girl-friend Jean Grey (Famke Janssen). In the last episode, Jean sacrificed her life to save everyone else showing some very powerful telekinesis powers. She ended up at the bottom of a lake.

Scott hears her voice and goes back to the lake to try to extricate his demon. While doing that he ends up ‘finding’ Jean. That is where the real plot begins. (I will tell you later what happens at the lake).

So, Jean is still alive, although different. It seems that she is too powerful for her own good, and everyone else’s. Xavier had installed psychic buffers to allow Jean to function. The ‘inner’ Jean is actually called Phoenix. OK, let’s move on.

Wolverine (Hugh Jackman – who had been working out… nice guns, dude!) awakens Jean and they have an ‘interesting’ encounter (here’s the sex you hoped for). Unfortunately, Phoenix is also awake and that is when all heck starts breaking loose.

And, let us not forget ‘Beast’ (Kelsey Grammer) who is working for the US Government as the Secretary of Mutant Affairs. Beast is a very intelligent and very powerful mutant who has a doctorate and blue fur.

Yada, yada, yada, Magneto build an army of mutants. Blah, blah, blah, the humans are offering the new serum on a ‘voluntary basis. Jean gets out of control, people die and the mighty battle ensues.

I will not give away the very dramatic ending, but it is worth the price of admission.

I give this film 4 ½ stars (out of five). It misses top marks because there is so much going on here, and we do not get into the characters as much as I would have wanted. With a new director, you have a different feel, and, unfortunately, I think that Brett Ratner missed the mark. The film is only 1:44 minutes long, so some extra scenes showing the more human side, especially of the newer characters, would have been appropriate.

I also found the graveyard scenes (as I said, people get killed) to be too staged and overly-maudlin. A couple of the actors had clunky dialog and did not seem to express themselves all that well. I put this fault in the director’s chair.

Ready for some reveal? Are you sure? OK, you should know the rules by now – stop reading if you do not want any plot line revealed.

When Scott goes to the lake and awakens Jean/Phoenix, he is killed from the encounter. This is sad because I really like Cyclops and the love triangle between him, Jean and Wolverine.

Next, when Xavier goes back to Jean Grey’s old home to find Phoenix, he is also vaporized (OUCH!). While trying to help Jean control the Phoenix side of her powers, he ends up making her angrier.

I am not going to reveal the next big secret, because it is worth saving for you viewers.

So, fork over your $10, and enjoy the ride. It is not the best of the three, but it is definitely worth the price of admission.

Take the Lead

2006-04-14T09:42:00.000-07:00

This is a high-school spring-break movie that stars Antonio Banderas as the dance teacher Pierre Dulaine. He falls into a New York City school and attempts to teach a group of detention students how to ballroom dance. Eventually he talks them into a competition with the up-town urbanites.

The theme of the film is based on a true-life event of Mr. Dulaine bringing dance back to the education system. With it comes culture and manners, or so we are to believe.

In the mix of personnel we have the usual stereo-types of urban problems: black kids with parental issues, a token white kid wanting to be black, and an up-town girl in crisis about her inability to please her mother. We never get to know any these people well enough to love or hate them, but their outcomes are very predictable anyway.

The plot is obvious and the kids are too old for the roles, but at least it is not so schmaltzy that I was gagging half-way through the film. The actors do well enough to make things work, but the script is very sophomoric (‘Sisterhood 2’ with dancing, or ‘Footloose’ in the City).

Of course, everything works out in the end. What I did like is that we never find out who really won the competition, as the whole affair breaks out into a free-style sock hop with re-mix hip-hop and all the white people getting’ down with the homeys.

I give this film 2 ½ stars (out of 5). If you are a Banderas fan, you will want to see it, but otherwise, save your money. As I said, it is not a bad film, just not worth the cost of entry.

Inside Man

2006-04-03T10:29:00.000-07:00

This is another movie (joint) by Spike Lee, who puts his own style to what is an interesting story.

Denzel (do you ever wonder if he would drop his last name and JUST be Denzel, like Cher?) Washington plays a New York detective who is in the middle of an investigation about some missing money. Clive Owen is a bank robber with a very ingenious plan. Jodie Foster is a well-to-do person with connections who can get things done for people with money. And Christopher Plummer is the owner of the bank that Clive is robbing.

The Owens character tells us up front that he has executed the perfect bank robbery, but he is inside a cell, or prison, when he talks to the audience. As we watch this crime unfold, we are also shown glimpses of the post-robber interviews. There we see the hostages talk to Denzel and his partner about what went on inside the bank during the many hours of the ordeal.

We also see Foster at work trying to protect the interests of Plummer. She is calling in favors from other very-important people and finally gets to talk with the lead bank robber.

In essence this is a very simple plot. The fun part is trying to figure out how it ends, and who may be ‘the inside man’ (as the title suggests). About half-way through I understood how the robbers got out of the bank, but how did they get any money out? When Owen says, “I am just going to walk out the front door,” he was right.

I am giving this film 4 stars (out of five). It is a solid piece of movie making and Jones uses some cleaver techniques to set the mood and show emotions. I particularly enjoyed the scene with Denzel moving from the police van to the front of the bank.

However, Jones uses too many ‘pull-back-and-zoom” shots in the film. This is the effect of having the background move in, or out, of focus. It works at the front of the film, but not anywhere else.

OK, I am going to reveal some key moments in the film, so stop reading here if you don’t want to know. (And I do recommend stopping if you have not seen this film yet.)

Although this is a very good script, I think it tips its hand a little too early. It is obvious that Owen was not going to kill anyone, and I seemed to pick up on that very early in the story. It also became obvious on how they were going to get out of the bank. The good part is trying to figure out why they were digging a hole in the storage room.

My assumption was that they were going to flush the goods down the sewer and somehow retrieve it later. Nice guess, but wrong. What else bothers me is that no one in the bank noticed any changes in the storage room. True, it was expertly done, and most people may not pick up on that kind of change, but I would think that during the intensive search after the event would have picked up something.

Still, I had fun watching this movie, and I hope you do to.

Mrs. Henderson Presents

2006-03-06T12:30:00.000-08:00

This is a charming film from England where the British appreciate the concept of ‘cheeky’. The movie opens at the funeral of a wealthy and well-connected man and we meet his widow (Judi Dent, a nominee for Best Actress) who must now find her own way to pass the time. This occurs in the mid 1930’s, between the two World Wars and at the time of the Great Depression.

With some advice from her friend, Mrs. Henderson buys, refurbishes and opens a small theatre on the West end of London. She hires Vivian Van Dam (Bob Hoskins) to manage the theatre and put on a burlesque show.

For the next seven years, we watch as the theatre brings new ideas to the stage to stay ahead of the competition and make money. They eventually include nudity, that takes some negotiating with Lord Chamberlain, who is a personal friend of Mrs. Henderson.

We follow the owner and the manager and their interplay, which is the real heart of this film. Mrs. Henderson enjoys Mr. Van Dam’s company and their seemingly constant arguing is how they interact. There is real affection between Dent and Hoskins, and it comes across well in their characters. We also see the cast as they bond during the Battle of Britain, during WWII.

The “stiff upper lip” of the Brits can be fully appreciated by watching this film. The sacrifices that were made and the fear that the people of London lived in during the air-raids by German planes are expressed in a meaningful way.

Through it all, destruction and death, the show went on. Even when the government tried to close the theatre, the troops (who frequented the nude review) and Mrs. Henderson, stood up and kept the stage lit.

I give this film 4 stars (out of 5). I was quite taken with the entire film. It is not another “Chick-flick” or “English-crap” movie, unless the only films you appreciate are old westerns and Bond movies. For those people, you do get to see some very attractive women in the nude.

There is nothing to reveal in this film, but I do want to give a heads up about Christopher Guest, who does an English accent very well, for my American ear. He looks very stately in his lordly garb and appears to be aging well.

And the Oscar goes to...

2006-03-05T20:28:00.000-08:00

Wow, what a night. Let's start and the end and work our way back, shall we?

Remember that the awards are voted on by members of hte Acadamy of Arts and Sciences, who are themselves, actor, directors, producers, etc.

Best Picture:

The Oscar went to: CRASH

This was a significant upset. All the money was on Brokeback, so if you bet on this horse, you made a tidy profit.

My Choice: Capote

I understand why many people did not think it was that good. I was swept up with the story because I found the real man interesting.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Best Director:

The Oscar went to: Ang Lee (Brokeback Mountain)

My Choice: George Clooney (Good Night and Good Luck)

Nothing wrong with this choice. It did diserve to win.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Best Actor in a leading role:

The Oscar went to: Phillip Seymore Hoffman (Capote)

My Choice: Phillip Seymore Hoffman

----------------------------------------------------------------

Best Actress in a leading role:

The Oscar went to: Reese Witherspoon (Walk the Line)

My Choice: Charleze Theron (North Country)

Hey this was a difficult choice. I certainly appreciate the choice.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Best Supporting Actor:

The Oscar went to: George Clooney (Syriana)

My Choice: Paul Giamantti (Cinderlla man)

I never saw Syriana, so I will give it a look when it is available on DVD.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Best Supporting Actress:

The Oscar went to: Rachel Weisz (The Constant Gardner)

My Choice: Michelle Williams (Brokeback Mountain)

Well, at least we got see both their boobs.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Best Adapted Screenplay:

The Oscar went to: Brokeback Mountain

My Choice: I didn't really specify this one in my blog, but I was leaning toward Brokeback.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Best Original Screenplay:
The Oscar went to: Crash

My Choice: Didn't see enough to make a choice, but yeah, this was very good.

----------------------------------------------------------------

As for Mr. Jon Stewart, is opening was solid and in his usual, understated, improptu style. I don't think the audience was tuned into his style.

So, until next time, my friends, I will see you when the lights come up.

Tonight's the night!

2006-03-05T09:49:00.000-08:00

Well, the big day has arrived.

I did not have the opportunity to see all the films that I had hoped, but I did see all the Best Picture nominees.

So, tomorrow morning I will post the results along with some comments. I am also looking forward to seeing Jon Stewart as the host. I have enjoyed him as anchor to "The Daily Show" since he took over for Kilborne.

So, pop the champagne and find a comfortable chair, a let's have some fun.

The Constant Gardener (*** ½ - DVD)

2006-03-04T12:22:00.000-08:00

This is a British film about an English Diplomat and his new wife. It shows us how they meet and how they die, and how they tried to shake the monkey tree.

Tessa (Rachel Weicz, nominee for Best Supporting Actress) plays a very out-spoken and charming woman who meets and marries Justin Quayle (Ralph Fiennes), a diplomat for England to Kenya. They meet in a whirlwind romance and she asks him to take her to Africa with him.

All this is done in flashbacks after Justin finds out about Rachel’s death. During the flashbacks he suspects that Rachel is having an affair with her constant companion, a black man, Dr. Joshua Ngaba (John Sibi-Okumu). Tessa was constantly roaming the country of Kenya and had suspected that something was wrong with the UN-supported drug distribution for AIDS. She doggedly keeps searching for answers, even while she is eight months pregnant.

As Justin investigates Tessa’s death he also learns that Dr. Ngaba was gay and that Tessa did love him, as he loved her. Eventually, Justin finds the same evidence that Tessa uncovered. Her death was apparently done by the drug companies using poor black people to test a new cure for the ‘Super Tuberculosis’ that is starting to sweep the world.

So we have rich industrialists in cahoots with sympathetic government officials and the poor and destitute stuck in the middle. Not a new idea, but this is an interesting story.

What makes this work is the love affair between Justin and Tessa. She is a spunky and vocal woman who never misses a chance to take a jab at any assumed evil-doer, while he is a stoic and calm civil servant who passes his time caring for his plants. It is an interesting pairing, but the scenes of them together are touching and convincing.

I give this film 3 ½ stars (out of five). I liked it more than I thought I would at the beginning of the film. It is well edited, but the some of the dialog is so muted, I kept having to adjust the volume. Although the majesty of Central Africa was probably better seen on the big screen, it was not central to the story.

As for nominating Rachel Weicz for supporting actress instead of Best Actress, yes, I can go with that. The main story is around the husband, and although Tessa gets an appreciable amount of screen time, she is not the central character.

This film also got nominated for Best Screenplay Adaptation. For a who-dunnit movie, I have heard better dialog, and many of the conversations seemed stilted, so it would not get my vote.

Sorry, no surprise endings here (worth mentioning).

North Country (***) (DVD)

2006-03-03T09:41:00.000-08:00

This is a fictionalized story about the first sexual harassment law suit in the United States. It occurred in a small mining town in Minnesota.

Josie (academy award nominee for Best Actress, Charlize “yum-yum” Theron) is a woman with two children who leaves her wife-beating husband and moves back home. She finally lands a job at the mine doing grunt work and putting up with harassment on the job.

Her motivation to keep putting up with the trouble is to keep her kids in a home and make a life for herself. Because of her complaints to both management and the union, she is tagged as a whistleblower and the harassment increases for all the women at the mine.

Her old friend, Glory (Francis McDormand, best supporting actress nominee) who also works at the mine, is suffering from aches and pains. She is on the union board and is trying to help Josie find a balance between Josie’s self-respect and the abuse she is taking.

Of course few of the male co-workers have sympathy for Josie. In their minds the women are taking jobs away from the men (remember this is the late 70’s). “Sensitivity” is not part of the American lexicon yet. Even Josie’s father is resentful of all the negative attention that Josie is bringing.

Neither can Josie convince any of the fellow female coworkers to join her in their complaints. They feel that Josie is the reason the harassment is increasing (which it probably is).

At the center of all this name calling and false accusations is Billy Sharp (Jeremy Renner), who knew Josie when they were in high school. We see this relationship in flashbacks as the story goes on.

Finally, Josie quits and hires a lawyer (Woody Harrelson), who is a friend of Glory, to sue the mining company for sexual harassment. Actually, the trial is the framework for the story. It is fed to us in bits and pieces. We watch as a female lawyer for the mining company slowly picks apart Josie’s life to tear down her credibility.

I give this film 3 stars (out of five). It is a good solid film, and it is poignant and dramatic when it needs to be. It has a solid cast and the performances are well done. What it lacks is a real kicker to get it above the “Norma Rae” milieu of movies.

It is seems that Charlize does her best work when she gets the crap beat out of her Monster, 2003). On the other hand, those seem to be the only films where she has a character that has any real emotional range. No, I certainly have not seen all of her filmography, just a casual observation.

I am going to give a little something away here, so stop reading, if you wish. It is not much, but it is something.

It turns out that Josie’s boy is the result of a rape when she was in high school. One interesting sub-plot is that we being led to believe that Mr. Sharp was the father. It turns out it was her teacher who raped her. It is brought out in court and it is why her father has always resented her.

Josie has had a very tough life, and she has worked hard to put her family back together. It is good to finally see others, who have shunned her, finally stand up beside her.

The Oscars

2006-03-02T12:03:00.000-08:00

2005 Oscar Nominations
(Update 3/4/06)

So the wards are this weekend, and, despite my New Year's Resolution, I did not see all the nominees. I did see all the best picture nominees (and best director), and most of the best actor nominees. So, here are my picks, for those few that I saw...

(Sorry for the large gap here, but it happens when I put in a table.)

Category	Nominations	Comments
Best Picture	Capote	My vote
	Brokeback Mountain	Most popular
	Good Night, and Good Luck	Controversial
	Crash	Came out too early
	Munich	Not enough sympathy
Best Actor	Philip Seymour Hoffman (Capote)	Excellent - My vote
	Heath Ledger (Brokeback Mountain)	Good job, but not enough, despite having to kiss a guy
	Joaquin Phoenix (Walk the Line)	Excellent job
	David Strathairn (Good Night and Good Luck)
	Terrence Howard (Hustle and Flow)	Sorry I did not see it
Best Actress	Charlese Theron (North Country)	Excellent work.
I saw two films for thiscategoryy.	Reese Witherspoon (Walk the Line)	Another excellent job
	Judi Dench (Mrs. Henderson Presents)	Have not seen it
	Felicity Huffman (TransAmerica)	Have not seen it
	Keira Knightley (Pride & Prejudice)	Please, don't make go see it!
Best Supporting Actor	Jake Gyllenhaal (Brokeback Mountain)	He should have been nominated for Best Actor! Not fair - No vote!
	George Clooney (Syriana)	Did not see this film
	Matt Dillon (Crash)	The comeback kid?
	Paul Giamatti (Cinderella Man)	Added more to the film than the others - my vote.
	William Hurt (A History of Violence)	Did not see this film
Supporting Actress	Catherine Keener (Capote)	Did well, but no cigar
	Michelle Williams (Brokeback Mountain)	My vote, had the best emotional range.
	Frances McDormand (North Country	Very good job just not enough screen time to show the depth of the character.
	Amy Adams (Junebug)	Good, but not that memorable
	Rachel Weisz (The Constant Gardener)	She still is missing that 'spark' in her performances.
Best Director	Bennett Miller (Capote)
This is a tough choice, to separate director from the best picture.	Ang Lee (Brokeback Mountain)
	George Clooney (Good Night and Good Luck)	For the whole feel of the film, I pick this one.
	Paul Haggis (Crash)	This tied with Clooney and lost the coin toss.
	Steven Spielberg (Munich)	Too deep into his theme to see the film.
Best Original Screenplay	Skip this with only one film seen.
Best Screenplay Adaptation	Capote
	Brokeback Mountain	Good story line and dialog.
	A History of Violence
	The Constant Gardener	Well done story, not overly-pretentious
	Munich

Well, there you have it, for what it is worth.

I will watch any winner that I have not seen, as soon as I can.

Munich (*** ½)

2006-02-28T20:59:00.000-08:00

Up front, this movie is 2 hours and 45 minutes long. And, as with another film that I recently reviewed, I could have been better by at least 45 minutes.

Munich is a fictional back-story about the aftermath of the horrendous deaths of Israeli athletes during the 1976 Olympics. Palestinian terrorists abducted and murdered eleven men. They themselves were killed while trying to escape Germany in a botched attempt to free the hostages. That part is historical fact. The rest is fiction based on other events.

A man named Avner (Eric Bana) is recruited by his native Israel to take revenge on those who planned the terrorist's abduction and who formed the group know as "Black Friday". Along with four other men, none of who appear to be experienced field agents, they search throughout Europe to find and kill them. Despite their inexperience, they start to do their job. Eventually, however, their deeds catch up with them and they are targets themselves.

For most of the film, the action holds us, and we are able to deal with the Jewish angst through the dialog of the characters. One of the main sources of information for the team is a Frenchman who's father is in the lucrative business of providing intelligence to anyone who can pay.

After three of the team are killed and the paranoia is so overwhelming, Avner retires to New York with his wife and child. He is tired of trying to kill the beast that grows a new head when one is chopped off. He is left with his fears and what remains of his Hebrewness away from the country and parents that loved him so much.

I give this film 3½ stars (out of five). I think it takes too long for Spielberg to make his point. Although he did an excellent job in directing the film, he should have been a little more frugal in the editing room.

If the result of trying to save your country is loosing your heritage and belief system, as Avner realizes at the end, then is it really worth it? Does revenge beget more revenge? I would say yes, but it does not take that long to express that in a movie.

There are no surprise endings or plot twists, so don't look for any additional information here. Wait for the DVD and be prepared to stop it for a break right after the woman gets killed. (OK, so I did give you some extra information.)

Capote (*****)

2006-02-24T22:18:00.000-08:00

Where to begin…

When performing a role where the character is someone that is/was famous, an actor has a difficult decision to make. Do they channel the character and mimic them, or do they take on some vague characteristics and trust that the audience doesn’t notice.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman took the high road and impersonated the famed late author, Truman Capote, using craftsmanship and technique that would make Rembrandt or Frank Lloyd Wright proud. I would say it took me about fifteen seconds to get pulled into the concept that I was watching Capote on the screen.

This is the story of Truman writing one of the most horrifying and realistic books an American author has produced, “In Cold Blood.” It is the true story of the murder of a Kansas Family and the capture and eventual execution of the men who killed them. The book was a turning point for literature in general as it launched the new genre of “True Crime” stories. Previously pulp fiction magazines and suspense detective novels were the only crime stories, other than newspaper articles.

We also meet Nelle Harper Lee (Catherine Keener), the woman who wrote another American classic, “To Kill a Mockingbird.” She starts out as Truman’s research assistant during the early years of investigating the murders. She is a major help to Truman in Kansas. Capote’s open gay lifestyle is fully accepted in New York, but in Kansas it gets in his way. However his fame as a popular author and association with Hollywood celebrities helps him gain acceptance in the small rural community where the murders took place.

We follow the investigation with the lead detective Alvin Dewey (Chris Cooper) and the eventual capture of the two murderers Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr.) and Richard Hickock (Mark Pellegrino). Capote befriends Smith and manipulates him into telling him the whole story about the killings. This process takes over four years, and Truman helps get the convicts lawyers to delay their execution.

What may have been a drawn-out character study of a literary genius turns out to be an excellent slice of how that genius manipulated the people and circumstances to complete his masterpiece.

I am giving this film 5 stars (out of five). I was moved, entranced and totally absorbed by this film. The dialog is superb and the relevant structure of Truman Capote’s life was revealed in such a way as to show the man for what he was.

I did not find even a mediocre performance throughout the film, so kudos also to the entire cast and Bennett Miller, the director. If I was to vote right now, I would give the Oscar to both Hoffman for Best Actor and the producers for Best Picture. Yup, damn good.

Brokeback Mountain

2006-02-23T22:13:00.000-08:00

The love that dare not speak its name.

Had I seen this earlier and there was not so much hoopla about the movie there might be a few more surprises for all of us. But, here goes.

Two cowboys (Jack Slick, played by Jake Gyllenhaal and Enis Del Mar, played by Keith Ledger) in the 1960’s meet while herding sheep in Wyoming. While they are up on Brokeback, just the two of them (and all the sheep), they find comfort and affection in each other's arms. The next day tell each other that they are not queer, but still they continue to share intimacy for two months on the mountain.

Four years later Jack comes back to visit Enis. Enis is now married and has two daughters. Jack has been drifting and helping his parents run their ranch. Both are living on the edge and quickly they realize that their affections for each other have not died off. Enis’ wife (Michelle Williams) sees the two men in a lip lock but keeps it to herself. The boys then start having regular fishing trips (a few times a year) back up on the mountain where they met.

Eventually Jack also finds a woman to be with during a rodeo. Laureen (Anne Hathaway) has a father who sells tractors and combines. After they wed, Jack is selling farm equipment and doing quite well, while Enis is still struggling to make ends meet in a failing marriage. Still, the two men go camping together away from everyone. Jack is trying to talk Enis into running away together and live as ranchers.

Eventually, one of them dies (I won’t say who or how right now). The trials and turmoil of the forbidden love finally come to an end.

I am going to give this film 4 stars (out of five). Yes, I was moved by the love affair that the two men had. Yes, I thought the ending was especially poignant and real. Yes, I did squirm in my seat watching two guys get in on in a tent. So, the movie does deserve a rating of ‘R’. But Best Picture for an Oscar? Hmmmm, let me think…

Ang Lee did a fabulous job directing the film. The angles and the close-ups were well balanced with the gorgeous wide-angle scenes of the mountains and rivers. The timing was good and the moments when Enis and Jack were intimate (not sexual) told more of a story than the “gratuitous sex” scene in the tent.

The acting all around was well above par and it was good to see some of the younger actors doing roles that were different than we are used to (Michelle and Anne). Even watching the families grow up over twenty years was well done. So, I do think it deserves a nomination.

But, the movie was too long. I don’t mind keeping a slow pace to give the feeling of the passing of time, but many scenes could have been removed. Note to Directors:I promise that I will not feel ripped off if I pay full price for a movie that is less than two hours!

Also, the whole tent scene was a little too ‘wham-bam-thank-you-man’ for me. For those of you who have been with me for a while, you know that I have said the same thing about boy-girl scenes, so don’t think I am homophobic. Finally, I found Jack to be exactly what a stereo-type homosexual is supposed to be: a horney gay guy who cannot keep it in his pants. Of course, infidelity is the sub-text in this film, so I should expect it. It just seems to ring shallow that he has so little character, but Enis still loves him.

Ahhh, Cest' la Amor

OK, I am going to reveal info about the movie, so if you don’t want to know, stop reading.

Ready? In the end it is Jack who dies. His wife explains to Enis that it was from a blown tire, but some scenes are flashed on the screen that would contradict that story. This image is reminiscent of things that Enis had seen growing up, so the audience is not sure what the truth is.

In the end Enis is true to himself, knowing that the one love of his life is now gone.

An Unfinished Life

2006-02-23T14:25:00.000-08:00

I don't know for sure, but I bet this film was presented at the Sundance Film Festival, because it has Robert Redford, it was about a Montana rancher, and it has that 'Indie' film quality to it.

This is a slice-o-life movie about a woman, her daughter, and the late-husband's father reuniting and finding themselves in a far away place.

JLo plays a widow who is involved with a man who beats her. She has a 10 year-old daughter and nothing else. To get away she runs to Montana to live with her dead husband's father, Robert Redford. It seems that he did not know he was a grandfather. Living with Redford is a crippled ranch hand played by Morgan Freeman. He was mailed by a bear and Redford is caring for him as if he was his brother. So, the in-laws move in, everyone is resentful, and Morgan is there to bring wisdom to all.

Sure enough, the bully boyfriend shows up, but JLo has made nice with the local sheriff. Of course this does not deter the villain and Redford finally has the last say, using typical Montanan methods to drive the woman-beater away.

As formulaic, saccharine, chick flicks go, this is pretty drab. No one gets killed or badly maimed. There is the sub-text of the roaming bear that nailed Freeman and his return and capture. The simile of forgiveness and freedom should be obvious to any man watching.

I give this film 2 1/2 stars (out of five). There is some reasonable plot and dialog between the grandfather and the granddaughter, and the part where they emancipate the bear is interesting. However, there are no real acting standouts because the characters are not that interesting.

I also must say that I saw this film on an airplane. (Seem to be doing that a lot lately, don't I?) So if any language was contained in the original release or on the DVD, I missed it. Plus, there is not anything to talk about that would spoil the obvious plot line.

But, if this is the type of film that these fine actors are going to close their careers with, then they may just as well call it quits right now.

I'm sorry that this is not a nominee for any awards, but at 35,000 feet, you watch whatever they are showin'.

Good Night and Good Luck

2006-02-21T08:25:00.000-08:00

Good Night and Good Luck

Wow. This is a very good movie. I think we are seeing George Clooney at his peak, writing, directing and acting in this film. This is a nominee for the academy awards for Clooney as a director and original screenplay.

The time is 1950. World War II is still in everyone’s minds and the new European threat of Communism has become the nation’s mantra of fear. After standing by while Hitler took over Western Europe, America is now watching Russia take over Eastern Europe and forming the mighty Soviet Union. The country that was once an ally was now the enemy. It seemed you couldn’t trust anyone.

In steps the junior Senator from (of all places) Wisconsin, Joe McCarthy. He begins a campaign of anti-communistic house cleaning and eventually is part of the Tydings, (House Un-American Activities) Committee; a severe witch-hunt looking for Commie spies and Red sympathizers (pink-o’s) inside the US government.

On the other side, CBS was growing as television became the national obsession as middle-class America could now afford a television set. Edward R. Murrow was a reporter working for CBS news. He had worked as a war correspondent during the “Battle of Britain” where his low, sultry voice became very well known to American radio listeners. He moved to TV, along with the rest of the country, doing the “See It Now” television show. This consisted mostly of live broadcasts from the homes of celebrities.

He also did news and news commentary for CBS. This is where the movie begins, both men, Murrow and McCarthy, at the peaks of their careers. McCarthy, a self-righteous, right-winged well-connected Senator versus Murrow, a staunch and stubborn liberal with the power of the press. We see it unfold here on the screen.

The vantage point of this film is totally on Murrow and his situation. We see McCarthy only in film clips and quotes. It is filmed in black-and-white, to further set the period of the times. We don’t get political rhetoric or over-the-to speeches about Americanism.

I give this film 4 ½ stars (out of five). This ranks right up with Apollo 13 and Schindler’s list in the way it successfully recreates the feeling of the times and tries to re-create historical events.

I especially want to give recognition to Clooney for the direction of the film. The camera angles and the general somber tone of the movie were not over-done. We see the stress of Murrow as he fires shots across the bow at McCarthy. Murrow seems to know that McCarthy is getting information from J. Edgar Hoover, and everyone is waiting for the return volley of accusations and innuendo.

When you know the end of the story, as we do here, the trick for the director and writer(s) is to make the characters and the situation as interesting as possible. Clooney does an excellent job with that.

OK, I must confess to you that I did see this movie on an airplane. And some of the language was edited to make it acceptable for the general audience, but I don’t think I missed very much. It is not like seeing an edited version of Deadwood, where half the dialog would be removed.

So, in closing, what about David Strathairn for Best Actor? It is possible. Despite Murrow’s seemingly over-stoic presence on TV, Strathairn does present a real person that is trying to deal with the pressure of what he thinks is right against the pressure of the CBS company that is nervous about loosing sponsors. It is easy to see why he got nominated.

But as for Best Picture, it is too early for me to say. I need to see Munich.

Junebug

2006-02-07T18:11:00.000-08:00

I rented this DVD because Amy Adams was nominated for best supporting actress by the Academy. Junebug is an independent film directed by Phil Morrison. It is the story of a Chicago art dealer and her new husband as they visit his North Carolina family and an artist that the dealer is trying to sign up. Madeline (the art dealer played by Embeth Davidtz) is an older, but very youthful woman who has grown up touring the world with her parents. Her husband’s (Alessandro Nivola) family has never been outside the county.

Living with her husbands parents are his brother, John (Ben McKenzie) and his young and very pregnant wife Ashley (Amy Adams). This family is beyond non-functional and well into a comatose state except for Ashley. It is this stark contrast with everyone else that put Ms. Adams on the nomination list.

The only other interesting character is the artist that Medeline is wooing. His art consists of a primitive style depicting civil war scenes. Also, most of the men have their genitalia hanging out in different states of erection. Of course, all the artsy people think it is fabulous and there is a bidding war for this guy’s art.

I give this film 2 ½ stars (out of five). It is stodgy, poorly developed and not worth renting. If there is nothing left in the video store and your children are being held hostage until you bring back a DVD, fine, but don’t watch it.

When I watch an independent film, I do expect some quirkiness, but the problem with this film was that nothing made much sense, and those people that I was starting to care about had very little redeeming value. In his effort to give the film a different, non-mainstream feel, Mr. Morrison produced a clunky movie.

The Aristocrats

2006-02-06T10:45:00.000-08:00

I rented a DVD this weekend that was recommended by a friend. It is called "The Aristocrats." First of all, this is a non-rated (should be MA) DVD that will surely offend everyone, unless you have a great sense of humor.

"The Aristocrats" is apparently an old vaudeville joke that is only told (for the most part) among comics. As a joke it is fairly feeble, but the idea is not the punchline, as it is in the telling of the joke. This movie is a pseudo-documentary about the joke and how comedians of the last couple of generations tell the joke, learned about the joke, and analyze the joke.

Now, here is where we diverge from the comedy of the joke into the comedy of the telling of the joke. As we learn about the joke, and what makes the joke funny, we are drawn into the 'back room' banter about comedians and their darker side.

It really would not be proper for me to reveal the joke here, so I will not. Let me just say that some people tell a very disgusting version of the joke, and you can start to understand what "over the top" really means. On the other hand, some people go "way over the top" and the same joke becomes hilarious.

One of my favorite scenes is when the mime does the joke. I was almost on the floor.

There are also several variations of the same joke that show both the creativity of the person telling the joke and ability of an old joke to stay 'fresh'.

There are about twenty five (I did not keep count) different comedians interviewed during this documentary, from all generations: Phyllis Diller to Paul Reiser to Whoopi Goldberg and Gilbert Godfreid. I mention Gilbert, because there is footage of him doing the joke on a Comedy Central Roast.

Two things popped into my head while I was watching this funny movie: The old joke about people using numbers instead of jokes with the punch line, "it's how you tell it;" and how many other movies have such a repeating theme that does not get old?

I give this film 4 1/2 stars (out of five). It is the equivalent of comedic jazz. A theme, and all of its variations and personal styles, put together on film. If you gross out eaily, this probably is not for you, but if you son't mind the 'blue' language and can appreciate the journey as much as the destination, then see this film.

OK, if you do want to watch this movie, then stop reading here, because I AM going to reveal the joke for you! But trust me, you will be sorry (or maybe not) if you truly want to watch this movie.

Ready? All righty, but this will be a fairly watered-down version...

OK, so the man walks into a talent agent's office. He says, "I have a great act for you!"

"OK," says the agent, "Let me hear about it."

The man steps back and with gestures and a big smile starts to talk. "It is a family act. I come on stage with my wife and she starts to sing a beautiful melody while I start taking off my clothes. When I am fully nude, I start to sing the next part of the song and my wife strips down.

"When I have finished my verse to the song, my two children come on stage and start singing. My wife and I move to the center of the stage and take a dump in front of the kids, then proceed to take off their clothes."

"My wife and I begin to sing a duet while my two children also take a crap in the same location. As the music builds, our little dog comes in and he takes a dump. Then the whole family is singing in four-part harmony and in a crescendo of music we all dive into the pile of excrement, roll around in it, and finish the song."

The man has been acting out the parts in the office and jumps up with his hands in the air, "Ta daa!"

The agent is sitting there chewing on his cigar and asks, "So, ah, what is the name of your act?"

The man smiles and says, "The Aristocrats!"

I'll let you watch the DVD and see what others have done with this idea.

Crash

2006-01-31T10:45:00.000-08:00

(originally published June, 2005)

If you have heard anything about this movie, it was probably positive. This is a well crafted film, from the script all the way to the final editing. We even have several major stars doing roles that are outside of their normal genre.

This is a complicated interweaving of characters who we follow over a couple of days. Don Cheadle, Sandra Bullock, and Matt Dillon play people caught up in the violence in LA. People from all walks of life dealing with racism on many different levels: a district attorney, a police detective, a TV director, and a family of Persians who are taken for arabs. The actual plot is rather convoluted, so I will not even try to explain it here.

What makes this movie tick is that we are faced with our own bigotries, even as we try to maintain political correctness. We are also faced with the mis-conceptions and biased assumptions that we make about those we see who are different from us. It is also interesting to see how things work out. There are no major performances, except maybe for Cheadle, because the movie is a nice balance of many characters and their interaction with the world around them. A micro-chasm of how contemporary society does function.

This is a sad movie, even with some of the less-tragic endings to some of the stories. Yet, in many ways it is uplifting in that we feel that there is hope and basic goodness in most people. Do not see this film if your easily offended.

I give this film 4 ½ stars (out of five). It is an intricate and precise movie that deserves any awards that it may get. It is dark without being gloomy, real without being goofy, and violent without being gory. I definitely recommend the DVD if you miss it in the theaters, but do remember that it is not a film for children.

2005 Oscar Nominations

2006-01-31T09:25:00.000-08:00

Capote
Best Actor Philip Seymour Hoffman
Best Sup Actress Catherine Keener
Best Director Bennett Miller
Best Picture
Best Screenplay Adaptation

Hustle & Flow
Best Actor Terrence Howard

Brokeback Mountain
Best Actor Heath Ledger
Best Sup Actor Jake Gyllenhaal
Best Sup Actress Michelle Williams
Best Director AngLee
Best Picture
Best Screenplay Adaptation

Walk the Line
Best Actor Joaquin Phoenix
Best Actress Reese Witherspoon

Good Night, and Good Luck
Best Actor David Strathairn
Best Director George Clooney
Best Picture
Best Original Screenplay

Syriana
Best Sup Actor George Clooney
Best Original Screenplay

Crash
Best Sup Actor Matt Dillon
Best Director Paul Haggis
Best Picture
Best Original Screenplay

Cinderella Man
Best Sup Actor Paul Giamatti

A History of Violence
Best Sup Actor William Hurt
Best Screenplay Adaptation

Mrs. Henderson Presents
Best Actress Judi Dench

Transamerica
Best Actress Felicity Huffman

Pride & Prejudice
Best Actress Keira Knightley

North Country
Best Actress Charlize Theron
Best Sup Actress Frances McDormand

Junebug
Best Sup Actress Amy Adams

The Constant Gardener
Best Sup Actress Rachel Weisz
Best Screenplay Adaptation

Munich
Best Director Steven Spielberg
Best Picture
Best Screenplay Adaptation

Match Point
Best Original Screenplay

The Squid and the Wale
Best Original Screenplay

I will do my best to see the films I have not seen. I will post those films that I have seen.
Thanks for reading...

King Kong

2006-01-28T19:59:00.000-08:00

King Kong

A review

By Don Armbruster

First of all let me say I am sorry for my absence. A few personal things I needed to work out.

Secondly, if you have not seen the original King Kong movie then you are either very young and do not watch much cable TV, or you are living with your head in the sand and need to get a life. For the majority of us, however, Kong is an icon. A bit of brilliant film making back in the 1930’s when life was very hard for so many people.

This is the second remake of the film. The last attempt, in the early 70’s, was fraught with an attempt to modernize the story and use mechanical arms and a guy in a suit. It also lacked real substance in that I never believed any of the actors believed in what they were doing.

So, after six years of making one of the greatest epic trilogies of all time, the Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson takes on the task of remaking King Kong. He maintains the period of the piece, showing us glimpses of the Great Depression. I think this is supposed to set us up for some character issues later, because almost twenty minutes is spent before we take out to sea.

We meet Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) an out-of-work vaudevillian who is on her own.

We meet Carl Denham (played by a mugging Jack Black), a struggling movie director who scrambles to prevent his career from being yanked away. Later, after Denham finds Ann, we meet Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody), a hard-working playwright who is writing the script for Denham’s movie.

We board a boat and meet some “Desposa-Bills”. These are characters in the movie who we know are going to die before the closing credits. The fun part is figuring out who will be the first to bite the dust. We even get into some dialog about a couple of the ship’s crew, so we think one of them will be the first. We also get to know a little about the film crew, so a couple of them are also nominated.

At this time Driscoll meets Ann. Although you would not realize it watching the film, Jack is totally taken with the young woman. Did not believe this for a second. Throughout the film Brody looked stoic and like he really wanted to be somewhere else.

Now we find the island and some exceptionally creepy natives. Yeah, this is definitely in-bread, Deliverance kind of folks. At least we didn’t get the classic African stereo-types. And, true to the original, they sneak back on to the ship and steal the girl. Now the good stuff starts.

We meet the big guy. He looks good: a masculine-simian presence with a touch of gray and a few scars. Hey, it is a jungle out there. He grabs Ann and off the go. He swings her around and carries her like a rag doll. At this point, Ann should be dead with major head trauma, you know, shaken-baby syndrome, or at least punch-drunk. This disbelief continues on through the rest of the jungle part.

OK, great action as Kong takes on three (yes count ‘em folks, three) T-rexes (?). Here comes the cavalry only to be squished by the mighty Kong. Yes, eventually Jack finds Ann and they escape back to the village. Of course, Carl has a little trap waiting, and after seeing many of his film crew get eaten or torn apart, he wants to take Kong home.

Blah, blah blah, we end up back in New York. Everyone is sad except for Carl who is now going to be rich. The mighty monkey escapes, finds Ann, and we have the climax at the top of the Empire State Building.

I give this film 3 ½ stars out of five (that’s more than one star-per-hour of film).

The only creature in this movie that was not as thin as the popcorn container was Kong. If Jackson would have spent a little more time with the real actors, and less with the post-production crew, you would have had an excellent film. Oh, and yes, loose at least 30 minutes of projection time.

Oh, and the term, "Desposa-Bill" is from the guys on Movies.com, Statler and Waldorf.

Happy New Year

2006-01-06T08:32:00.000-08:00

Sorry about the delay. I have worked out some 'issues' and I will be heading back to darkness in the near future.

New Years Resolutions:

1. See at least 3 movies per month, hopefully more.
2. See ALL the movies that have been nominated for an Oscar (that gets published in February) including all the Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Actress nominations. Even if it is only available on DVD.
3. Get an e-mail site set up so that you can be notified for new postings.

That does not sound like too much for me to handle so we will give it a go. Again, if you do have a request, please feel free to leave a comment.

Thank you, fellow cinema fans.

Comments

2005-12-13T07:32:00.000-08:00

Hello again.

Apparently some of you are not sure on how to make a comment on my blog. When you click on the word, "COMMENTS" at the bottom another little window pops up.

After you have typed in your comment, you will have three choices to make. If you already a blogger on this Billboard (blogspot) then you can leave your blog name and page.

If you want to leave your name, click on "Other". You are not required to leave your e-mail address, if you don't want to.

Finally, if you just wish to leave a comment without your name, click "Anonymous" and your comment will be entered.

The next thing to do is type in the letters that you see on the screen. This is there to prevent automated systems from putting stuff in the comments.

At the very bottom of the window you simply click on "publish comment" and zippidy doo dah, there you go. You can then go back to the blog page and click on comments again, and you will see your published comment. Remember, however, that I will moderate any and all comments.

Thanks for reading, and have a nice day.

Richard Pryor

2005-12-10T13:59:00.000-08:00

I just read that Richard Pryor has died at the age of 65.

I am saddened by this event because he was a very talented man who should have had a linger and fuller life. Of course I could wax on about how his edgy style brought visibility to Black America. I would have to say that he was on the forefront of both vulgar comedy and breaking color barriers.

Face it, he was funny. He could also handle himself on screen. Two of the three films he did with Gene Wilder were very entertaining and "The Silver Streak" is still considered a classic. However, I must also wonder how much better his career would have been without the drug problems that he faced.

Anyway, a very funny and talented man is now gone.

+++++++

On another note, I am going to post some ads on this site. Hopefully, this will generate a little revenue to help finance all those movies I am going to. So, please, visit often. I get $ every time someone clicks on the site.

Later, my friends....

Aeon Flux

2005-12-05T08:35:00.000-08:00

Let me start out by saying that timing means a lot. Charlize (yum yum) Theron received a Best-Actress Oscar for her performance last year. I am guessing that she had a contractual obligation to do this film at that time. Most movies take about two years to complete, especially one that uses so many special effects, as this one does. I say this because I don't think she would take this role today.

Aeon Flux (Charlize) is a woman living in the 25th century, in a controlled, utopian city where most of human-kind was wiped out by a virus over 400 years ago. Depending on your point of view, Aeon is either a liberator or a terrorist. Either way, it is nice to know that only beautiful people will survive. I don’t remember seeing anyone who was ugly or over-weight. All that remains of human existence is a small city that has isolated itself from the rest of the world.

The leader of this brave new world is the descendant of the same man who saved these survivors from the killer virus. It is a Stalin-like society where big brother can watch your every move. It is also loaded with exotic technologies. But, of course, there seems to be something fundamentally wrong with everyone.

Aeon has been training in secret, although how that is possible in this environment is unclear, and has joined the rebels to free the people. She receives messages from her leader through bio-chemicals, implants and directly from other rebels. So far, I'm following along.

She has a partner who has been ‘modified’. (I’ll let you find that one out for yourself.) Together they enter the inner sanctum of the city to assassinate Chairman Trevor Goodchild and, hopefully, topple the government. Avoiding many genetically altered plants that act as defensive weapons, the two eventually get into the facility and get close enough to Goodchild to do him in! Of course, there is a small glitch in the plan as Aeon has second thoughts, or should we say unaccountable memories.

Capture, off to jail, she escapes, she finds the truth, and the real traitor to humanity is revealed. Throw in the neo-classic gymnastics, explosions, and cute pseudo-techno gadgetry, and there you have it. Although for a 'peaceful society' there sure are a lot of guns.

I give this film 2 ½ stars (out of five). Not only was this a bad hybrid of many stories, but it was a waste of good talent. Actually I will blame the director and writer. This story is so full of holes it is ridiculous. By the time things should have gotten interesting, they fell apart by the contradictions of the story line. It seems strange that the rebels have all these wonderful toys and expert training available, but the police do not.

This film is a combination of ‘The Matrix’, ‘Alien Resurrection’, and ‘Logan’s Run’ all mixed together. Actually, I am getting a little tired of the “Female-as-a-killing-machine” genre. Can we go back to where they were the heroine and survived by their own wits? The end product of this effort is not worth seeing. Not even for a matinee price. (Well, if you get free popcorn and a drink, then, maybe.)

What is interesting is seeing Theron; all buff and slim and wearing some semi-nude clothing and a raven-black hairdo. I would not have recognized her immediately had I not known.

Pressing on, I am going to give away the secret to the film, so if you do wish to sit through the whole feature, then turn your eyes away…Ready?

Well, it turns out that all the inhabitants of the city are clones from the original survivors of the plague. Goodchild discovered that the cure for the virus also cause sterility. Efforts were then made to keep mankind alive through cloning until a cure for the cure could be found. Aeon was actually Trevor Goodchild’s wife before she died from the plague. She could not bring herself to assassinate him because her residual memories would not let her kill her husband.

Trevor’s brother, who is the second in command of the government, is the one helping the rebels kill Trevor, so he can take power and keep mankind under his thumb. It turns out that women are getting pregnant all on their own. (Oh yeah, throw some ‘Jurassic Park’ into the mix.)

The Ice Harvest

2005-11-30T08:43:00.000-08:00

It is so nice when the holidays roll around and we get these seasonal films set in the brink of full winter. Harold Ramis (of Ghostbusters fame) directs this offering for us to ingest but, although he tries to stuff this turkey with some delectable dressing (John Cusack and Billy Bob Thornton), the bird itself just does not taste right. Even the addition of the seasoning (Connie Nelson and partial nudity) and some nuts (Randy Quaid and Oliver Platt) didn’t help.

Two guys (Cusack and Thornton) team up to rip off a Kansas mobster. They score over two million dollars in cash and spend the rest of the night killing time (and other things) until they leave town. One of the men (Cusack) is a lawyer/strip-club owner who is very well known and respected in this town of Wichita Falls, despite his apparent alcoholism and debauchery. The other guy is an enigma. One is the brains and the other is the muscle. You can figure out who is who.

Cusack is divorced and his ex is now married to his divorce lawyer (Platt). Cusack and Platt are still friendly and Cusack takes the intoxicated Platt from a bar to his house.

Now, I will say that I have been to Wichita and there is not much to do besides get drunk, so that part of the movie does make sense. However, I did not know that there were so many strip clubs and bordellos (with neon signs) in the vicinity, or I might have had a better time myself. Back to the movie.

Cusack is in love with a female strip club owner (Nielson) who is going to loose her club because of a new city law. Certainly, our boy John will come to her rescue with all his new money. All this occurs during a nasty ice storm that seems to come and go.

Yadda, yadda, yadda, and the mobster discovers the theft (already!). Blah, blah, blah, gunfire and blood at Billy Bob’s house. And so, and so, and so, the partnership starts to fall apart, someone dies and the money cannot be found. I’ll save the ending for later.

I give this reasonable effort only 2 ½ stars. If you are a die-hard Cusack fan then save this one for your nothing-else-to-watch DVD pile. I am assuming that this was supposed to be a dark comedy. However, it is not interesting enough to even be a mystery, nor funny enough to be a comedy, so it falls into that great abyss of mediocre films that are well written and fairly well produced, but lacking substance.

I think Mr. Ramis is still trying to re-define his genre. He is a good director, but his style is ambiguous. The timing is good, but the joke is not that funny. (Does that make sense?)

Are you ready for the ending now? If not, stop right here.

It turns out that Nielson, the female club owner, was also banging Thornton. It seems that she was the actual mastermind behind the original heist and she now has all the money that Thornton was holding. At the climax of the movie, everyone seems to get their just deserts except for one of the minor characters (the cop). In fact, of all the people that die in this film, he is the only one that I felt bad about.

The very final scene with Cusack and Platt does have some redeeming emotional value, but in all, I wish I would have spent less money to see this.

Walk the Line

2005-11-23T08:30:00.000-08:00

I have a memory that is still pretty vivid, and for my age that is saying something. I am at my aunt’s house and one of my cousins is doing a lip-sync to Johnny Cash singing “Walk the Line”. This was not the type of music I heard at my house. My older sister was into the more commercial crooners of the time, like Sinatra and Bennett. So this was fascinating and occasionally I did hear Cash on the radio.

If you asked me yesterday, “What about a movie with Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon?” I would have smiled and moved to the next question. Yet, here we are, dredging up old memories and seeing two stars take the stage that seemed unlikely. Gee, whoda thunk?

This is the bio of the late, great Johnny Cash. It takes us to a brief but defining moment of youth, and then on to adulthood and the beginning of his career. Then we go down the road to fame, fortune, women, and drugs. And watch as this train wreck gets back on track and chugs his way to glory. Sounds like fun, huh? It sounds like many other films of the same formula, doesn’t it?

OK, I am going to say right now that I liked this movie. I mean, I really liked this movie. We open with Cash’s live performance at Folsom Prison, and then take a major flash-back to his days growing up as a sharecropper’s son in Arkansas and watch as father struggles with the loss of Johnny’s older brother. We zoom ahead to when Johnny has joined the Air Force, during the Korean conflict, and see him in Germany, teaching himself how to play the guitar.

Jumping back to Nashville, John now has a wife and a baby and is struggling as a door-to-door salesman (remember this is before telemarketing and QVC). Two friends of his join him to make a front porch (garage) band. One day he happens to pass Sun Records (where many famous people got their first break). Eventually he gets an audition and the rest, as they say, is history.

Touring with the likes of Jerry-Lee Lewis, Buddy Holley, and even Elvis, Cash meets June Carter. He had been listening to June on the radio since he was a boy, and she was a little girl performing with her family. They meet, he is smitten, but they are both married. You can cut the tension with a knife. We finally catch up to the front of the movie and I will let you see the rest for yourself.

This is a fabulous movie. It is two and a half hours long, but is so well paced that it flew right by. Except for the nagging feeling from drinking two large sodas before the movie, I was totally pulled into the story.

Now, Joaquin is no Cash, but he did sing all the songs. Fortunately, Johnny Cash was no real vocalist either, so that went well. And Reese has enough of a vocal range to carry off June Carter’s part. So everything was as real as they could make it, and the visual similarities were close enough to be entirely believable. Yes, I was hooked, dragged in, filleted, and cooked.

This movie is about Cash, the man, not his angst over the music, or the pressure from is fans or manager, and it’s about Cash. That is where the focus is. This is not a story of musical works with life thrown in the middle of each song to tie them all together. This is a true bio. The songs take second billing.

I am giving this film (wait for it) 5 stars (out of 5). Holly smokes, Don, what did you say?!? You have never done that before!

Yup, five big ones. I cannot find anything wrong with this movie. Every lead performance was excellent. There were no over-the-top scenes, even when Cash is smashing his guitar and pulling out a sink. There is chemistry between Joaquin and Reese. I felt like I was watching John Cash the whole time. Some of the scenes were tear-jerkers, and except for the slightly over-stoic father (Robert Patrick), the supporting cast was also excellent.

Thinking about it just now, I don’t remember the heavy music in the film during the dramatic parts. Yes, there was a sound track, but it did not overwhelm or over-dramatize the story. It played a secondary role also. Kudos to director James Mangold.

So, if you don’t want to know the ending, stop reading now. I mean it; this is the place to turn your eyes away.

They are all dead! John, June, the band, have all passed, or so it ways in the closing scenes. Big surprise! No, actually the part I am keeping from you is the ‘climax’ of the movie where Johnny Cash proposes to June Carter on stage at one of their shows. She says yes, after turning him down many, many times, and they live on together, until their divorce (if I remember correctly).

Some of the best moments of the film are when Cash and Carter are on stage (I think they got married just so they would not have to change the monograms on their luggage). I think Joaquin Phoenix is an under-player. His past roles have shown he has a diminutive and quite way about him. Most of the time it does work well for him. Here he plays a performer who does like to show off on stage and Joaquin emulates that persona very well.

OK, there will be (is) Oscar buzz and here it is justified. If these two leads, the screenplay, the director, and the picture, are not nominated, I will be disappointed, but there are still a few movies out there to go see. If any one of them wins, I will be elated but surprised.

Go see this film. By the way, my cousin who did the lip-sync, was a girl. That is another reason why that memory stays with me, I was ten and she was eleven. Ahhh, sweet youth…

Last Weekend

2005-11-21T07:25:00.000-08:00

If you had not heard, Harry Potter grossed over $100 million last weekend. That puts it into one of the five largest grossing weekends ever. Behind Harry was Johnny (Cash). I will try to get out to see that in the next couple of days (before Thanksgiving) and so you can make plans for your holiday. I also got a second or third-hand request to go see the new 50cent (did I get that right?) movie. I will see when I can fit that in also.

More Cinema Fan info...

2005-11-20T12:28:00.000-08:00

Hello, my friends.

I have recieved some feedback (already) on my blog. So, I am going to offer the the following items as a way of improving the information flow.

1. It would help if you bookmark this site as a 'Favorite' in your explorer window. To do this, look up at the top of the window and you will see a menu of items: File, Edit, View, Favorites, Tools and Help. If you cannot find these words, then call over your eight-year-old child and have them point them out to you. Next, point and click on 'Favorites'. This will cause a sub-menu to appear. Move your mouse cursor until 'Add to Favorites...", the very first item, is highlighted. Just click the mouse, and presto, this blog will be added as "Cinema Fan - Movie Reviews".

2. At the bottom of each positng is a small picture of an envelope with the words, "0 comments" in front of it. If you wish to comment on the piece it wrote, or just wish to communicate, click on the envelope and another little window will open up. Follow the instructions and feel free to write something. Keep in mind that this is a family-friendly blog, and I will edit out any profanity or improper language as I see fit. My goal is to have that 0 turn into another number. It will increment as people make comments.

3. Eventually I will have an e-mail address set up for more direct communication. Then I will let you submit your e-mail address and I will notify you when there is a new review for you to read. Until then, I do expect you to visit my site on a regular basis! (Hey, I'm talkin' here!)

4. Finally, if you do have a movie to suggest, then feel free to use the comment (see #2 above) to make a suggestion. No promises, but I will certainly consider any input.

That's all for now. For most of you, I will say that it is a bright and warm (85) day here in San Diego, so eat your hearts out!

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

2005-11-18T08:53:00.000-08:00

Welcome to the fourth year at Hogwarts. Because we know the place so well by now, you would think that everything at the school would be running smoothly. If that were true, we would have very little to talk about. For those of you who do read the books, as I do, you may remember how your arms got really tired while reading this fourth installment of the series. The book is over 450 pounds, er pages, and J. K. Rowling again demonstrated her ability to convey a rich tapestry of magic, evil, and budding teenage romance.

The book has so many things going on, and Rowling adds such detail and depth to the situation, that anyone would have trouble distilling that down to a two-plus hour movie. If fact, Steve Kloves, the writer for all the Harry Potter films, originally wanted to make two films from this book. (Looking forward, I hate to think what he will want to do with book five.) I guess that idea didn’t go over so well, so Kloves took the same path as the Lord of the Rings, and gave us the real heart of the story.

Harry, Hermione, and Ron (Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint) all meet at Ron’s house where Mr. Weasley takes the children out on a little hike. Harry had just had a bad dream about “He who should not be named” with all the ear-markings of eminent danger. Undaunted, he trots along with everyone else and they end up on a hill with a boot lying there. Now, take note, because if you have not read the book, some of this stuff will slip by you and things may not make sense later.

The boot was a portal: a physical object that transports you another place. The small group ends up at a massive gathering in an open field with a tent city full of wizards. It is the World Cup of Quiddich. (Now if I need to explain what Quiddich is to you, I recommend that you go watch the first three films before you finish reading this, let alone go to see this movie. Where was I?) Suddenly there is screaming, and fire, and mayhem, and a group of Death Eaters (Voldemort’s toadies) walking through like magical terrorists. They turn the camp grounds into a scene from an African documentary. I guess that means Harry won’t be able to sneak his first beer at a sporting event this year.

Finally, we end up back in Hogwarts. We find that there will be a sporting event at the school also. The Tri-Wizard tournament involves three wizard schools, each with its own champion, competing in very dangerous events. Dumbledore warns all who put their name in for the drawing that this is a real and deadly competition.

We also meet Mad-Eye Moody, the new Dark Arts teacher. This guy is a trip! He has a fake eye that seems to have a mind of its own. It can even look backwards. Perfect for a teacher.

Pressing on, Harry gets picked to compete in the tournament, blah, blah, blah, Ron has a falling out, yada, yada, yada, Harry gets a crush on a girl, and we have a big party. This part is good. If you have ever been a fourteen year old boy or girl, you will find something very captivating about the formal ball we are invited to see.

So, Harry starts the competition, bests a dragon, overcomes mer-people, and enters the massive maze of doom in a dead tie with his schoolmate. Of course that is when the poop really hits the fan.

I will leave the rest for you to enjoy.

So, in the end we have action, romance (puppy love), magic, mystery, and pathos. Plus we get to see it all with an ensemble that has grown up before our eyes. As the books and characters have matured, so has the cast. They have become our famous cousins (or in my case nieces and nephews) who we get to see on holidays and share so much about their lives.

I am giving this film 4 ½ stars (out of five). Some of my faithful readers may ask, “Geeze Don, what’s it going to take! Will you ever give a movie five stars?” I say to them, “Keep reading and you will find out, someday.”

This film is two hours and thirty minutes. Now, I did go to the midnight showing last night, and I was pretty tired, but not sleepy, while standing in line with three thousand college-aged Potter devotees, some in costume. But, the last 10 minutes of the film seemed to loose pace. Of course there is death, and the threat of more death lingering, and at one point some heart-wrenching reflection. What I missed here was the feeling of hope, other than a “well, we lived through another year at Hogwarts” point of view. It was a touch too morose for me.

That takes me to my next point. This is a new director for the series. The movie has a more intimate feel to it: more close ups and tighter shots. We don’t see Hogwarts castle as a vast expanse as much as a bunch of nooks and crannies surrounding a great hall. I like it. It gives the film a more grown-up feeling that adds to the atmosphere.

It is rated PG-13 for some trivial scary parts, but nothing to worry about, especially if the children have seen the first three. But keep in mind things do get emotional late in the film, so questions may be asked or tears will flow at that time. Hey, if your son or daughter can sit through 2 ½ hours of film, then they deserve to go. (Yes, Donna I will take the boys if they can wait till next week.)

So, there you have it: my first critique on my new blog. Now if you will excuse me, I need to get another cup of coffee (yawn).

Welcome Friends

2005-11-17T09:30:00.000-08:00

I have started this blog in order to share my movie reviews with my friends, and anyone else who happens to run across this blog.

Why a blog? Two reasons: First, it will be easier, I hope, for everyone to get my reviews, rather than having me send out e-mails and hope that I did not forget anyone. Second, I will be able to read your responses and share your views with everyone else. Hey, I am only one opinion on the review of any film, and you are welcome to give your impressions. Also, if you have a particular film that you want me to comment on, here is the place for suggestions.

Keep in mind that I do not go see everything that is released. I do not do this for a living, and I only have so much time to go to the movies. I do try to pick what I think will be a popular and enjoyable film (at least for me). Beyond that, I am open to suggestions, especially if you have seen a movie and think I might enjoy it.

In the near future, as I learn how to use this blog site, I will start loading in past reviews so that those new to my views can get a sense of my style and interpretation.

Now, I will get prepared. I am planning on kicking off this effort my going to the midnight showing of Harry Potter, a series that I have enjoyed from the beginning.

So, kiddies, swallow some No-Doze and let's stay up late and get to it.

Thanks for reading...