Classics Corner: “High Noon”

7 06 2011

After the Coen Brothers made the Western cool again with their remake of “True Grit,” I decided it was about time I brushed up on some classics of the fabled American genre.  And, unsurprisingly, I was reminded of why so many of them bear the label classic – because they actually are timeless, with lessons and ideas that can apply to any generation of moviewatchers.  From what I saw, the best of the bunch has to be “High Noon,” a movie that in time could join my all-time favorites.

The premise is simple (and very unlike most movies the genre); the set-up, short and sweet.  Will Kane (Gary Cooper) is the retiring marshal of the town of Hadleyville, and at noon, three criminals will return to his town with the intent to kill him for putting them away.  The townspeople encourage him to hurry out in the hope that his departure will keep them out of harm’s way.  But Kane sees it as his problem to solve, and he stays put to face the imminent challenge.

Kane then goes through the town, looking for citizens willing to help him stop the criminals.  While everyone wants to keep their town safe and on principle want to give aid, ultimately no one will pick up their gun and defend their town.  As the high noon shadow falls over the town, it is Kane alone who must stand and fight for the lives of the people he no longer has to protect.

Just like “Modern Times,” the subject of last month’s Classics Corner column, “High Noon” is such an incredibly rewarding movie to watch because it captures a moment in time and then uses that moment to highlight some universally timeless truths about the human condition.  When analyzed against the backdrop of 1952, the year it was released, the allegory is very clear.  The people of Hadleyville are representative of another western community beginning with the letter H, Hollywood, who were afraid to stand up for themselves and their basic rights when Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee were sanctioning an era of blacklisting in the industry.

Looking back in hindsight, it’s easy to see that McCarthyism is a stain on our history and anyone in 2011 would stand up to such violations of civil rights.  But with McCarthy at the height of his power at the time of the movie’s release, it was certainly easier said than done.  Kane embodies the spirit of the times – a man who wants to protect the livelihood of his fellow townspeople but cannot get them to stop cowering in fear.  As the saying goes, freedom doesn’t come free, and Kane is the only one who seems to understand that.

But Kane is more than just the unspoken thoughts of screenwriters in 1952; however, in the moment, the heated political debates surrounding McCarthyism and blacklisting clouded people’s view of it.  Kane is not a sheriff embodying the liberal ideas of the time – and in case you are narrow-minded enough to be fooled, this was a favorite movie of Republican Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan.  He is a man driven by duty even when it isn’t necessary.  He is a protector of liberty even when he stands alone.  He puts his life on the line even when the people he protects have left him out to dry.

More than just a vision of 1952, Sheriff Will Kane is the paradigm of American citizenship and virtue, a champion of the blessings of democracy willing to make sacrifices to ensure its efficacy.  Such uprightness is what all of us should aspire to achieve, be we American or of any other nationality (the Polish democratic group Solidarity used Kane as a powerful image in the country’s first free elections).  And when the movie comes to a halt, I like to imagine that if Kane had a last line, he’d reiterate the words of the great Benjamin Franklin: “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Classics Corner, Movie Reviews

REVIEW: Midnight in Paris

6 06 2011

For devoted Woody Allen fans like myself, who will watch anything the insanely prolific writer/director puts his name on, watching him make virtually the same neurotic film over and over again is bearable.  For such fans, it’s a joy to watch Allen (or some other poor schmuck of a surrogate when he’s too old to play himself) bumble through life clinging on to his defeatist worldview.  For others, though, the filmmaker’s consistent nervous babbling has lost its charm and have thus tuned out Allen’s faithful annual output.

However, Allen has done something miraculous with his latest film, “Midnight in Paris.”  He has made a movie that satisfies both camps with wit, charm, and creativity.  It still has that burst of zany energy that the Allen faithful adore but tones down the nihilism so that the disenchanted or neophyte Allen fans can focus on the film’s ideas and not on their querulous complaints.  In other words, it’s a movie made to be seen outside the director’s normal niche audience but can still win that crowd over with its warmth and ingenuity.

Not to mention that many fans and foes alike have also been looking forward to Allen making a movie like “Midnight in Paris” for many years.  At 75, Allen is entering his sixth decade of filmmaking and has shown little indication of budging from the tenants of his philosophy, rarely subjecting them to challenges, criticism, or reproach.  But as he enters what are sure to be the twilight years of his film career, Allen hints in his latest film at a level of maturity we rarely see from the director.  He puts his views under a microscope in “Midnight in Paris” and analyzes their practicality in the modern world, ultimately producing some very interesting and unexpected conclusions.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 8 Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

REVIEW: Kung Fu Panda 2

5 06 2011

Is it so wrong that I love “Kung Fu Panda 2” in spite of all of its unoriginality and lack of creativity?  Is it so terrible that I’m totally won over by an overweight panda who can do kung fu as well as he can eat?  Is it so strange that a village of adorable pigs and bunnies makes me feel like I’m five years old again?

While the sequel is hardly as entertaining and funny as the original “Kung Fu Panda,” Po and the rest of the Furious Five are still a joy to watch.  The movie still possesses that charm that made me watch the first installment countless times on HBO while eating dinner, and it proves once again to be infectious as it melts down whatever barriers are hardening your heart.  It’s also a movie that’s easy on the eyes with appealing action and fun graphics, evincing the slow closing of the gap between Pixar and everyone else with a computer.

This “Kung Fu Panda” is all about daddy issues as the movie’s two storylines both deal with characters coming to grips with decisions made by their parents.  The evil peacock Shen (voiced by the always creepy Gary Oldman) orders a genocide of pandas to prevent the fulfilling of a prophecy that one would defeat him, thus leaving his parents with no choice but to exile him.  When Shen returns to power, the Dragon Warrior Po (Jack Black) starts to question where he really came from.  His goose father, Mr. Ping, has few answers, so Po is largely on his own.  However, his kung fu companions, known as the Furious Five (and featuring the voices of Angelina Jolie, Seth Rogen, Jackie Chan, Lucy Liu, and David Cross) have big issues that they have to deal with, namely Shen’s reappearance which threatens to dismantle the art of kung fu.  But as their journey progresses, Po finds that the questions about his parents may relate to Shen’s avarice and malice in shocking ways.

That summary probably makes the plot sound more glorious and intricate than it actually unfolds in the movie.  On the other hand, sometimes glory isn’t found in the story (despite the majority of my reviews saying just the opposite).  Sometimes it’s just the rush of joy that can be found in juvenility that makes something fun.  Sometimes we can have a perfectly gratifying experience just looking at a cute and cuddly panda cub playing in a bucket of radishes.  Sometimes it’s nice to be reminded of what it’s like to be a kid watching a movie again.  B+ / 


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

REVIEW: Biutiful

4 06 2011

Some people would call “Biutiful” a terribly depressing movie, but I don’t think that’s entirely accurate.  Sure, Javier Bardem’s Uxbal endures a great deal of pain and suffers immensely; however, in order for a movie to be depressing, it needs to make you feel depressed.  And as far as I’m concerned, it’s impossible to feel anything while watching “Biutiful”.

Alejando González Iñárritu’s film numbs more than just your butt with its two-and-a-half hour runtime (and manages to feel a lot longer); it numbs your soul with its bleakness and complete lack of sentimentality.  You’re much more likely to die of boredom while watching it than feel depressed.  I don’t have a problem with melancholy movies, but I want to be moved and filled with emotion.  By the time “Biutiful” was over, I found myself wondering if I had the ability to feel at all.

Iñárritu’s script is surely the kind that needs to make a massive appeal to pathos in order to make its grim plot watchable.  Uxbal is struck with terminal cancer, which is horrible even for people who are at peace with their life.  He isn’t.  Heavily involved in the Barcelona underworld with very unethical practices and struggling to be a father to his children and a husband to his bipolar wife, there’s a lot of unfinished business he has to attend to before he can buy the farm.

It’s a truly wrenching experience that only a sadist would undergo after reading this review; if you like dental surgery without novocaine, then this might be the best movie you’ll ever see!  It’s not even worth it to see another Oscar nominated performance by Javier Bardem – just go watch “No Country for Old Men” again.  An interminable movie about a man with a terminal illness makes for a brutal irony and an even more brutal watch.  D / 


Comments : 5 Comments »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

F.I.L.M. of the Week (June 3, 2011)

3 06 2011

If “X-Men: First Class” becomes as big of a hit as the critics think it should be (it currently stands at 87% on Rotten Tomatoes), then you will most definitely want to be familiar with the name Michael Fassbender.  As Magneto, he will get mainstream recognition.  However, if you really want to sound like a film connoisseur, drop this in a conversation: “Oh, he was fine in ‘X-Men,’ but I really liked his earlier work in independent film.”

I’ve already covered one of Fassbender’s independent efforts, “Hunger,” which is a grueling experience ultimately made worthwhile and watchable by his incredibly committed performance.  However, a much more stomachable way to get acquainted with his lesser-known films to watch my pick for the “F.I.L.M. of the Week,” Andrea Arnold’s “Fish Tank.”  It’s a rich, deep movie that is a real treat to dig into.

Newcomer Katie Jarvis stars as Mia, a troubled teen growing up in Britain’s public housing with her much younger sister Tyler and her alcoholic single mother who pays her virtually no attention.  She longs for independence, for attention, and ultimately for escape.  Mia finds the latter in hip-hop dancing, which she only does in isolation.

But things change some when her mother brings home Connor (Fassbender), a charming Irishman who actually shows interest in her.  He manages to get Mia to put aside her loathing of family outings to go the countryside and encourages her to pursue her passion in dancing.  Their relationship becomes the focal point of the film, and its ups and downs will forever change Mia and her outlook on life.

Powerful performances from Fassbender and Jarvis make “Fish Tank” more than just your average teen angst movie; they make it relevant, personal, and authentic.  The latter is especially true for Jarvis, who was cast in the movie with no professional experience after a casting director saw her arguing with a boyfriend in a train station.  But it’s Arnold who makes the movie artful and resonant through her combination of solid writing and directing.  The film is packed with symbols, motifs, and ideas that float around in your head for days and make “Fish Tank” a movie you won’t soon forget.

(By the way, if you are wondering where on earth you can find this independent gem, look no further than Netflix instant streaming.)


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : F.I.L.M. of the Week, Movie Reviews

REVIEW: Thor

2 06 2011

In 2002’s incredibly self-aware “Urinetown: The Musical,” the characters Officer Lockstock and Little Sally discuss things that can kill a show.  They first discuss titles, which can often sour first impressions of the show.  But the one thing that they can agree on is that nothing kills a show like too much exposition.  No one wants to be bogged down in details to set up the story; Americans are impatient, and they just want to get straight to the rising action.

The same goes for cinema.  Unless your name is Christopher Nolan and your movie is so intricate that it needs a manual, exposition is something that no moviegoer wants to sit through for extended periods of time.  It’s a necessary evil at times, but most filmmakers have gotten clever enough to knock it out in no time at all, some even by the time the opening credits are over.

“Thor,” however, is exposition taken to excess.  In fact, I’d even submit that the entire movie is just exposition for the upcoming Avengers movie.  The script adheres to none of the basic storytelling conventions, instead choosing to through information and explosions at us.  The former is to prepare us for the ultimate marketing event that will be “The Avengers;” the latter, to keep us mildly entertained so maybe we won’t realize their attempt to cash in on an extended exposition.

If you think I’m kidding, the plot can essentially be boiled down to this: Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is exiled from Asgard to Earth by his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) for being a little too violent, and as Odin ails, Thor’s evil brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) ascends to the throne and does evil and selfish things.  While on Earth, Thor finds Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), a scientist studying the cosmos, and eventually gets his trademark hammer about halfway through the movie.  Thor is soon visited by friends from Asgard who are disillusioned with Loki, and a small-scale battle ensues as Loki then tries to destroy Thor and eliminate his opposition.

There’s just nothing going on that’s special in “Thor.”  Nothing merits two hours of my time or $10 from my wallet.  It’s a stagnant, slow-moving superhero movie that doesn’t deserve to be called “super.”  Heck, not even some good quality Natalie Portman gazing made it worthwhile.  It’s just a dull starter to the summer that really makes you scared for the onslaught still left to come.

I’m sure that some people will think me hypocritical for berating the lack of storytelling formula in “Thor” while decrying other movies that follow their genre’s basic outline rigidly.  But it’s not that “Thor” lacks formula; rather, it’s that “Thor” lacks substance.  It’s like Kenneth Branagh decided to adapt the film not from the comics, but from the character’s Wikipedia page.  While information may be power, it certainly isn’t entertainment.  C / 


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

REVIEW: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2010)

1 06 2011

After seeing the awesome new trailer for David Fincher’s English-language adaptation of Steig Larsson’s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” (which simply has to be watched – because what else do you have to do between now and Christmas?), I decided it was finally time for me to bite the bullet and watch the Swedish version that had been sitting atop my Netflix queue for nearly a year.  The length (146 minutes) and language daunted me, especially as my main block of free time came at the time of day when I would be least capable of reading subtitles: right as I would be about to fall asleep.

But, as David Fincher’s teaser trailers always seem to do exceedingly well, I felt completely drawn into the world on the screen, and I suddenly felt an irrepressible urge to immerse myself into Larsson’s Millenium trilogy.  It was certainly nice to get a visualization of the story, yet just like countless adaptations before it, it doesn’t hold a candle to Larsson’s novel.  Watching anything related to the book is a great pleasure; however, the film doesn’t adequately capture all the nuances and the subtleties that separate “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” from your average cerebral thriller.

The stories of journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist) investigating the 40-year-old unsolved case of the disappearance of Harriet Vanger and the various activities of cryptically mysterious hacker Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace) are presented in a very boiled-down manner that stays largely true to Larsson’s plotline.  Only a few minor details are altered, which will nag only the devoted and detailed readers (like myself).

Yet other than the two main characters, few other figures from Larsson’s novel get a decent screen treatment.  The Vanger family, such an interesting mix full of wild cards, is largely excised from the film, shorting those who didn’t read the book first.  Obviously, the large volume had to be cut, but the filmmakers made a big mistake taking the Vangers out.  While they may complicate matters, their presence makes us feel like Mikael – confounded and unsure of everyone’s true nature.

The movie does have one saving grace, and her name is Noomi Rapace.  She ventures to the dark side and really inhabits Salander, a multi-dimensional character that puzzles everyone if played right.  Flirting the border between mentally ill and justifiably angry with a world that has pushed her into a dark corner, Rapace’s Salander is a true marvel.  Even though we are never entirely sure of Salander’s intentions, we can see that Rapace is sure through just glancing into her eyes and seeing a clutter of emotions competing for prevalence.  Other than Rapace, the cast is dull and unexciting, especially Nyqvist.  Had someone put a cardboard standout in place of Nyqvist and had the caterer read his lines off-camera, we would have seen a performance of the same emotional caliber.

So while this “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” is a satisfying adaptation for now, I’m counting down the days until I can see what happens when a true artistic visionary like David Fincher gets his hands on the story.  If the trailer is indicative of the entire movie, I think we will be seeing Fincher having more fun than ever … and that’s reason to get excited for the feel-bad movie of Christmas.  B / 


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

REVIEW: The Hangover Part II

31 05 2011

I’ve harped on Hollywood relentlessly for relying so heavily on formula to churn out movies, and this summer looks to be a barrage of cliches and banalities.  If, according to these criteria, any other movie this summer is worse than “The Hangover Part II,” I will be shocked.  From the opening scene, virtually identical to the first film’s, it’s clear that the sequel will cling to the exact same structure that made its predecessor a $277 million surprise smash.

From this point, there are two ways to react to the movie.  You can be disgusted by the writers’ lack of originality, scoffing at how it settles for being just a cheap imitation of the original.  You can sit there and wait for it to make even the slightest of departures from the formula – a wait that would be in vain.  It’s a carbon copy, an identical twin, you name it.

Or, as I would recommend, you can put aside this nagging concern, accept up front that you are going to be watching the same outline of a movie with slightly different jokes and situations, and just enjoy that you have another 100 minutes to spend with the Wolfpack.  I would have been content finding one-liners that I missed the first ten times in the original on HBO, but it’s kind of nice to get a scene change and a few new jokes.  It’s a sort of Faustian bargain for the viewer, but one ultimately worth making since putting Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and Zach Galifianakis together in a room with a camera is guaranteed to generate some hard-core laughter.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

Classics Corner: “Modern Times”

29 05 2011

I don’t know why I still manage to get so awestruck when an old movie manages to feel as relevant as this morning’s edition of The New York Times, but Charlie Chaplin’s 75-year-old “Modern Times” applies just as much to 1936’s factory work as it does to 2011’s technological work.  It will forever be a prophetically prescient social commentary on progress and modernity as long as it continues to dehumanize us.  (Not to mention it’s also a fantastic movie with a thoroughly captivating story to tell!)

In the film, Chaplin’s iconic Little Tramp character hits the assembly line and encounters the problem many of us face today: with technology making us move so quickly, the way that we live in the real world inevitably takes the form of our dealings with technology.  Chaplin communicates this idea in a very literal way that is at once hilarious and haunting – his arms can’t stop screwing nuts, acting as if there were an assembly line in front of them at all times.  Modernism has invaded his subconscious behaviors, and work is no longer something confined to the workplace.  Sounds scary, right?

But thanks to Chaplin’s charm, the movie is hardly a rant about how factory work kills the soul (something that would have been all too easy to do in 1936 when America was still in the midst of the Great Depression).  Despite all the troubles that the Little Tramp endures from the challenges of living in a modern world, his misfortunes lead him to the gamine (played by Chaplin’s future wife, Paulette Goddard), who turns out to be the love of his life.  Together, they endure whatever the world might throw at them.  Things will never be perfect, but they are hopeful because they know that they will always have each other’s love.

And it is precisely this aspect that makes “Modern Times” such a rewarding movie to watch in the present.  In an era where social commentary in art and film are almost inevitably wrapped in a thick coat of cynicism, Chaplin reminds us of the power of a human connection and how it can provide comfort in times when industrial advancement threatens to make humans virtually obsolete.  This (almost-)silent film had volumes more to say about culture and humanity than most movies with words say nowadays.  I’m certainly glad that I put aside my hesitancy to watch silent movies because Chaplin’s vision truly is timeless and transcends the barriers that cinematic progress inevitably erects.


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Classics Corner, Movie Reviews

Random Factoid #567

27 05 2011

Back in Random Factoid #332, I wrote for the first time about using Netflix.  It’s funny to read in retrospect because over the last year, it has become such an integral part of my moviewatching habits.  Check this out:

“My dad recently got an iPad for his birthday, and he managed to get a free trial of Netflix through the iPad app.  He told me about the offer, so I started fidgeting around and discovered a whole heaping lot of movies available to stream straight to the iPad.  So I watched ‘Memento’ for the first time, and I loved it.  Not just the movie, but the fact that I was streaming it!

Then I started scrolling through the other movies available to stream – and it had me at ‘The Pianist.’  I haven’t had time to watch it, but I certainly hope the free trial doesn’t expire any time soon!  I’m dying to watch that and “Letters from Iwo Jima,” one of the two Best Picture nominees from the last decade I still haven’t seen.

And then, while still experimenting with the technology, I wound up ordering the discs of ‘Road to Perdition’ and ‘Hustle and Flow.’  Now, they are sitting on my desk.  What my dad wants to do with them is up to him – the trial expires in a few days.  Soon enough, they’ll start charging.”

Oh, the days when streaming was new and novel!  It’s still exciting now, and I still have over 60 movies on my queue – most of which I intend to watch … eventually.  Meanwhile, that other services Netflix offers, DVDs by mail … um, yeah.  I’ve used it some.

Ok, that’s a lie.  Today I finally made myself return “Traffic” and “Mulholland Dr.” because I didn’t have the motivation to watch them because they didn’t have to be returned to the library in 14 days or watched in the next 30 days on iTunes.  So guess how long those two movies sat on my desk in their crinkled paper sleeves?

Six months.  For a half a year, those two movies sat there unwatched.  So clearly, I should stop using the DVD by mail portion of the family’s Netflix subscription unless I really want to see what I’m getting.  We also made the decision to cut down on our monthly bill by moving from two to one DVDs out at a time.


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

F.I.L.M. of the Week (May 27, 2011)

27 05 2011

With Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” earning its place in the box office record books (but still nowhere to be found in Houston theaters), I figured the right way to kick off the return of the “F.I.L.M.” (First-Class, Independent Little-Known Movie) of the Week was to shine a light on one of star Rachel McAdam’s finest flicks, “Red Eye.”  The phrase “killer thriller” gets thrown around a lot in regards to chilling cinema due to alliteration, yet few actually merit the descriptor.  This one does.

Say what you will about “Scream 4” being a critical flop and a box office disaster, but you can’t deny that director Wes Craven can send chills up your spine.  “Red Eye” is more in the vein of “A Nightmare on Elm Street” than it is in horror-comedy of “Scream,” and even on DVD and the second watch, it’s still as frightening as ever.  Running at only 85 minutes, the compact volume of terror keeps the tension so taut it could be cut with a knife at any moment.

McAdams stars as Lisa Reisert, a hotel manager taking the red eye home to Miami from her grandmother’s funeral.  Little does she know, however, that she is in the thick of a terrorist plot spearheaded by the devilishly charming man in the seat next to her, Jackson Rippner (Cillian Murphy).  His plan of terror is not to hijack the plane but rather hijack Lisa’s sanity, exploiting her position, threatening her, and playing intense psychological games with her.

Murphy, channeling his eerie performance from “Batman Begins,” is an absolutely terrifying villain.  He keeps most of Jack’s ferocity bubbling under the surface, just waiting to explode, and it keeps the viewer on the edge of their seat awaiting the moment when he finally snaps.  Thanks to Murphy, “Red Eye” keeps the blood pumping and the heart pounding all the way to the movie’s climactic moments.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : F.I.L.M. of the Week, Movie Reviews

Random Factoid #566

26 05 2011

With “The Hangover Part II” now in theaters, I thought it would be as good a time as ever to revisit some slightly old news from the series’ director, Todd Phillips.  In an interview with Elvis Mitchell of Movieline, he had this to say about the unrated edition of the original film:

“Warner Bros., they’ll make your movie; your movie does well, and they want to create an unrated version, which is entirely against DGA rules because it’s not your cut. And they can’t call it the ‘Director’s Cut’ — they’ll call it ‘Unrated’ or some ridiculous term. Really all it is, is about seven minutes of footage that you cut out of the movie for a reason.”

I certainly loved hearing someone in the biz back up my opinions as stated in Random Factoid #11:

“I hate watching unrated cuts of movies.  I always want to see the theatrical cut because after seeing ‘Bruno,’ I found out that anything can get an R-rating.  The director could include practically whatever he wanted, but there is a reason that he did not include it in the version that the masses go see.  So I figure that the rated version, while tamer, is probably what the director wanted you to see.”

And when I watched the unrated cut of “Date Night” last August, as reported in Random Factoid #386, I felt much of what Phillips described:

“I have a feeling that the word ‘3D’ is headed the way of the word ‘unrated.’  About a decade ago, ‘unrated’ was something fairly unique.  Now it has become a marketing gimmick to make a little extra profit off some unsuspecting consumers.  See the correlation?

Why did I decided to give this extended edition, basically a tamer way of saying unrated, a whirl?  The theatrical cut of ‘Date Night’ was so short that I wanted to see more.  And more I got.  Not sure if it was worth the 13 minutes of my sleep, but I still enjoyed some of the extra bits.”

His cameo in "The Hangover."

There’s a rhyme and reason for what directors do.  Pacing and timing is incredibly important, lessons I’ve learned from acting on stage, watching the play I wrote get directed, and from seeing plenty of movies where the two concepts are handled terribly wrong.  Especially in comedy, where timing is everything, the director has to establish the rhythm of the movie.

The material for unrated cuts belong in deleted scenes; if this were so, the viewer could still appreciate the humor without disrupting the structure of the film itself.  As much as a director may like something, it sometimes doesn’t work in the grand scheme of things.  I had to learn this lesson in the production of my play as several of my favorite dialogue snippets got axed.  But you do it because you care about how the work functions as a whole, not in one special moment, and Phillips seems to care about preserving the integrity of the whole.  Warner Bros. should respect the wishes of someone in the business who actually has such interests in mind.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

REVIEW: I Am Number Four

25 05 2011

If you are willing to get over the initial corniness of the plot of “I Am Number Four,” you might find that it’s not so bad.  In fact, it’s actually quite enjoyable.  The movie is high-octane action with plenty of noise, but there’s something there that I can’t quite enumerate or describe.  It’s a movie I kept telling myself I shouldn’t like (I mean, it IS a Michael Bay-produced venture) – yet I wound up having some of the most fun I’ve had at a sci-fi movie in a long time.

The story isn’t anything spectacular: Number Four (Alex Pettyfer) is an alien on earth hiding from the Mogadorians, a hostile tribe that invaded their home planet and intends to kill the nine toddlers who escaped.  But here’s the catch – they can only be killed in sequence, and three are dead.  Masquerading as John Smith in Paradise, Ohio, Number Four tries to blend in to the high school crowd to lay low, befriending the conspiracy theorist Sam (Callan MacAuliffe) and wooing the big jock’s girl, Sarah (Dianna Agron from TV’s Glee).

On paper, it actually sounds kind of stupid.  The acting isn’t exactly spectacular, nor does it provide any profound insights into alienation or bullying in modern high schools.  (Trust me, I just finished four years of high school.)  But even though on paper, “I Am Number Four” doesn’t seem to work, on screen it actually does.  Why is that?

I think it has to be because of the energy that D.J. Caruso endows the movie.  Just like his previous helming efforts, “Disturbia” and “Eagle Eye,” there’s an electricity and excitement that bursts through the screen and infects the viewer.  He keeps the movie running at a perfectly paced clip, adeptly balancing human elements and big bangs.  Caruso takes the audience on a roller-coaster ride, that although familiar, still provides a walloping dose of fun. B+ / 


Comments : 5 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

Random Factoid #565

25 05 2011

I’m going to laugh when I click the “Random Factoids” category in my sidebar and see a 3 1/2 month gap between Random Factoid #564 and #565.  In that last factoid, “Justin Bieber: Never Say Never” had just come out in theaters.  Today, that movie has been on video for 2 weeks.  So that should give you an idea of just how long I’ve been away from factoiding.  (This time around, I’m going to try to find the joy in them rather than looking at them as a daily task that I often do willfully.)

So where to begin?  How about with the latest attraction at my “home” movie theater, RPX.  That, of course, stands for the Regal Premium EXperience.  For $4.50 more, you can get “crystal-clear ALL DIGITAL projection, high-impact GIANT SCREEN, powerful uncompressed SURROUND SOUND.”  (And if it applies, a “breathtaking IMMERSIVE 3D experience,” but it didn’t in my case.)  It was advertised as “the best picture you’ve ever heard,” so naturally I had to go see what all the fuss was about.

The RPX screen opened April 1 with “Source Code,” a movie I happened to be dying to see, so I went to check it out as soon as I got a chance.  What I once knew as “theater 11” had been totally revamped with a cavalcade of blue lights inside and outside the theater, and the seats had been replaced with smooth leather ones.  Off to a good start, but then the movie started.

“Source Code” was fantastic, yet I wasn’t blown away by the presentation.  I certainly didn’t understand why I needed to pay $4.50 more to see the movie on a slightly larger screen with marginally better sound.  It felt no different than seeing a movie digitally projected in a normal theater, which comes with no premium.

So, until further notice, my advice is to save your money and avoid the RPX until it actually provides a premium experience.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

REVIEW: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

24 05 2011

Perhaps a more accurate surname for the latest installment of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” would have been In Familiar Waters.  Despite numerous changes to signal a distinctly different volume in the saga than the original trilogy, “On Stranger Tides” feels just like more of what we’ve seen the series do – and then overdo.  In fact, I found myself wondering if I’ve seen the movie before, and deja vu in a movie theater is never good.

Suggested by the novel “On Stranger Tides” (a phrase taken straight from the credits, which is something I’ve never seen before), the plot unfolds just as the previous three did.  A mystical and mythical booty awaits, this time the Fountain of Youth, coveted by the British, the Spanish, and – you guessed it – Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp reprising his iconic role).  Their journeys are fraught with just enough peril and tumult to endure two and a half hours on the screen.

Most of the movie just feels like a $250 million (yes, that was the actual pricetag) straight-to-DVD sequel for the series that managed to net its big star for a hefty paycheck.  Slight scene changes give the movie a new look but not a new feel.  Director Rob Marshall, who directed the film adaptation of “Chicago” with an almost prophetic foresight, settles for his best imitation of Gore Verbinski and doesn’t put his own mark on the movie.

No Keira Knightley?  No problem, just replace the British beauty with the sassy Spanish starlet Penelope Cruz and get essentially the same romantic foil for Captain Jack.  No Orlando Bloom?  Just add in Sam Claffin, a British missionary that will make girls swoon – oh, and don’t forget that gratuitous shirtless scene!  Geoffrey Rush’s storyline has gotten kind of boring?  Refashion him as a sell-out to the crown and give him a peg leg!

Thankfully, the saving grace of the movie is Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow, the reason that the series became such a hit in the first place.  The movie gives him a lot more humor to chew on, and Depp definitely seems a lot more into his character this go-round.  He doesn’t recede into a bad imitation of himself but rather animates Jack with spunk and teeth.  However, as much fun as he is to watch, neither Depp nor the movie earn their bloated running time, which makes 150 minutes often seem interminable.

So by all means, if you like the “Pirates of the Caribbean” series enough to watch Disney churn out a third sequel purely for commerce, then this will be fun summer entertainment.  But if you crave something unique, or dare I say, original to justify expending your time and paying for ridiculously puffed-up ticket prices, perhaps you should stay at home and wait until some critic calls a movie “as original as Inception.”  C+ / 


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

« Previous Entries Next Entries »